xt7dv40jx304 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dipstest/xt7dv40jx304/data/mets.xml Kentucky. Department of Education. Kentucky Kentucky. Department of Education. 1955-12 bulletins  English Frankford, Ky. : Dept. of Education  This digital resource may be freely searched and displayed in accordance with U. S. copyright laws. Educational Bulletin (Frankfort, Ky.) Education -- Kentucky Educational Bulletin (Frankfort, Ky.), "Report of the State Board of Education", vol. XXIII, no. 5, December 1955 text 
volumes: illustrations 23-28 cm. call numbers 17-ED83 2 and L152 .B35. Educational Bulletin (Frankfort, Ky.), "Report of the State Board of Education", vol. XXIII, no. 5, December 1955 1955 1955-12 2022 true xt7dv40jx304 section xt7dv40jx304   
      
 
   
      
   
 

R‘-
Av

7 0 Commonwealth of Kentucky 0

EDUCATIONAL BULLETIN.”

 

 

 

 

 

REPQRT
of the

STATE BOARD
OF EDUCATION

 

Published by
DEPARTMENT EIF EDUCATION

WENDELL P. BUTLER

Superintendent of Public Instruction
Frankfort, Kentucky

 

 

 

 

ISSUED BIMONTHLyr-W

Entered as second-class matter March 21, 1933, at the post office at
ankfort, Kentucky, under the Act of August 24. 1912.

VOL. xxm DECEMBER, 1955 No.5

  

LIBRARY
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY;

 

  

\.

WT, ‘4 \I—xv’w‘ ,~ ———_—?— u

    

    

BIENNIAL REPORT

of the

STATE BOARD
0F EDUCATION

of the

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

FOR THE BIENNIUM ENDED
JUNE 30, 1955

Prepared by
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
and
Published by order of the
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

WENDELL P. BUTLER
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Chairman State Board of Education

 

  

 

 

 

WENDELL P. BUTLER
Superintendent of Public Instruction

  

  

V‘

CHARJLE

MRS. EI
Ave., A

A. E. M
Louisvi

RUMSEY

Bl) ‘LER
WILDER
YOUNG,

DIVISIO]
TH

DIVISIO]
WI
HO
EDI
F0
DA
GR

DIVISIO
. MA
HE
BU‘
DR
HO
m0]
R0

DIVISIOI
VIC

DIVISIOI‘
GA

DIVISIOI‘
WA
MA

DIVISIor
WA
TA‘
GU
DIVISIOB
co:
TA‘

MA
VI’I

0T.

  

    

    

KENTUCKY STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

WENDEILL P. BUTLER, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Chairman

CHARJLES J. HAYIDON, JR, Springfield LOUIS E. MOORE, SR., Box 236,

MRS. ELLIS JOHNSON, 1617 Lawrence NeWPort
Ave, Ashland

VIRGIL 'D. PECK‘LES‘IMER, W'hitesburg

A. E. MEYZEEK, 1701 W. Chestnut,
Louisville

RUMSEY TAYLOR, Princeton C. T. WARD, Secretary

STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
BUTLER, WENtDEIJL CP., Superintendent of Public Instruction
WILDER, OREN B., Executive Assistant
YOUNG, GORDIE, Technical Consultant

DIVISION OF SCHOOL BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS
THURIMAN. PAUL W., Director

DIVISION OF SURPLUS PROPERTY
WILLIAMS, J. B., Director
HODGKIN, BOSWELL B., Assistant Director
ELLIS, ROY, Surplus Property Supervisor
FOLEY, WOODROW, Surplus Property Supervisor
DAVIS, SARA 1-1., Surplus Property Supervisor
GREENE, ROBERT, Surplus Property Supervisor

BUREAU OF ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE
MARTIN, ROBERT R., Head of Bureau

DIVISION OF LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT FINANCE

. MARTIN, ROBERT R., Director

HECKER, STANLEY, Research Analyst

BUTLER. THOMAS. Accounting Supervisor
DRYDEN, RAY N., Accounting Supervisor
HOOKS, N. T., Accounting Supervisor

