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.
MAY 28,1924
CHAPEL HILL, N. C.
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS
VOL. X, NO. 28
Editorial Boardi B, C. Branaon. 3, S. Hobba, Jr., L. R. Wilaoo, B. W. Eniffht, D. D. GarToll. J. B.Bnllltt, H, W. Odam.
Entered aa aeeond-elaaa matter Navember 14, 1914, at thePoatoffleeat Chapel Hill, N. C., ander the actef Angnst 24, 1111
AUTOMOBILE INVESTMENTS IN N.C.
BETTER RURAL SCHOOLS
The consolidation of rural schools and
the adoption of the county unit of;I?ad-
ministration are perhaps the greatest
educational needs of the state, accord
ing to Mr. M. A. James who recently
read a paper before the North Carolina
Club in which he fully treated this sub
ject. The intelligent farmer is want
ing to know, with an interest never be
fore manifested, why his children do
not have the same educational advan
tages that are being enjoyed by town
and city children. The answer JUes in
the little country school which gives
most country children all the schooling
they ever get.
In 1922 there were 7,333 rural school
houses in North Carolina, 60 percent of
which were one-room structures, 26
percent two-room structures, and the
remaining 25 percent were buildings
with more than two rooms. In other
words, three-fourths of all the rural
school buildings in North Carolina were
of the one- and two-room type. Any
person with school experience knows
that adequate school workj|canj[not be
conducted in such a limited space.
In practically all cases these small
schools are taught by unskilled teach
ers. According to the latest published
report of the Superintendent of j^Public
Instruction, there were in North Caro
lina 16,264 teachers, 11,929 of whom
were rural teachers. Fifty-five percent
of these rural teachers did not hold cer
tificates as high as Elementary-A, as
contrasted with only 12 percent for town
and city teachers. In other words, the
proportion of teachers that did not hold
certificates as high as Elementary-A
was four and one-half times as large in
the rural schools as in the urban
schools.
For the school year 1921-22, seventy-
eight percent of the state’s entire
school enrollment of 763,698 were rur
al. Twenty-two percent lived in towns
and cities. For that school year the
total available school fund for each of.
the rural children was $20.91, as a-
gainst $56.09 for each of the children
who lived in the.toVns and cities. The
annual salary of the teachers of the
rural schools was about $648, as a-
gainst $998 for the teachers of the
urban schools.
We cannot expect the same school
results from the rural pupils who have
poor school equipment, poorly trained
teachers, short terms, and few social
advantages that we expect from the
urban pupils who have fine equipment,
well-trained teachers, long school
terms, and excellent social advantages.
In order that the rural child may
have as good school advantages as the
urban child, we must' have fewer and
larger country schools. At the end of
the school year 1921-22 there were in
North Carolina 355 consolidated schools.
Of these schools 127 bad four teachers;
78 had six teachers; and 150 had more
than six teachers. Experience has
taught us that results equally as good
can be obtained in the large consoli
dated school as in the city school. The
small consolidated school, on the other
hand, is of little advantage, and we
should discourage the union -.of only
two one-teacher schools. The average
country dweller thinks that a two- or
a three-teacher school is sufficiently
large. Such schools are too small for
effective work. Dr. E. C. Brooks says,
“We are coming to realize more and
more that we should strive for a six-
teacher school as the smallest type of
school that will guarantee^really effi
cient instruction for our country boys
and girls.”
The time is coming when North Ca
rolina will have a state-wide system of
public education, but the time is not
yet ripe to advocate the "adoption of
such a system. At present we should
strive for the reorganization of our
schools under the county-wide unit of
administration. Under this plan it is
possible for every child in the county
to have practically equal educational
opportunities, and in addition a^chance
to attend a good high school.
The county-wide plan of consolida
tion would do three things: first, it
would equalize school advantages
throughout the county, giving the
same advantages to both town and
country children. Second, it would
equalize the tax rate throughout the
county. Third, it would lower the
special school tax rate in most districts
which at present are operating consoli
dated schools. Under such a plan the
county superintendent and*.' county
board of education must be men of the
highest type, and unless the most ca
pable men are selected for the direc
tion of the county-wide school system
we cannot hope for maximum success.
In summing up the advantages we
find the following features favorable to
consolidation:
1. Consolidation means a larger tax
able area.
2. It increases attendance.
3. It makes possible the securing of
better trained teachers.
