In the preceding twenty years the State's expenditures for public schools in Virginia have risen from $7,335,941 in 1931 to $37,134,173 in 1950. This represents 38.79% of the State's general fund revenues,* as compared with a figure of 37.56% at the beginning of the period.

Many factors have contributed to this increase in State school costs. During these years the State's population has greatly increased and the school population in Virginia has likewise showed marked growth. In addition, the General Assembly has materially assisted the localities in raising teachers' salaries, and the average salary of classroom teachers (which is paid from funds provided by the State and locality jointly) has increased from $909 in 1931 to $2,391 during the last fiscal year. The General Assembly has also provided substantial sums for teachers' scholarships, it has increased State assistance to localities by paying part of the cost of transporting children to school, and it has had other programs which have given financial aid to local schools.

The greatest single factor in the increased school costs has, of course, been inflation. Thus, while average salaries have gone up in dollars and cents, far beyond what might have been reasonably anticipated two decades ago, declines in purchasing power have, to a major extent, nullified this increase. A large part of the State's contributions toward school bus transportation has likewise been absorbed by inflated costs which the localities have experienced.

The considerable increase in the number of children attending school also has had an influence on the rising costs of public education. In the school year 1930-31 there were 473,077 children in average daily attendance in the schools. By 1950-51 this number had risen to 550,036, necessitating increases in the instructional staff and an expansion of school plant.

Another factor which has had some influence on school costs has been the broadening of curriculum offering of the schools. Whereas thirty-five years ago commercial and other vocational subjects were offered only in the larger cities and special subjects such as music and art were unheard of at public expense in most of the rural areas, today home economics and agricultural offerings are general throughout the State and a generally more diversified curriculum has become widespread.

Because of this diversification, many persons have criticized the schools on the ground that they have been trying to do too much with the funds available. Opinions are frequently expressed that the schools' efforts are spread too thin, and that in an effort to afford a broader program which would appeal to and be valuable for all types of pupils, the schools are neglecting areas which, in the opinion of such critics, are more important.

In addition, a trend was noticed in higher salaries paid teachers in the vocational fields. Due to several causes, including federal participation in this program and in many cases difficulties in obtaining competent personnel, there was some indication that a higher salary incentive was being presented to teachers of these subjects than to teachers instructing in the traditional "fundamental" courses.

As a result of these and some other causes, many people were of the opinion that the schools were not adequately fulfilling their role in providing basic, fundamental training for all the children of the State. Complaints have been frequent that high school graduates going into business are not able to write, spell and punctuate correctly, and that those entering college are not able to cope with the college curriculum because of their inability to read well and to study.

The General Assembly in 1950 was confronted by an obvious need for increased appropriations for the public schools. Rising birth rates were overtaxing available school facilities in many localities. The need for more teachers was critical, and action to meet these conditions was imperative.

Each successive session of the General Assembly during recent years has been faced with the need for increased funds to maintain or enlarge important State services, but the resources of the State are not inexhaustible. In the face of such conditions, it was vitally important to insure that the State receive the utmost return in educational value for each dollar spent for public schools and that it discharge its obligation toward the schools in a manner which would insure, to the limit of its financial ability, adequate training in fundamental subjects. It was also desirable to know the extent to which the localities were bearing their proper part of the cost of the schools.

The General Assembly accordingly, at its 1950 session, adopted Senate Joint Resolution No. 26, which is as follows:
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 26

Creating a commission to study the establishment of a foundation program in education.

Whereas, the General Assembly should, if possible, define more clearly the responsibility of the State to finance public education; and

Whereas, the distribution of State school funds largely on the basis of average daily attendance, as at present may result in inequities insofar as educational opportunities offered in the various political subdivisions; and

Whereas, it seems that the State, in cooperation with the localities, should define a foundation program for education in the public free schools in terms of the services the people of the State consider essential for the children; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate, the House of Delegates concurring, that a commission be, and it hereby is, created to study and report upon the establishment of a foundation program containing the fundamental courses which are basic to education to be financed by the State, in cooperation with the localities, and the costs thereof including the distribution of school funds generally.

The commission shall consist of nine members of whom three shall be appointed by the Governor of whom one shall be from the State Board of Education and two shall be Professional Educators in the Public School System of Virginia, one shall be appointed by the President of the Senate from the membership of the Senate, and three shall be appointed from the House of Delegates by the Speaker thereof; the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Delegates shall, ex officio, be members of the commission. The commission shall advise and work with the State Board of Education in order to devise a foundation program in the fundamentals of education to be financed by the State and localities jointly. The commission shall complete its study and make its report to the Governor and General Assembly not later than November one, nineteen hundred fifty-one. The members of the commission shall receive no compensation for their services but shall be paid their necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties, for which there is hereby appropriated from the contingent fund of the General Assembly the sum of fifteen hundred dollars.