JONES, JOHN A., Accounting Supervisor
ROS‘CHI. W. W., Accounting Supervisor

DIVISION OF PUPIL TRANSPORTATION
VICKERS, JOHN L., Director

DIVISION OF DEPARTMENTAL FINANCE AND SERVICES
GARRISON. EARL E., Director

DIVISION OF CENSUS AND ATTENDANCE
WARD, C. T., Director
MARTIN. ANNE. Administrative Assistant

BUREAU OF INSTRUCTION
GODMAN, MARK, Head of Bureau

DIVISION OF SCHOOL SUPERVISION
WALTON, MOSS, Director
TAYLOR, SAM, Assistant Director
GULLETTE, IRENE, Supervisor of School Libraries

DIVISION OF TEACHER TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION
COMBS, LOUISE. Director

CHARLES B. STACY, Pineville

 

 

 

TAYLOR, CLAUDE, Coordinator, In—Service Training and Supervisor

Elementary Education
MARSHALL, MARY, Regional Supervisor, In-Service Training
VITTETOW, FRANCIS H., Regional Supervisor, In—Service Training
TINCHER, WILBUR, Supervisor of Certification
O'DONNELL. LOUISE. Administrative Assistant

  

 

 

 

 

DIVISION OF FREE TEXTBOOKS
TRIPLETT, ISHMAEL, Director

DIVISION OF HEALTH AND PHYSICAL EDUCATION
BALE, DON, Director
WHALIN, E. B., Administrative Assistant

DIVISION OF EDUCATION FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN ‘
RETHERFORD, GWEN, Director
EDWARDS, STELLA A._ Supervisor
DRAKE, EL‘LEN M., Supervisor

DIVISION OF MORAL AND SPIRITUAL EDUCATION ’
TYlDIN‘GS. J. MANSIR. Director

BUREAU OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION
PATTON. JAMES L., Head of Bureau

DIVISION OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION
HILTON, E. P.. Director
BOTTO, M. M., Assistant Director
BAL‘L, EDWARD E., Supervisor
BAYLESS, DUA‘RD E., Supervisor
COX. FLOYD, Supervisor
ESHAM, C. F., Supervisor
GROGAN, BOBBIE R., Supervisor
LAMAR, CARL, (on leave)
KELLEY, ROBERT L., Supervisor
LUSTER, GEORGE LOWELL, Supervisor '
MONTGOMERY, W. C., Supervisor
MOORE. BUELL G.. Supervisor
THRELKELD, J. ERNEST. Supervisor

DIVISION OF HOME ECONOMICS EDUCATION
WILLIAMSON, MAIRY LOIS, Director
VAUGHAN, MA'RY BELL, Assistant Director
MELTON. JANE, Supervisor
PORTER, FANNIE. Supervisor ‘
BLACK, JANE, Supervisor
COLLINS, MAURINE, Supervisor

DIVISION OF PUBLIC SCHOOL LUNCH
CAMPBELL, KEARNEY, Director
BEVINS, CEPHAS EDWARD, Supervisor
ARNETT, GEORGIA MAE, Supervisor
BOTTS. ANNIE MARY, Supervisor
LEWIS, JANE S., Supervisor
LIGON, ELEANOR, Supervisor
MOORES, LAURA PREWTITT, Supervisor

DIVISION OF TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL AND DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION
WILSON. HAROLD G., Director
MARTIN. FRED A., Assistant Director
McDOWELL, LEONARD 0, Supervisor

DIVISION OF EDUCATION FOR VETERANS
SALLING, ROBERT W., Director
BR‘OGAN, EDWARD F., Supervisor
JORRIS, JAMES W., Supervisor
McGOWN, JAMES R., Supervisor
NEIKIRK, LYLE M., Supervisor
SLOA-NE. ROBERT W., Supervisor

DIVISION OF VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION
BALDREE, W. HICKMAN, Director
REED, JOHN 5., Chief, Rehabilitation Services
CRANMER, TERRENCE V., Supervisor, Services for the Blind
BANKS, FONTAINE, JR., Supervisor of Administrative Services
LEONARD, DR. T. ”9., Medical Consultant
ALLEN, LINDSEY E., Area Supervisor, Louisville

