A survey of the educational system of the Philippine islands by the Board of educational survey, created under acts 3162 and 3196 of the Philippine Legislature.

528 EDUCATIONAL SURVEY OF THE PHILIPPINES

TABLE 61. AMOUNTS AND PERCENTAGES OF EXPENDITURES FOR THE GENERAL OFFICE
OF THE BUREAU OF EDUCATION AS RELATED TO TOTAL GOVERNMENTAL EXPENDITURES FOR EDUCATION, 1913, 1918, 1923
[Source: Annual Reports, Bureau of Education]
1913 1918 1923
Total governmental expenditures for education........... 17,146,802 P9,659,306 P23,587,101
Expenditures of general office of Bureau of Education.... 341,094 310,540 309,858
Total governmental expenditures for education.......... 100% 100% 100%
Expenditures of general office of Bureau of Education.... 4.77 3.21 1.31
Total governmental expenditures for education increased 200 per
cent in the ten years from 1913 to 1923. The support of school administration in the same interval actually declined. During the period
the Philippine school system expanded more than 100 per cent, 3,000
new schools were opened, 500,000 more pupils were enrolled, 15,000
teachers were added to the system, 4,000 new buildings were built, and
expenditures multiplied threefold. In spite of such an "astonishing
expansion the planning and directive organization responsible for keeping this great machine efficiently going was actually cut down in personnel and general facilities. In 1913 the Philippine Legislature devoted 4.77 per cent of its educational expenditures to general
administration, a proportion fairly commensurate with that determined
by best practices in America. In 1923 it was devoting to administration only 1.13 per cent.
The shortsightedness of this policy of restricting a school system at
the top is perfectly clear. It stands out nowhere more clearly than
in the glaring inadequacy of the several divisions of the general office.
Consider what is happening to the Academic Division, the very crux of
the administrative machine. The organization diagram of the Bureau of Education reveals a professional personnel composed of one
chief, one assistant chief, and two chiefs of sections. Analysis of both
the existing personnel and of the activities which should be carried
on in the division shows how very inadequate is the former to do work
of a large school system. There should be, for example, a permanently
employed specialist and section on curriculum reconstruction. There
is none. There should be a superintendent of secondary education with
an efficient planning and supervisory personnel. There is none. There
should be a large section devoting all its energies to the building up
and maintaining of efficient primary education. There should be a
specialist and assistants devoting full time to the problem of child
accounting, conducting studies of age-grade distribution, failures, promotions, elimination, and retardation. There is none now. There