4. Salaries of teachers will be in
creased.
5. The health of the children will be
conserved.
6. A better and more efficient course
of study will be made possible.
7. School spirit will be increased.
8. Finally it means a chance to get a
high-school education for thousands of
rural boys and girls who under the
present location and distribution of
high schools are denied this opportuni
ty.
TOO FEW IN HIGH SCHOOL
One of the weak points of opr educa
tional system in North Carolina is that
such a small percent of school children
graduate from high school or even reach
the high-school grades. Most rapid
improvement is being made, but even
with our present attainment we rank
very low in the number of high-school
students and in high-school graduates
in comparison with other states. The
lack of enough high schools is one an
swer, while another lies in the lack of a
desire on the part of many children for
a high-school edOcation.
For the United States about ten per
cent of the children enrolled in school
are in the high-school grades. In North
Carolina the children enrolled in high
school are only five percent of all chil
dren enrolled in school. In other words
we ought to have 90 thousand children
in high school instead of about 45
thousand.
As indicative of the tendency to
drop out of school too early we are
giving a few of the facts found in
studying Guilford and Forsyth coun
ties, both of which have excellent high
schools, and rank far above the state
average in high-school attendance and
graduates.
In 1923 Guilford had a total white
school enrollment of 17,799 children.
Her high-school enrollment rate was a-
bout three times the state average, yet
only 348 white students were enrolled
in the eleventh grade against 3,442 in
the first grade. Of the total white en
rollment only 1.9 percent were in the
final grade.
In Forsyth county 12,809 white chil
dren were enrolled in school, yet only
194 were in the eleventh grade, or 1.6
percent of all white children enrolled
in school. The first grade had a white
enrollment of 2,801, the second grade
1,868, third 1,676, fourth 1,520, fifth
1,332, sixth 1,086, seventh 1,005, eighth
628, ninth 436, tenth 269, while only
194 were enrolled in the eleventh
grade.
The mortality rates in the higher
grades are large even in such prize
high-school counties as Forsyth and
Guilford. The mortality rates in the
less favored counties are even larger.
The high-school graduating class of
1923 was only one percent of the white
school enrollment in North Carolina. In
other words out of every one hundred
white children enrolled in school in 1923
only one became a high-school grad
uate. Instead of 6,317 white high-
school graduates as in 1923, we should
have had at least thirteen thousand.
Only six states have more children
enrolled in school than North Carolina.
Would that only six states ranked a-
head of us in high-school graduates!
FORSYTH COUNTY BULLETIN
Forsyth County: Economic and So
cial, is the title of a new county bulle
tin that has recently gone to press.
PUBLIC SERVANTS
The only forces that can preserve
our republic are men with convic
tions and the courage of their con
victions. My plea is that a modicum
of the same sort of courage that ac
tuated our fathers shall be mani
fested not only by public officials
but by the great mass of privates
in the ranks of our citizenship.
What we must have is an active ex
ercise of the duties of citizenship by
men who stand outside of party or
class, whose sole motive and objec
tive is the public weal, and who have
the courage to tear a question open
and let the light through it. We
must have men who stand for the
right, for justice, for liberty under
the law, for government under the
constitution, and who will carry our
republic forward toward the fulfill
ment of its high mission as a leader
and exemplar for the emulation and
inspiration of all the nations of the
earth.—Robert E. L. Saner, Presi
dent American Bar Association.
This new bulletin, containing ten chap
ters and about 120 pages, is the work of
Mr. Chas. N. Siewers of Forsyth
county, a senior in the University.
For more than a year Mr. Siewers has
been busy in the seminar library of the
department of rural social economics
collecting important information about
his home county and interpreting these
facts in a simple way for the enlight
enment and inspiration of the citizens
of the home county, and of others
who might be interested in Forsyth
county.
Mr. Siewers has assembled his facts
with diligent care, and in the interpre
tation of them he has shown rare com
petence. He has traced the historic,
economic, and social development of
Forsyth from its settlement to the
present time, and in concluding the
study he attempts to picture what the
county may be in the years to come.
The chapters are as follows: History
of Forsyth County, Resources and Op
portunities, Industries of Forsyth,
Wealth and Taxation, Facts About
the Folks, Farm Conditions and Prac
tices, The Schools of Forsyth, The
Local Market Problem, Things to Be
Proud Of, and Where We Lag and the
Way Out.