FLEGE, ROBERT F., Area Supervisor, Lexington

    

Adams, E
Anglin, N
Baker, Vi
Brawner,
Burke. Jc
Campbell,
Campbell,
Catlett, I
Caudill. I
Church, I-
Clasby, A
Clifton, B
Davis, Sai
Dawkins,
DeMoss, (
Figg. Leo
Goins, E11
Gorman, I
Graybeal,
Grugin, E
Green, Lc

NOTE: 1:
c:

L- c. CUI
WILLIAM
MR8. EDI
JOHN FR;
HON. WE
H0N. J. 1
H0N. PE!

N- 0. KIM
VERA Em
WILLIAM
A‘NNA M;
NANCY c;
W’IIMA G
SUSAN L]

  

 IN

DUGAN, DAWSON D., Senior Counselor, Ashland
HEATH, FLEN-O-R M.. Senior :Counselor, Somerset
STOTT, ARCHIE K., Senior Counselor, Ashland
GRESCHEL, HARRY T., Senior Counselor, Louisville
LAWRENCE, ROBERT, Senior Counselor, Covington
MASON, GEORGE, Senior Counselor, Paintsville
TRAYLOR, ROBERT E., Senior Counselor, Madisonville
YOUNG, WILL, Senior Counselor, Paducah

BASKETT, BESSIE, Counselor, Bowling Green
BURKHART, JOHN M.. Senior Counselor, Harlan
FORMAN, RUTH, Counselor, Lexington

VOOR, JOHN B., Placement Representative, Lexington
WILSON, WILLIAM E., Senior Counselor, Louisville
JONES, HOWARD P., Disability Determiner \(OASI)
RAMSEY, DR. JAMES T., Medical Consultant (OASI)

CLERICAL ASSISTANTS (STATE OFFICE)

Adams, Barbara
Anglin, Martha
Baker, Virgilene
Brawner, Edith
Burke. Joan
Campbell, Mary
Campbell, Willena
Catlett, Ellis Mae
Caudill. Helen
Church. Helen
Clasby, Alice
Clifton, Frances
Davis, Sarah L.
Dawkins, Helen
DeMoss, Clara
Figg, Leoma
Goins, Eloise
Gorman, Polly
Graybeal, Barbara
Grugin, Betty
Green, Louise

Henry, Edna
Hill, Edna Jo
Hodgkin, Mildred
Johnson. Florence
Johnson, Lois
Johnson, Vivian
Jones, Barbara
Jones, Emily
Jones, Jessie
Kagin, Elizabeth
Kagin, Emily
Kershaw, vClara
Lane, Emily
Lauthner, Letty
Logan, Marie
Luckett, Christine
McDaniel, Ruth
Mefford, Ruby
Moore, Wanda
Moss, Helen

MISCELLANEOUS

Norman, Dorothy
O‘Donoghue. Ceil
Parker. George Ella
Parker, Pettit
Parker, Shirley
Pattie, Helen
Phillips, June
Quisenberry, Alberta
Rodgers, Elois
Shaw. Marie
Slucher, Alma Jean
Sims, Myrtle E.
Strassner, Josephine
Stucker, Emma H.
Thomas, Tacie
Tomlinson, Rose
Tune. Jo Wanda
Wade, Elandor M.
Walters, Grace T.
Webster. Lillian
Wilson, Gladys

Atwell, Hugh C., Maintenance Man

Baxter, Junius, Storekeeper

Bradshaw, Lucian, Messenger

Craig, Robert F., Truck Driver

Howard, Edward B., Truck Driver

Hulker, Roy, Dup. Equipment Operator

Shy, Henry, Dup. Equipment Operator

Warfield, Clarence, Automotive Mechanic

NOTE: Personnel has been listed as of October 1, 1955. The personnel for the biennium

can be obtained from the Kentucky Public School Directories for the different
school years.

