school teachers and the teachers in departmental grades. Our standards of living are as high as is consistent with our positions," she adds, "and we pay the same prices for food, clothing, rent and transportation to and from work as do the teachers of other groups."

Owing to the strenuous and nerve-racking character of her work, the lower grade teacher cannot in justice to the children teach more than thirty years. She must then retire, receiving less than half of her yearly salary, a sum upon which it is impossible to live at the present time in New York City. With the present low salary, she can save nothing.

Frank E. Converse (Beloit, Wisconsin) states that the single-salary schedule tends to unify the teaching force and insures greater stability. It is more impersonal than the ordinary schedule. It deals justly with newly-employed teachers and protects those already in the force. It emphasizes in the minds of school boards and the public the preparation and training that is necessary to become a successful teacher. By stimulating improvement in the education and culture of the teacher, it should prove a great aid in raising the social status of the teacher.

According to James F. Hosic, the question of sex is evidently troublesome. Several correspondents assume that men teachers are needed and say that they provide for "stepping up" the salaries of men from two hundred to six hundred dollars above that of women of equal preparation and experience, explaining that the law of supply and demand must be obeyed. No reference is made, however, to scientific evidence which might prove that men are indispensable.

Hosic reports that in answer to a questionnaire, 87% of the teachers went to summer school the next season.

It destroys the enmity which existed between the high school and the elementary teachers and raised the standards below the high school.

The single-salary schedule may increase the cost of the

schools to the public, for it means higher salaries to the largest group of teachers, but it means much better schools. However, the increased cost in Harrisburg was not so much as anticipated in introducing the new single-salary schedule. Difficulties in administering the single-salary schedule, James F. Hosic remarks, are freely admitted for the following reasons:

I. To appraise college credits is not easy.

II.

Over-interest in securing credit arises.

III. Experience is likely to weigh too little.

IV. It is hard to give proper recognition to merit.
V. The general schedule is too low to hold men.
Tradition must be overcome.

VI.

VII.

The danger of unionizing, that is, leveling without regard to service, must be avoided.

VIII. There is danger that money will figure too largely in the teachers' aims.

IX. Rating schemes now in use will prove unequal to the strain which the operation of the new schedule will put upon them.

The School Men's Club of Kansas City, through its secretary, states that the slogan, "Equal pay for equal service," is itself misleading. To the layman it gives the idea that the service of the women in the schools is equal to that of the men. The single-salary schedule would force men to more frantic efforts to piece out their salaries by leisure-time employment.

The high school teacher has problems of method as difficult as those of the elementary school; in addition, he must be a specialist in his subject, mastering a content within the reach of his students. (Evidently the secretary fails to realize the fact that an elementary school teacher has to be a specialist also, and of many activities.)

Financially:

I. The public must pay greatly increased salaries of ele

mentary teachers to the level of the high school, or the salaries of the high teachers must be reduced.

II. Constitutional restrictions prohibit any very considerable increase in the local salary budget.

III. Already European educators point to the baneful effects of women-dominated schools in America.

IV. Can we afford further to deny to American adolescents the contact with men which can be properly and certainly secured only in the schoolroom.

V.

The single-salary schedule in Soviet Russia turned out to be a fiasco.

Superintendent Webster, of Minneapolis, Minn., goes so far as to suggest a single-salary schedule for principals. Such a schedule, he admitted, might be deemed impossible.

. . . The tenacity of tradition is always confounding.. There are some who have come to the belief that to lead little children among the mysterious symbols of language and numbers is as difficult a task as to prepare youth for college. The elementary school has widened its influence to include the entire social life of a community, its health, the industrial and social life of its children, the education of parents, and the induction of foreigners into citizenship-are obligations resting upon the principal of an elementary school demanding strong men and women.

Cora B. Morrison, elementary teacher of Denver, Colorado, chairman, stated the new schedule was advocated by superintendents for these reasons:

I. It is easy to operate and permits better business methods.

II. It eliminates class consciousness among teachers and defeats unionism.

III. It contributes strongly to a feeling of unity and satisfaction in the corps.

IV. By financial recognition of additional experience and training, it promotes tenure.

V. It attracts superior training and ability to the elementary schools, and emphasizes high standards of professional attainment and encourages professional study and growth.

VI. It permits the transfer of teachers without financial loss from positions for which they are not adapted to positions where they can render efficient service.

VII. The work of the elementary teacher is as valuable to a community as the work of the high school teacher and should receive the same reward where qualifications are the

same.

Preparation, experience and professional growth present the "only reasonable basis" for salary differences; "justice" and "fairness" to the teachers was named by thirty-six superintendents as the basic argument for the single-salary schedule.

It might be said, in conclusion, that a child is as important at five or six years of age as he is at the age of fifteen or sixteen, and that the teaching process is as difficult at every point.

DESCRIPTIVE ALPHABETICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY,

From 1927 (May) Research Bulletin of the N. E. A.

1. BALLOU, FRANK W. "Salary Differences, if Any, Based on the Rank or Class of the Teacher." Volume of Addresses and Proceedings of the National Education Association, 1921, pp. 840-841.

Points out undesirability of placing all superior teachers in upper grades. Concludes that salary schedules should be based on amount, character and quality of preparation, and teaching experience.

2. BICKNELL, THOS. W. President's Address.

Volume of Addresses and Proceedings of the National Education Association, 1884, p. 49.

Expresses belief that in future best primary teachers and best high school teachers will receive equal salaries and that sliding scale of salaries will be adopted, based upon qualifications and experience.

3. "A Campaign for a Single Salary Schedule for New York Elementary Teachers." School and Society, Vol. XXII, August 22, 1925, p. 237.

Presents recommendation of Greater New York Kindergarten for schedule providing increases for elementary teachers. Recommendation based on belief that conditions under which elementary school teachers work are severe because of range of subjects taught, strict supervision, and physical strain encountered.

4. CONVERSE, FRANK E. "Experience with a Single Salary Schedule." Volume of Addresses and Proceedings of the National Education Association, 1924, pp. 942-943.

Describes single salary schedule as one based on educational preparation, training, successful experience, and principle of equality of service in different levels of instruction. Considers single salary schedule practical and constructive in its influence upon teaching staff.

5. Denver Public School Monograph No. 5, January, 1923. "Salary Schedules." Board of Education, Denver Public Schools.

Represents Denver salary schedule as attracting superior teachers by providing adequate remuneration, definite professional standards, and recognition for the elementary school teacher. Schedule also gives credit for teaching experience and improvement in service. 6. "The Denver Single Salary Schedule a Success in Operation." American Educational Digest, Vol. 42, No. 5, January, 1923, pp. 223-224.

Gives salary schedule for Denver teachers and elementary principals, with system used for evaluating experience. Reports schedule sufficiently flexible to allow for increase in maxima upon increase in training, and to give justice to old teachers. Notes influence in improved morale of teaching.

7. "The Des Moines Salary Schedule." School and Society, Vol. XV, No. 373, February 18, 1922, pp. 203-204.

Describes single salary schedule adopted for Des Moines teachers in 1921. Gives data showing effect of schedule upon improvement of teachers in service.

8. DOWNES, F. E. "Foundation Principles for Grading Salaries. A Pennsylvania Plan." Volume of Addresses