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.
OCTOBERS. 1927
CHAPEL HILL, N. C.
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS
VOL. xm, No. 47
al Boardi E. C. Branson. S. H. Hobbo. Jr.. P. W. Wager. L. R. Wilson. E. W. Knight. D. D. Carroll, H. W. Odum.
Entered as second-class matter November 14. 1914. at the PostofRce at Chapel Hill. N. C.. under the act of August 24. 1918
SCHOOL EFFICIENCY
SCHOOL EFFICIENCY
Elsewhere in this issue we are re
laying to our readers a portion of a
table which was prepared by the State
Department of Public Instruction and
published in a recent issue of State
School Facts. The table ranks the
counties and principal cities of the
state in school efficiency. In addition
to the score attained by each county
in the school year 19k5-26, the table
presents the 1923-24 scores. Thus the
progress in each county or city
is reflected.
Ten factors generally recognized as
essentials of any' school system are
used as a basis of comparison. Five of
the factors measure academic condi
tions and the other five pertain to
expenditures and values and hence may
be designated “financial factors. ” Each j Rutherford made the
of these factors is translated into an ; raising its score from
penses per year. This is $200 per
month per teacher and admittedly a
high standard. However, for com
parative purposes it has been retained
as it originally was set up. Dividing
the $2,400 by 24 gives the basic 100.
10. Valuation of school property per
child enrolled divided by two. A val
uation of $200 per child enrolled is as
sumed to be a fair standard, which
divided by 2 gives the quotient 100 as
the basic score.
Progress Made
The state as a whole made progress
in every particular in the two-year pe
riod, the general average score rising
from 56.9 to 62.4. All the counties
except Alexander, Alleghany, Duplin,
and Hyde made gains, and in these few
instances the changes were slight.
greatest gain,
42.6 to 66.7.
index that would be perfect at 100. i New Hanover has retained first place
Thus by adding the ten factors and
dividing the sura obtained by ten the
composite score is obtained. This is
the “general efficiency index.’'
According to State School Facts the
for the entire period. Currituck and
Pamlico have been rivals for second
place.
In the larger table the counties are
ranked on the basis of rural white
terns is given in the smaller table,
which appears in the lower right-hand
corner of this sheet. It will be noted
that they score considerably higher
than the rural schools.— Paul W. Wa
ger.
factors used and the standard in each ^ schools. The ranking of the city sys-
factor are as follows:
Academic Factors
1. Percentage of enrollment in aver
age daily attendance. 100 percent at
tendance is the perfect score of this
factor.
2. Average length of term in days
divided by two. A term of 200 days
is taken as the standard, which di
vided by two gives the basic 100.
3. Scholarship or teachers’ index
divided by eight. The index is ob
tained by translating the academic
COUNTY STUDIES
During the last three years, field
studies of county government and county
affairs have been made in forty-three
counties of North Carolina and two coun
ties in Alabama, by Research Assistants
and professional training of the teach- j of the University of North Carolina In-
ers as evidenced by the certificates | stitute for Research in Social Science,
they hold into 100 points for each
year’s training above elementary
school graduation; e. g., a teacher with
the equivalent of two years high
school is given a score of 200, one
with three years high school 300, one
with four years 400, one year college
SOO, and so on to college graduation
at800. Taking this highest, score as
standard and dividing by eight the
basic 100 is obtained.
4. Percentage of total enrollment in
high school multiplied by four. In
this factor 26 percent of the total en
rollment is assumed to be a fair per
centage to expect in high school. This
percentage taken as the .standard and
multiplied by four gives the basic 100.
5. Percentage of enrollment normal
and under age for grade multiplied
by 1.25. The normal distribution is
taken as the standard in this factor.
In this distribution of children by ages
and grades 60 percent is expected to be
normal age for grade, 20 percent under
age for grade and 20 percent over age
for grade. The normal age for each
grade is 6 and 7 years old for first grade,
7 and 8 years old for second grade, 8
and 9 years old for third grade, and so
on to 16 and 17 years old for eleventh
grade. ♦ A pupil having an age below
.Ijhe normal age for the grade in which
be is located is said to be under age,
and if his age is above this normal
he is over age. Therefore, in a nor
mal distribution 80 percent should be
under age and normal age together.
Multiplying this percentage by 1.26
gives the basic 100.
Financial Factors
6. Average annual salary of teach
ers divided by twelve. An annual
salary of $1,200 is assumed to be a
fair salary and is taken as the stand
ard. Dividing this standard by 12
gives the basic 100.
7. Per capita cost of instruction
based upon enrollment multiplied by
two. It is assumed that $60 per pupil
per year is a satisfactory cost of in
struction. This standard multiplied
by two gives the basic 100.