TEACHERS’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE STATE OF KENTUCKY
FRANKFORT

L. C CU ' Board of Trustees
WILLIA RRY, Chairman, Bowling Green

M S. MILBURN, Vice Chairman, Louisville
Jolt; gDNa EARLE LINDLE, Henderson
HON WEED WILLIAMS. Ashland _

HON. JENDELIL P. BUTLLER, Superintendent of Public Instruction. Frankfort
HON. . D. BUCKMAN, JR., Attorney General, Frankfort
- PEARL F. RUNYON, State Treasurer, Frankfort

Personnel
SEISAKBEC R. Executive Secretary
WILLIA KHAM, Assistant Secretary
ANNA M RAY HOLT, Accountant
MAE CONNELLY SHIRLEY LUTKEMEIER

NAN JEAN PULLIAM
CY G. cosay ALEAN MCDONALD

WILMA L. SHRYO CK

WILD/IA GAINES
SUSAN LEATHERS

HELEN MEADE
MARGARET NESSELRODE

DORIS W. WARD
DOROTHY L. WOOD

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

To the Governor and
the General Assembly
Commonwealth of Kentucky

Pursuant to the provisions of Sections 57.140 and 156.250, and
upon the order of the State Board of Education, herewith is sub-
mitted the Biennial Report of the State Board of Education, pre-
pared by the Superintendent of Public Instruction, for the bi-
ennium ending June 30, 1955.

Part I of this report constitutes the Report of the Superintendent
of Public Instruction and his stall of the Department of Education,
while Part II is made up of statistical information and data relating
to personnel, finance and school population for the state and the
separate school districts.

Your attention is invited especially to the introductory section Of
the Report, in which the major educational achievements of this
administration are summarized and evaluated and . . including
recommendations for the improvement of the schools.”

Respectfully submitted,

WENDELL P. BUTLER .
Superintendent of Public InstructhIl

 

  

Section

Ge:

Section

N01

Section
Bu]

Section
Bur

Section

  

Bur

 :50, and
1 is sub-
,on, pre-

the bi-

itendent
ucation,
relating
and the

ction of
l of this
icluding

truction

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Organization of the Department of Education
Letter of Transmittal

 

 

 

Part I

Page
Section One .................. 251
General Statements and Teachers’ Retirement System .................. 258
A. Superintendent Discusses Major Achievements ...................... 251
B. Teachers’ Retirement System ..................................................... 262
Section Two _. ________________________________ 267
Non—Bureau Divisions _ ....267
A. Division of School Law .............................................................. 268
13. Division of School Buildings and Grounds ........................... 268
C. Division of Property Utilization .............................................. 270

Section Three _________

 

 

Bureau of Instruction ____________________________ _ ____________________________ . ................

  
 
 
   

   

 

 

   

 

 

 
 

 

   
 

A. Supervision .......................................... 271
1. Elementary Schools ............................................. ..273
2. High Schools ............................................................. . .. ..274
3. Negro Education ________________________ ' ...276
4. In—Service Teacher Training ______________________________________________ 277
5. Library Services .................................................................... 278
B. Division of Teacher Education and Certification. ...280
0 Division of Free Textbooks ......................................................... 288
13- Division of Education for Handicapped Children ................ 292
E. Division of Health, Safety, and Physical Education... ...296
F. Division of Moral and Spiritual Education .......................... 297
SeCtion Four __ _______________________________________ 300
Bureau Of Vocational Education ................................................. ..300
A. Division of Agricultural Education ..... ..301
13- Division of Home Economics Education .................................. 302
C. Division of Trade and Industrial and Distributive

Education ..................... 304
1- Mayo State Vocational School .............................................. 306

2. Northern Kentucky State Vocational School .. ..
3. West Kentucky Vocational School ...................................... 309
13- DiViSion of School Lunch .......................................................... 311
E. Division of Vocational Rehabilitation ..312
F- Division of Education for Veterans .......................................... 315
G- Kentucky School for the Blind .................................................. 317
Section Five 319
Bureau of Administration and Finance .................................................. 319
A- Division of Pupil Transportation ............................... 319
13- DiViSion of Census and Attendance .............................. 321
0- Division of Local School District Finance .................. 337
1. Financial Statements ........... 341

 

1 Summary of Financial Reports .......................................... 356

 

 

  

 

 

 

Part II

Page

Statistical Tables

Tables Concerning Enrollment, Memberships, Census, High
School Graduates, Attendance and Teaching Personnel .............. 364
General School Statistics “€64
Financial Reports for School Districts of Each Year of
the Biennium ..