In compliance with this resolution, the Governor appointed J. D. Meade, of Petersburg; Leonard G. Muse, of Roanoke, member of the State Board of Education; and H. H. Walker, of Charlottesville; the President of the Senate appointed Lloyd C. Bird, of Chesterfield; and the Speaker of the House appointed J. Maynard Magruder, of Arlington; W. Tayloe Murphy, of Warsaw; and Landon R. Wyatt, of Danville. The President of the Senate, L. Preston Collins, of Marion, and the Speaker of the House, E. Blackburn Moore, of Berryville, served as members ex officio.

The Commission organized and elected Mr. Moore Chairman and Senator Bird Vice-Chairman. John B. Boatwright, Jr., Director of the Division of Statutory Research and Drafting, served as Secretary.

The Commission consulted with Dowell J. Howard, Superintendent of Public Instruction, and members of his staff; it met jointly with the State Board of Education and at other times consulted with individual members of that Board. The Commission desires to express its sincere appreciation to Mr. Howard and to the members of the State Board of Education for their assistance in connection with this study. The State Department of Education cooperated in furnishing information requested of it and in compiling factual information for the use of the Commission. In addition, the Superintendent of Public Instruction and his staff and the members of the State Board of Education materially aided the Commission by their advice and counsel. The Commission was also greatly assisted by the staff of tile Division of Statutory Research and Drafting and desires to record its appreciation for the services rendered by the personnel of this agency.

The Commission also sought the assistance of lay and professional individuals and groups concerned with the schools. It requested and obtained the written views of Parent-Teacher Associations, the Virginia Educational Association, the Virginia Teachers Association, and other organizations and persons upon those matters which it considered the gist of its problem and questions suggested by the resolution. The replies received will be dealt with later in this report. After due notice in the press, it also held a public hearing to which all interested persons were invited.

The Commission has carefully considered the facts as it has been able to learn them and the views of those who were kind enough to submit them and now presents its report.

FINDINGS

The Commission finds that:

(1) In 1944 the Virginia Education Commission (the "Denny Commission") recommended that increased emphasis be placed upon the teaching of the fundamental subjects; this was endorsed by the General Assembly by a resolution adopted March 26, 1945; the Commission finds that the State Board of Education and the Superintendent of Public Instruction have achieved much in this field and are continually working toward this end.

(2) The curriculum in use in the public schools in Virginia includes instruction in those subjects which are acknowledged to be fundamental to all education.

(3) The major impediments to the most effective teaching of the fundamental tool subjects are (a) lack of a sufficient number of adequately trained primary and elementary teachers, and (b) too heavy teacher loads. Some policies pursued in the past have contributed to teacher shortages in the elementary field.

(4) Present methods of financing have not eliminated inequalities in the basic instruction afforded in different school divisions.

(5) Present school facilities and instructional personnel in many school divisions are inadequate to maintain present programs; increases in school population and continued inflation will tax these severely; caution must be exercised to avoid over-expansion of the program beyond those areas which can be thoroughly taught and adequately financed.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Commission recommends that:

(1) The school authorities intensify their efforts to secure an adequate number of properly trained teachers in the primary and elementary grades; to this end, the present practice of allotting teacher training scholarships to freshman students only when preparing for elementary teaching should be continued and the scholarships for freshmen should be increased from $300 to $400; for shortage fields in high school the scholarships should be continued on the present basis; in addition, provision should be made that future recipients may repay one years' scholarship by one year's teaching.

(2) Where salary differentials exist between teachers of different subjects and on different grade levels, who have comparable training, experience and demonstrated efficiency, these should be eliminated; and salary increases should be based on training, experience and demonstrated efficiency as well as on length of service.

(3) Further expansion of the curriculum in individual schools beyond the present minimum requirements should be discouraged until the fundamental subjects are thoroughly taught and the present program is adequately financed.

(4) The basis on which State funds are to be allocated to aid local schools is now under study by the State Department of Education and the Commission does not have the information on which to recommend a definitive formula; but it believes, that in the provision of additional funds, consideration should be given to the accomplishment of specific aims such as the reduction in size of classes and equalization of educational opportunity among the several localities.
____________________________________
*Note: The general fund includes all revenues of the State which are not specifically earmarked for the operation of such State departments as the ABC Board, Department of Highways, Commission of Game & Inland Fisheries, Industrial Commission, Unemployment Compensation, etc.