8. Total per capita cost of current
expense based upon enrollment multi
plied by 1.33. It is assumed that $26
per pupil added to the standard cost
of instruction would be a satisfactory
standard per capita cost of current
expense. This sum, $76, multiplied by
1.331-3 gives the basic 100.
9. Total current expense per teacher
and principal divided by 24. $2,400
is assumed to be a fair amount to
spend per teacher for current ex-
as follows:
Alamance, Alleghany, Ashe, Beau
fort, Brunswick, Burke, Cabarrus,
Caldwell, Camden, Carteret, Cherokee,
Chowan, Clay, Craven, Cumberland,
Edgecombe, Gates, Haywood, Hyde,
Jackson, Johnston, Le3, Macon, Madi
son, McDowell, Montgomery, Moore,
New Hanover, Pamlice, Perquimans,
Person, Pitt, Polk, Randolph, Robeson,
Rutherford, Surry, Stanly, Union,
Washington, Watauga, Wilson, and
Yadkin, in North Carolina, and Coffee
and Elmore counties, Alabama.
The surveys have been made by for
mal invitations of the county commis
sioners, without any expense whatso
ever to the county authorities. They
have'been made in the interest of im
proved county government and not in
the interest of any party or any per
son or any faction. They have been
made for guidance alone and never for
EDUCATION AT HOME
Our schools and colleges are
blamed for most everything unlove
ly that we see in the youth of our
time. There is little or no warrant
for this. Education begins at home.
If we’re early taught to be respect
ful, patient and industrious, there
won’t be much trouble when we get
into school. If we’re allowed to
lord it over the whole family, we shall
prove a constant problem to the
schoolmarm and recreant to all
school authority.
It co.sts $60 a year to carry pupils
thropgh the first eight grades. In
the high school this figure rises to
$83 annually. Thus we have a cost
of about $800 for each pupil when
he arrives at graduation. This
takes no account of investment in
buildings or the sacrifice made by
parents to keep the boy or girl in
school.
Education is much more than a
knowledge of mathematics, history,
biology, physics and the languag7S.
A youth may have acquired all these
and yet be useless to himself and
to society. If a boy passes through
the grades and the high school with
no thought of what makes/them
possible, we should consider the $800
above mentioned a bad investment.
If he is thoughtless as to his
parents and ungrateful to the public,
he is not worth the cost and sacri-
ficeu He would be a bad trade at any
figure. Education is no birthright,
it is the gift of the state. A boy
should realize that he cannot fully
repay his father and mother or the
community. To do less than his
best, marks him as ungrateful, a
thoroughly selfish cad.
We are at the beginning of the
school year, an appropriate time
for youth to appreciate -its oppor
tunity and be suitably grateful to
parents and the community there
for.—Roland T. Patten.
tioBS each year reflects some interest-1 greater degree changing conditions of
ing contrasts. Obviously savings from! prosperity, but they increased from
, ... . . .. $54,000,000 in 1913 to $495,000,000 in
year to year vary with changing condi-'
tions in prosperity. But bank savings | ineontrast, current withdrawals of
vary more widely than either those in ; jjank savings exceeded current addi-
building and loan associations or life i tions from 1913 to 1916, but deposits rose
insurance companies. This is accounted i over $1,000,000,000 in 191., slumped
for by the fact that savings of the last
two forms involve a definite obligation
of regularity of , payments while the
current withdrawls in banka may in
some years exceed current additions.
The annual savings in life insurance
companies, as reflected by the total
premiums paid each year, have climbed
steadily upward from $673,000,000 in
1913 to $2,383,000,000 in 1926. The
variation in annual savings in building
and loan associations has reflected to a
: off in 1918 to $250,000,000, skyrocketed
to over $1,760,000,000 in 1920, dropped
to $600,000,000 by 1922, rose again to
over $1,600,000,000 in 1923, and in 1924
and 1926 ranged from $750,000”, 000 to
nearly $1,260,000,000. In 1926 they
stood at $752,000,000.
As we have previously pointed out,
these figures undoubtedly reflect,
among other things, savings due to
prohibition.—Information Service, Fed
eral Council of Churches of Christ in
America.
SCHOOL EFFICIENCY
Ranh of the Counties and Cities
The following table is an adaptation of a more comprehensive one which
appeared in State School Facts, Volume III, Number 24.
In the first table the county school systems are ranked according to their
general efficiency index. This index number is determined by scoring the school
systems according to each of ten educational factors and then taking the
average. A perfect score would be 100. The scores are given for the school
years 1923-24 and 1926-26, the ranking being according to the more recent date.