 

 

 Page

......... 364
......... 364

......... 400

REPORT OF THE
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

 

 

  

 

 

  

SECTION ONE

A. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
DISCUSSES MAJOR ACHIEVEMENTS IN KENTUCKY EDUCATION
INTRODUCTION

Detailed accounts of accomplishments and progress made by the
various services within the State Department of Education are set out
elsewhere in this report. The purposes of this section, therefore, are to
focus attention primarily upon the major achievements, and to give a
composite View of educational progress from the perspective of the
State Superintendent.

Since the beginning of an original system of education in Kentucky
rather steady growth and progress toward an improved quality of in-
struction can be cited. Almost every administration has developed a
quality of program above that of the preceding administration, some of
Which may have been of small immediate import, yet each has added
step upon small step in the incline toward the summit. Others Of these
stand out boldly to characteristically mark the leadership of certain ad—
ministrations.

For example, the administration of Dr. Robert J. Breckinridge, 1847—
1851, marks the real beginning of the state system of free public education.
Public education for Negroes was first provided by Act of 1866 through
the leadership of Dr. Daniel Stevenson, Superintendent, 1863-1867. Due
to the foresight and leadership of Superintendent Zachary F. Smith, 1868-
1371, the people voted overwhelming in 1869 to raise the state school levy
from SC to 20¢ per $100 of asssesed valuation. The first legislation re-
quiring each county to establish a high school was enacted during the
administration of John G. Crabbe, 1907-1909. One of the most significant
pieces of school legislation within the history of Kentucky education was
the enactment of the new “School Code” by the 1934 Legislature upon
the recommendation of Superintendent James H. Richmond, 1932-1936.
Legislation establishing the framework for the present Teachers’ Retire—
ment System was enacted by the Extraordinary Session of the Legislature
during the administration of Harry W. Peters, 1936-1940. The adminis-
tration of Superintendent Boswell B. Hodgkin, 1948—1952, is outstanding
for the reforms and advances in local and state fiscal administration. The
administration of the incumbent Superintendent will, perhaps, be notable
for the Foundation Program of Education.

In future years the history of Kentucky education will record no
educational milestone of greater significance by comparison than that of
the Foundation Program of Education which was enacted into law by the
1954 Session 0f the General Assembly. This Law will rank among the
most important and progressive pieces of school legislation which has ever
been enacted by any Kentucky Legislature. Because of the great signifi-
cance of the popular movement which secured the Foundation Program
“Education for Kentucky’s children, and because of the importance of
thls program for the future of Kentucky, some of the major events in its
Fonception, development, and achievement are here described. Its history,
Its Present status, and its great promise for the future, altogether, comprlse
a Story which every Kentuckian should know.

251

 

 

 

  

 

 

THE PAST

Since the adoption of the State Constitution of 1892 there have been
two important Constitutional provisions applicable to public education.
Section 183 provided that “The General Assembly shall, by appropriate
legislation, provide for an efficient system of common schools throughout

the State.” Section 186 originally provided that “. . . . each county in the
Commonwealth shall be entitled to its proportion of the school fund on
its census of pupil children for each school year. . . .” After two previous
amendments Section 186 still provided that “. . . . each school district

in the Commonwealth shall receive on a census pupil basis its propor-
tionate part of at least seventy—five percent of any fund accruing to the
school fund.” While Section 183 provided for an efficient system of edu-
cation, Section 186, in actuality, made the accomplishment of this rela-
tively impossible. Various attempts. were made to remedy the limiting
provisions of Section 186 and to more effectively establish the provisions
of Section 183. More than sixty years were to intervene, however, before
decisive action was taken making it possible for Kentucky to actually
have what is provided by Section 183.