The bulletin will be distributed free
of charge as long as the issue of 3,000
copies lasts. A copy may be secured
from the Department of Rural Social
Economics, Chapel Hill, North Caro
lina.
One of the aims of the department of
rural social economics is to publish a
somewhat similar bulletin for every
county in the state. More’than a doz
en have already been published. In
addition to the Forsyth bulletin, there
will go to the press this month bulletins
for Randolph and Guilford counties,
copies of which may be had upon re
quest.
All these bulletins represent the
work of students from the home coun
ties. This department has collected
and assembled a vast storehouse of
historic, economic, and social data for
the state and for the counties of the
state. It remains for interested stu
dents to assemble the data properly
and prepare it for publication. The
cost of printing is always borne by in
dividuals and businesses in the home
county, either through contributions
or by subscribing to advertising space.
If you are interested in a bulletin for
your county, get behind your capable
students at the University.
NORTH CAROLINA THIRD
North Carolina ranks third in the
South in the sale of public improvement
bonds during the first four months of
this year, according to a table in the
Manufacturers Record.
During these four months fifty-three
bond issues totaling $10,081,286 were
sold in North Carolina by the state, the
towns, cities, counties, and districts.
The two states ranking ahead of us
were Texas and Alabama, the latter by
only a small margin.
The following table shows the rank
of southern states and the total value
of bonds sold, for the first four months
of 1924, for highways, school buildings,
light and sewer systems, street pav
ings, and so forth.
1. Texas $18,918,486
2. Alabama 10,086,600
3. North Carolina 10,081,286
4. Florida 8,065,500
6. Louisiana 7,400,000
6. Mississippi 5,801,760
7. South Carolina 6,711,600
8. West Virginia 5,391,000
9. Tennessee 6,114,347
10. Georgia 4,612,600
11. Virginia 3,766,000
12. Arkansas 3,749,600
13. 'Oklahoma 2,289,000
14. Maryland 1,456,000
16. Kentucky 465,000
SCHOOL BONDED DEBT
One of the most important matters
to be considered in discussing the value
of school property is what proportion
the bonded debt is of the total value.
Public school property in the state is
valued at more than twice the amount
of the bonded debt incurred for school
purposes.
On June 30, 1923, the bonded debt of
the counties for school purposes totaled
$9,184,288, while the debt of'town and
cities for school purposes totaled $10,-
343,660. The net debt ofj all counties,
towns, and cities in North Carolina in
1923 was $134,443,016. Of this total
$19,627,938 was classed asj(school debt,
and it amounts to only 14.6 percent of
the total county and municipal debt.
It is rather surprising that the net
bonded debt of ourj counties, towns,
and cities for the erection of school
houses is such a small percent of the
total bonded debt.
A CORRECTION
In the table exhibiting State Health
Expenditures, appearing in News Let
ter Vol, X No. 26, North Carolina ap
pears twice. The 48thjstate should be
North Dakota.
INVESTMENT IN AUTOMOBILES
Per Inhabitant in Jane 1918 and January 1924
In the following table, based on U. S. Census of Population data and the
number of automobiles as reported by the Secretary of State, the counties are
ranked according to the per inhabitant investment in motor cars on January 1,
1924. The accompanying column shows the per inhabitant investment on June
30, 1918. The average motor car is officially reported to represent an invest
ment of $800. State total number of motor cars January 1, 1924, was 248,414,
representing an investment of $198,731,200. On June 30, 1918, there were 77,-
000 motor cars in the state.
The state average investment in motor cars on January 1, 1924, was $74.00
per inhabitant.
The total bonded debt of the state and all its subdivisions, for every pur
pose whatsoever, was 203 million dollars on June 30, 1923, or only slightly more
than our investment in motor cars.
All public school property in North Carolina is valued at around 47 million
dollars, or less than one-fourth the amount invested in motor cars^^at^ the be
ginning of the year.
Since January first of this year 36,000 motor cars have been purchased in
North Carolina representing an expenditure of Approximately $30,000,000 which
is nearly two-thirds the value of all public school property in the state.
Department of Rural Social Economics, University of North Carolina
Rank County
Invest.
per
Inbab.
June
1918
Invest,
per
Inhab.
Jan. 1
1924
Rank County
Invest;
per
Inhab.
June
1918
Invest,
per
Inhab.
Jan. 1
1924
1
Guilford
... $26.0
$128.2
61
Currituck
... $13.1
$64.9
2
Davidson
.... 24,6
111.1
52
Union
.... 12.6
64.5
3
Mecklenburg...