During this period the rural white schools of the state rose in their ef
ficiency rating from 60.1 to 66.9, the city white schools from 81.1 to 83.8, and
all the white schools from 66.9 to 62.4. New Hanover, with a score 85.4, leads
the counties, and Greensboro, with a score of 94.6, leads the cities.
' Paul W. Wager
Department of Rural Social-Economics, University of North Carolina
School School
efficiency efficiency
TO BEAT THE SHARKS
The Russell Sage Foundation has
pledged its resources to end the activi
ties of loan sharks and salary buyers sc
that innocent victims of bankruptcj
proceedings may receive more protec
tion. Sound banking does not permii
loans to be made without good coliatera
security or upon endorsements repre
senting sound property worth. Ther«
are many though who feel compelled a
times to secure loans, and there an
places where they can get them. Thest
places charge such high rates of interes
in the guise of fees, discounts, rents o:
what else they might call them tha
the borrower is unable to pay the orig
in such manner that the borrower is
not able to see the snare. The
luooy - ffial loan. These schemes are
publicity. These survey Mbb. were in.
' in snrh m
the bands of the State Commission on
County Government when our five new
county government laws were bemg ,
formulated. ‘ : prived of the regular '
No Publicity
The survey MSS. are housed in the
Seminar Library of Rural Social Eco
nomics, University of North Carolina,
and are open to students of county gov
ernment on the campus and in the
state, but always for guidance and nev-
er for publicity.
These facts are so well known to the
county officials of the state that they
have not hesitated to lay all their cards
on the table and to help our field sur
veyors in every possible way. Or so it
has been with only an exception or two
during the last three years.
During the three years just begin
ning. our field surveyors will be busy
making direct studies of county gov-
•ernmdnt in the remaining forty-seven
rural counties of the state; but these
surveys cannot be made in any county
without the formal invitatien of the
county commissioners. The surveys
of the present year begin in January
and the counties will be served in the
order of the invitations received.
The county boards wishing county
government surveys made ought to
formulate invitations at the next meet
ing of the board, and hurry these in
vitations to E, C. Branson, University
of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N. C.
The surveys of the ten big-city coun-
ties are under the direction of E.
J. Woodhouse, Bureau of Municipal
Research,
lina.
the merchant and others who
the borrower for an honest profit be
come losers. If the Russell Sage
dation can find a way out for the
borrower who cannot furnish the
security it will confer an ec(
upon many
patch.
others.—Lexington Dis-
University of North Oaro-
SAVINGS IN THE U. S.
is reflected to a large degree by accu
mulated savings and by the trem
annual savings. The National In
trial Conference Board has publi
figures along both of these lines.
The accumulated savings in buil
and loan associations increased l
$1,360,000,000 in 1914 to $6,280,001
in 1926. These savings represent
total assets of such organizations,
life insurance companies the incr
was from $4,640,000,000 in 1914 to $12,'
860,000,000 in 1926. These savirt
represent the assets of the con
and are equivalent to the policy h
equity. The savings accounts
classes of banks increased from $8,710,-
000.000 in 1914 to $24,700,000,000
1926.
The rate of savings along the ab
Rank County
rating
rating
1923-24
1926-26
1
New Hanover
. 75.7 ....
86.4
2
Currituck
69.4
81.9
3
Pamlico
, 70;1
76.8
4
Durham
. 68.3
74.2
6
Vance
. 69.6
74.1
6
Granville
. 60.1
71.0
7
Craven
. 69.7
70.9
8
Northampton.
. 66.2
70.3
9
Warren
. 63.2
69.6
10
Cumberland ...
. 61.6
69.3
10
Wilson
. 66.2.. ..
. 69.3
12
Edgecombe....
. 63.6
. 69.1
13
Mecklenburg .
. 67.6
. 66.9
14
Buncombe
. 56.5....
. 66.1
16
Scotland
. 6o:o....
. 66.3
■ 16
Washington ...
. 61.8....
. 66.1
17
Hertford
. 69.9....
. 64.9
18
Guilford
.. 61.6....
. 64.3
19
Hyde
. 64.4....
. 64.1
20
Transylvania .
. 62.6....
. 63.9
21
Bertie
.. 57.6....
. 63.4
21
Halifax
. 60.6....
. 63.4
23
Montgomery..
.. 67.6....
. 62.6
24
Pender
, 49.9....
. 62 2
26
elites f..--
. 63.9....
. 61.8
26
Pasquotank....
. 69.2....
. 61.8
27
Robeson
.. 66.3....
. 61.6
28
Gaston
. 68.0....
. 61.2
28
Hoke
. 64.6....