In 1952 every school district in the state was beset by numerous
pressing problems. Enrollments had greatly increased. School buildings
were run down and there was not enough of them. One—fourth of the
teachers were not qualified to meet certification standards. There were
2,600 one-room schools, and transportation was inadequate and unsafe.
These were not new problems in 1952: they were the perennials of a long
period before. Valiant efforts had been made. both locally and by the
state, to correct these poor conditions. Some progress had been made
through improved taxing ability of the local district, increased per capita
distribution from the state, equalization funds for the poorer districts,
and a special voted tax for building purposes. But all of these, vitally
helpful though they were, in the long run were only new patches upon 01d
garments. So long as Section 186 of the Kentucky Constitution remaiIIEd
unchanged no sound remedy for the ills of Kentucky education could be
prescribed. This constitutional provision continuously aggravated and
intensified the state’s educational ills and no permanent relief was pos-
sible so long as it remained unchanged.

The first step in removing this roadblock to educational improvement
was taken by the 1952 Session of the General Assembly when it authorized
a proposed amendment to Section 186 of the Constitution. The proposed
revision provided that the Legislature, by general law, determine the
method of distributing the State school fund, to replace the Old census
pupil basis of distribution as had been required. This revision was de-
signed to remove the old inequities and inequalities among the severél
school districts and to allow distribution of state school funds on the 133515
of need.

F0110Wing upon the proposal of the 1952 Legislature to amend Section
186, the Legislative Research Commission was requested to study the
educational needs of the state. In carrying out this study the Legislative
Research Commission proposed a survey to be conducted throughout the
state to learn what the people wanted in an educational program for their
children. To assist in this survey a State Advisory Committee on Edu‘
cational Policy was appointed. The committee’s purpose was to “deter-
mine what the people want and report accordingly” to the Legislative Re-
search Commission. To carry out this purpose the Committee requested

252

     

the L:
missic
The I
exten:

U
tive I
mittee
Altog<
tionna
childr
were
TUCK
the re.
possib
bullet:
forma
posed
of 1951
A:
resear
and pi
develo
Appro
the pe
realize
childrt
read.
clear 1'
their c
gave 1
hearte
ments
Put ini
the sta
by the
T1".
sands (
by the
Researi
the pn
most 0
nation
of Cali
Haskex
gram 1
were 11
Cators,
at the
visions
WI
Conside
by sixt;
0f the (

  

 re been
leation.
opriate
ughout
’ in the
und on
revious
district
)ropor-
to the
3f edu-
s rela-
imiting
visions
before
ctually

nerous
ildings
of the
e were
unsafe.
a long
by the
made
capita
stricts,
vitally
)on old
nained
uld be
ad and
1S 1305‘

rement
Lorized
Oposed
me the
census
as de-
;everal
e basis

iection
1y the
slative
tut the
1' their
1 Edu-
‘deter-
ve Re-
uested

the Lieutenant Governor, as chairman of the Legislative Research Com-
mission, to appoint a local Advisory Committee in each school district.
The Lieutenant Governor graciously complied with this request, and an
extensive grass roots study of education was begun.

Using a series of questionnaires designed by the staff of the Legisla—
tive Research Commission, the members of the Local Advisory Com-
mittees worked with the people in every school community in the state.
Altogether, 20,000 people expressed their opinions by means of the ques-
tionnaires on the kind of school program which they wanted for their
children. These opinions were compiled and analyzed and the findings
were reported in the Legislative Research Commission bulletin, KEN-
TUCKY’S EDUCATIONAL PUZZLE. A very significant conclusion from
the results of the survey was that no sound foundation for education was
possible until Section 186 was amended. Thousands of copies of these
bulletins were distributed to the people to provide them with sound in-
formation upon which to form intelligent decisions respecting the pro-
posed amendment of Section 186 to be voted upon in the General Election
of 1953.