.... 26.3
108.6
53
Person
.... 12.8
64.3
4
Rowan
.... 26.0
108.6
63
Greene
.... 38.1
64.3
6
Alamance.
.... 20.2
101.1
66
Hertford
.... 22.1
64.1
6
Forsyth
.... 28.6
98.2
66
Caldwell
63.3
7
Lincoln
.... 22.3
97.7
67
Alexander
.... 10.2
62.9
8
Wilson
.... 33.3
96.8
68
Northampton..
.... 12.2
02.3
9
Moore
96.6
68
Robeson
62.3
10
Wake
.... 26.2
96.1
60
Sampson
.... 16.2
62.0
11
Gaston
. . 17.9
.94.0
60
Camden
.... 16.8
62.0
12
Scotland
. .. 31.1
93.3
62
Granville
.... 16.0
59.9
12
Iredell
.... 18.6
93.3
63
Perquimans....
.... 16.9
59,7
14
Randolph
.... 17.4
90.8
64
Martin
.... 32.0
68.1
16
Cleveland
.... 16.2
89.8 •
66
Craven
.... 19.2
57.7
16
Montgomery ..
.... 14.9
88.8
66
Duplin
.... 14.1
56.2
16
Buncombe
.... 23.6
88.8
67
Franklin
.... 17.6
56.1
18
Catawba
.... 20.8
87.3
68
Warren
.... 17.9
. 54.6
18
Cabarrus
.... 23.6
87.3
69
Gates
.... 16.6
53.4
20
Richmond
.... 20.2
85.2
70
Washington ....
.... 15.4
52.4
21
Durham
.... 16.3
83.8
71
Burke
.... 6.8
52.3
22
Lee.
82.6
72
Haywood
.. . 7.4
48.1
23
Edgecombe ....
.... 27.1
82.0
73
Tyrrell
16.8
46.0
23
Rockingham....
21.4
82.0
74
Onslow
.... 10.1
44.1
25
Cumberland ....
81.6
75
Columbus
.... 8.9
43.6
26
Orange
.... 15.6
81.4
76
Bladen
.... 11.1
43.4
27
Johnston
.. . 22.6
80.6
77
Pender
.... 9.1
43.3
27
Nash
.... 27.3
80.6
78
Polk
9.0
42.9
29
Davie
.... 13.7
79.7
79'
Pamlico
.... 9.0
42.5
30
Pasquotank
.... 21.2
79.0
80
Transylvania...
.... 9.8
42.0
31
Hoke
78.1
81
Jones
.... 16.3
40.9
32
Anson
.... 16.0
76.6
82
McDowell
6.4
38.6
33
Harnett
.... 17.1
76.4
83
Alleghany
.... 8.2
38.0
34
Stokes
.... 17.0
76.1
84
Wilkes.
6.1
34.5
35
Henderson
.... 16.0
74.4
85
Watauga
29.8
36
Pitt
.... 33.9
73.1
86
Brunswick
.... 6.0
'29.0
37
Surry
.... 14.6
72.6
87
Jackson
.... 3.2
28.4
38
Chowan
.... 19.5
72.3
88
Carteret
.... 8.1
28.1
39
New Hanover ..
.... 23.1
70.7
89
Hyde
9.1
27.6
40
Lenoir
.... 28.3
70.0
90
Cherokee
3.4
23.8
40
Wayne
... 26.0
70.0
91
Clay
1.2
23.7
42
Stanly
.... 22.0
Sr. 69.0
92
Madison
.... 4.0
22.4
42
Yadkin
.... 14.3
69.0
93
Macon
.... 3.1
21.6
44
Rutherford
11.3
68.6
94
Ashe
1.8
21.3
46
Bertie
.... 21.9
66.9
96
Avery
20.5
46
Caswell
.... 16.1
66.4
96
Dare
..... 1.7
16.3
47
Vance
.... 19.6
66.2
97
Swain
.... 2.8
15.3
48
Chatham
66.1
98
Graham
7
13.3
49
Beaufort
.... 16.3
66.0
99
Yancey
4
11.8
49
Halifax
.... 18.1
65.0
100
Mitchell
11.0
The investment per inhabitant in 1918 is omitted for ten counties for which
population figures are lacking, due to the formation of new counties and
changes in territory of old counties.