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.

GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 543
for, the laws and regulations are obeyed. Judged on such inspection
work, in comparison with the American states, the central office will
rank high.
The records and correspondence at headquarters show the completeness with which inspection is carried out. Moreover, the present Director has made inspection and supervision much more extensive. He
has reduced the number of provinces not visited in any one year from
thirty-two in 1919-1920 to two in 1923-1924. He has also increased
the number of provinces visited by each inspector, himself taking a heavy
part of the load. There is, however, an inequality of inspection among
provinces which need to be watched closely, as may be seen from
Table 63.
TABLE 63.-NUMBER OF SEPARATE INSPECTIONS PER DIVISION FOR THE FIVE YEARS,
1919-20 TO 1923-24, COMBINED
[Each separate visit to the province of an inspector counts one inspection but visits to
particular schools only are not counted]
Number of Number of
Provinces receiving inspection times Provinces receiving inspection times
inspected inspected
La Union and Tarlac.............. 13 Bohol, Manila, Occidental Negros,
Cebu and Nueva Ecija............ 12 Sorsogon, and Cotabato......... 5
Pampanga and Pangasinan......... 11 Bataan, Marinduque, Mountain,
Iloilo............................. 10 Nueva Vizcaya, Oriental Negros,
Ilocos Norte, Ilocos Sur, and Samar, and Sulu...............4
Laguna......................... 9 Cagayan, Isabela, Mindoro, PalaCavite and Rizal.................. 8 wan, Surigao, Zambales, Agusan,
Abra, Batangas, Bulacan, Camarines Bukidnon, Davao, and Lanao.... 3
Sur, Capiz, Tayabas, and Zam- Antique and Camarines Norte..... 2
boanga......................... 7 M asbate.........................1
Albay, Leyte, Misamis, and Romblon. 6 Batanes.........................
The absence of technicians in the central-office staff has caused the
inspectional nature of these visits to be emphasized at the expense of
the supervisory. The nature of reports of field visits written by persons
from the central office clearly indicates the inspectional point of view.
Attention tends to be centered upon the minutia of management. There
is little evidence that the larger problems of the school system, such
problems as those of instruction and of success of instruction, of adequacy of the curriculum to meet social needs, are prominent in the
minds of central office visitors to schools. The effect of this upon the
field supervisory force, and upon the schools is discussed elsewhere
in the report. The outstanding weakness of the Bureau is in this
particular. For lack of sufficient funds to pay them, the office has not
on its staff the people who should be attacking the fundamental technical problems of Philippine education. But the Bureau does its
purely managerial work well.