After a thorough study of the data of this report, examination of other
research findings and consideration of successful educational programs
and practices in operation in other states, the State Advisory Committee
developed a Proposed Foundation Program for Education in Kentucky.
Approximately 45,000 copies of this proposed program were distributed to
the people for study. When the people were given the facts they came to
realize that the kind of educational program which they wanted for their
children was not possible under Section 186 of the Constitution as it then
read. So, on November 3, 1953, they voted three to one to amend it—a
Clear indication that the people wanted better educational services for
their children. By the overwhelming vete of approval which the people
gave to the proposed constitutional amendment they indicated, whole-
heartedly, their desire for a plan for education which embodied the ele-
ments of the Proposed Foundation Program for Education which had been
Put into their hands. The task then fell to the educational leadership of
the state to prepare a Foundation Program Law and secure its enactment
by the next Legislature.

The Law, as it was finally written, represents the thinking of thou-
sands of people. Its major provisions are founded upon the standards set
by the People as determined from the survey conducted by the Legislative
Research Commission. These standards were refined and supplemented by
the Professional knowledge of Kentucky’s educational leaders. Then the
most outstanding authorities on foundation programs of education in the
nation were brought to Kentucky: Dr. Edgar Morphet, of the University
Of California; Dr. R. L. Johns, of the University of Florida, and Dr. L. D.
Haskew, 0f the University of Texas, helped to write the Foundation Pro-
gram Law. After the initial drafting of the Law, a series of meetings
Were held to seek further advice and help from both laymen and edu-
cators. Great care was taken to make the Law educationally sound and
3? the Same time to prevent any district from being harmed by its pro-

lSlOI'ls.

When the preposed measure was submitted to the Legislature for its
c0118.1deration, its reception there was so favorable that the bill was signed

y SIXtY-six Representatives as its sponsors. State-wide sentiment in favor
0f the educational program embodied in the bill was further made evident

253

 

 

 

  

 

 

by the vote upon it. When it was put to the House for final vote there
were only four dissenting votes and in the Senate only one. Thus it was
that an idea for better schools became the Law of the Commonwealth.

Throughout this long campaign, which had begun with the inaugura-
tion of this administration in January 1952, the leadership of the State
Department of Education was consistently supported by the Kentucky
Education Association and its affiliated organizations, the Kentucky Con-
gress of Parents and Teachers including district and local associations,
the Kentucky School Boards’ Association, the Kentucky Council for Edu-
cation, and numerous other professional and lay organizations. Following
enactment of the Foundation Program Law, a second phase of the cam-
paign was begun to acquaint the people with the program and to secure
its full financing in 1956. In this second phase, which still continues,
the support and cooperation of these organizations continues strong and
enthusiastic.

THE PRESENT

What is the status of the Foundation Program for Education today—-
nearly two years after it was enacted into law?

When the 1954 Legislature passed the Foundation Program Law it did
not appropriate sufficient funds to finance the program. The amount ap-
propriated was approximately seventy percent of that needed for each
year of the biennium. Nevertheless, the Foundation Program was put
into effect at the beginning of the 1954—55 school year to the extent pos—
sible with this limited appropriation. Unfortunately, this partial financ-
ing has made it impossible to deliver many of the improved services
provided for in the Law, and since the available funds had to be allotted
on the foundation principle of giving help where the need is greatest, 78
of the wealthier districts, out of the total of 224, could not qualify on
the basis of need for participation in the allotments. Despite the restric-
tions necessarily imposed by the seventy percent level of financing, 1.29
districts have received more funds under the Foundation Program in Its
two years of operation than they were receiving under the old method of
distributing state funds.

What improvements has the Foundation Program brought to the 10631
district—though financed to only seventy percent of the need?

The Foundation Program is a financial partnership between the state
and the local district. In meeting the requirements of this arrangement
there has been a marked improvement in local financial efforts. If!
1954-55 local school revenue increased $3,300,000 over 1953—54 and an esti-
mate based on information on local assessments furnished by the D?‘
partment of Revenue indicates that local school revenue for 1955-56 W111
be $3,400,000 above the 1954—55 figure. From the state level the Founda-
tion Program has made possible a more equitable distribution of state
funds: the funds go where there is the greatest need and the least financla1
ability in relation to need.

