ents were excused from visiting schools when a supervising principal was employed.[1]
This proposal failed, however, to become a law, and in its stead there was passed in 1912 a law which separated the office in all counties and fixed a schedule of pay for the school superintendents. The 14 counties of the State were divided into 14 classes and payment allowed the county school superintendents as follows:[2]
| Class. | Counties. | Population. | Pay. | Extra allowance for traveling expenses. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Maricopa | 35,000 and over | $2,400 | [Table 1] |
| 2 | Cochise | 25,000 to 35,000 | 2,400 | $250 |
| 3 | Pima | 20,000 to 25,000 | 1,500 | [Table 2] |
| 4 | Yavapai | 16,000 to 20,000 | 2,000 | 250 |
| 5 | Greenlee | 15,000 to 16,000 | 1,800 | [Table 3] |
| 6 | Gila | 10,000 to 15,000 | 2,000 | 300 |
| 7 | Graham | 8,000 to 10,000 | 1,200 | 150 |
| 8 | Yuma | 7,500 to 8,000 | 1,800 | [Table 2] |
| 9 | Santa Cruz | 7,000 to 7,500 | 600 | 250 |
| 10 | Pinal | 6,500 to 7,000 | 1,500 | 250 |
| 11 | Navajo | 6,000 to 6,500 | 1,400 | [Table 2] |
| 12 | Coconino | 5,500 to 6,000 | 1,500 | [Table 2] |
| 13 | Mohave | 4,000 to 5,500 | 900 | 250 |
| 14 | Apache | Less than 4,000 | 1,000 | 250 |
II. ARIZONA TEACHERS’ ASSOCIATION.
The Arizona Teachers’ Association, dates from December 23, 1892. It was first organized at Phoenix during the administration of Supt. Netherton, and because of lack of members usually met with one of the county institutes, as their objects were substantially similar. This continued until 1910, when it held its nineteenth annual meeting jointly with the county institute at Douglas. It was estimated that 300 teachers were in attendance at that session, and an interesting program was offered. The principal teachers were from other States, and presented educational doctrines that were “practical, interesting, and suited to the needs of the teachers,” or were “wholesome, uplifting, and instructive.” But one paper, entitled “Attic Treasures,” served to enliven the meeting. This was a caustic criticism of the schools and their present-day methods, a spectacular and impassioned plea against the “more tawdry and showy gargoyles of modern schoolroom practice.” It was not pleasing to the leaders. An editorial in the Arizona Journal of Education serves to illustrate the attitude of the various types of teachers. This was the last meeting in which the teachers’ association and the county institutes met in joint session.