. 61.2
30
Camden
.. 69.4....
. 61.0
31
Jones
. 66.3....
. 60.7
32
Nash
. 60.2
. 60.6
33
Pitt
.. 66.2 ...
. 59.8
34
Anson
47.0....
. 69.2
Richmond
.. 63.4....
. 69.2
1 36
Bladen
. 53.8....
. 69.0
' 36
Catawba
. 51.0....
. 69.0
1 38
Chowan
.. 54.7....
. 68.8
! 39
Rockingham..
.. 56.6....
. 68.7
40
Perquimans...
.. 44.6....
. 68.3
41
Wayne
.. 61.0....
58.1
42
Alamance
.. 57.1...
. 67.9.
42
Wake
.. 64.2....
. 67.9
44
Martin '
.. 60.2....
67.7
45
Lenoir
. 67.6
46
Orange
.. 62.6....
. 67.2
47
Polk
.. 49.4....
. 67.1
48
Forsyth
.. 49.2....
. 66.9
49
Dare
.. 49.9....
. 66.7
49
Rutherford ...
.. 42.6....
. 66.7
1! ■■
City group
I
1 Greensboro
... 91.9..
... 94.6
2 Durham
.... 91.4,.
... 90.4
? 2 Wilmington
... 86.9..
... 90.4
^ 4 Winston-Salem
... 88.7..
... 90.2
^ 6 Charlotte
... 76.0..
... 89.6
® 6 Raleigh
.... 86.4..
... 86.4
^ 7 Asheville
.... 84.0..
... 86.9
® 8
High Point
.... 77.0..
... 78.6
0
City Group II
s 1 Salisbury
... 82.9..
...:91.7
2 Kinston
.... 78.6..
... 84.3
1 3
New Bern
.... 83.9..
... 83.8
' 4
Wilson
.... 81.1..
... 83.6
n 5
Elizabeth City
.... 82.2 .
... 83.2
5 Goldsboro
.... 80.6.
... 83.2
e 7 Rocky Mount.
.... 76.9.
.... 81.2
8 Gastonia
.... 75.0..
.... 80.8
Rank County
School School
efficiency efficiency
rating rating
t 1923-26 1926-26
Carteret 52.1 56.6
Moore 60.2 66.5
McDowell 6L9 66.0
Lee 47.2 56.0
Davie 46.0 64.8
Jackson 49.3 54.2
Rowan 60.2 63.8
Beaufort 46.1 63.6
Iredell 46.0 63.6
Haywood 41.3 63.6
Henderson 46.7 63.4
Columbus 49.0 53.0
Harnett 43.9 63.0
Greene 60.0 62,8
Johnston 43.4 52.7
Tyrrell 46.0 62.4
Avery 61.4 62.1
Chatham 47.8 52.1
Franklin 49.6 62.1
Lincoln 44.9 62.0
Stanly 47.2 51.9
Duplin 54.4 61.3
Union 46.9 60.9
Person 43.7....1^. 60.5
Onslow 44.6 60.2
Sampson 43.8 49.8
Alexander 60.4 49.7
Burke 44.3 49.3
Swain 47.1 49.3
Watauga 42.6 49.3
Cleveland 46.3 49.0
Graham 46.4 49.0
Randolph 42.4 48.7
Clay 42.4 48.6
Davidson 45.1 48.6
Caldwell 44.0 48.5
Caewell 44.3 48.0
Cabarrus 44.6 47.5
Macon 42,0 46.8
Alleghany 46.9 46.2
Stokes 40.7 44.9
Mitchell 38.2 44.6
Brunswick 41.6..
Madison 38.2..
Yancey 42.4..
Wilkes 40.4..
Ashe 40.2..
Surry 36.3..
Yadkin 38.8..
Cherokee 37.1..
44.4
44.2
43.9
43.6
43.4
42.6
41.5
38.4
9 Concord 76.8..
10 Henderson 69.9..
City Group III
1 Hickory 86.2..
2 Greenville ..
3 Reidsville ••
4 Fayetteville 81.6..
5 Burlington 79.4,.
6 Roanoke Rapids .. 90.9..
7 Statesville 80.6..
8 Lexington ..
9 Smithfield ..
10 Tarboro ..
11 Mt. Airy ••
11 Washington ..
13 Dunn ..
1,4 Morganton ..
15 Shelby ..
16 Mooresville 69,8.,
79.1
64.6
92.2
87.1
. 86.6
. 86.6
. 83.2
, 88.0
. 82.8
, 82.5
, 81.4
. 80.7
. 80.6
. 80.6
. 79.7
. 74.6
, 72,4
, 68.6