Since state funds are now distributed on the basis of the number 0f
pupils in Average Daily Attendance, rather than on the number of census
pupils, the number of children who are actually in school—not just on the
census—has shown a significant gain. In the two years of partial opera-
tion under the Foundation Program, the Average Daily Attendance for
the state has increased by 5.9 percent.

The training of certificated teachers has improved and there are
fewer emergency teachers. This trend will, without doubt, continue be-

254

4* “Y

    

cause
impro‘
Cc
fied te
instru<
structi

rooms,
all add

Se
improx
crease<
tated s
render
dation
area of
towarc'
progra
need, a
come '
leaders

Th
educati
state 0
cooper:
the otl
before

Th
tion Pr
of teac]
Creasin
people
facilitis

Th
come ii
at only
Furthei
tion of
to raise
also, in
first tir
of the ‘
lawmal
one hui

As
stitutiOJ
0f Comr
t0 fully
will be
more ft
Will the
childrer

  

 te there
5 it was
:alth.

augura-
1e State
entucky
ky Con-
:iations,
or Edu-
)llowing
1e cam-
) secure
ntinues,
)ng and

today—-

W it did
>unt ap-
or each
was put
ant pos-
financ-
services
allotted
atest, 78
alify on
restric-
ing, 129
n in its
3th0d of

he local

he state
igement
rts. In
an esti-
the De—
-56 will
Tounda-
of state
inancial

mber of
E census
t on the
1 opera-
tnce for

.ere are
nue be-

.‘Y

t

l

cause the Foundation Program offers the incentive of increased pay for
improved training.

Coupled with the facts of more children in school, and better quali-
fied teachers to instruct them, is an improved program of supervision of
instruction by principals and supervisors. These together, plus more in-
structional supplies, plus more library facilities, plus more modern class-
rooms, and with closer cooperation between state and local administrators
all add up to an improved instructional program for the children.

Services from the State Department of Education have increased and
improved since the inauguration of the Foundation Program. The in-
creased demand for services and assistance to local schools has necessi-
tated some functional reorganization within the Department in order to
render more effective help with local school problems. Since the Foun—
dation Program centers all efforts on improving classroom instruction the
area of emphasis in the Department’s program has been essentially shifted
toward those divisions whose functions directly serve the instructional
program. However, when the program is financed to the extent of the
need, and thus has gotten into full operation, its success for sometime to
Come will be even more dependent upon the quality of professional
leadership provided by the State Department of Education.

There is, today, a greater knowledge and a better comprehension of
educational needs and problems by teachers, administrators, laymen, and
state officials than has been for many years. This has brought closer
cooperation among all of these people and a growing respect of each for
the others. The teaching profession is more closely united than ever
before and there is marked improvement in teacher morale.

. The institutions of higher education have benefited from the Founda—
tion Program through increased enrollments, particularly in the programs
of teacher training. It is a sound prediction that this will continue as in-
creasing numbers of teachers seek further training and as more young
people are attracted to teaching by the higher salaries and improved
facilities provided under the Foundation Program.

These improvements in Kentucky’s educational program which have
00me in two years of operation under the Foundation Program—financed
at only seventy percent of need—testify to the soundness of the Law.
EUFther, they have brought to the people a realization of the true condi-
tlon of the schools, and have developed a sentiment and a determination
to raise the educational level of the State. This sentiment has reached
3.150, into the political parties and into the halls of government. For the
flrSt time within the span of memory, the convening of the 1956 Session
0f the General Assembly will find the Governor and a majority of the
1Ean‘lakers already committed to financing the educational program to
one hundred percent of the need.

KENTUCKY’S SCHOOLS LOOK AHEAD

_ A's Was stated earlier in this discussion, Section 183 of the State Con-
stitution directs the Legislature to “. . . . provide for an efficient system
ff common schools throughout the state.” When the 1956 Legislature acts
O'fUIly finance the Foundation Program of Education for Kentucky it
Will be providing that which is envisioned in this constitutional directive
mer