A study to develop a cost-of-living index for selected school districts in the State of Kentucky

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
A study to develop a cost-of-living index for selected school districts in the State of Kentucky
Physical Description:
viii, 209 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Hagler, Thomas Evans, 1941-
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Cost and standard of living -- Kentucky   ( lcsh )
Teachers -- Salaries, etc   ( lcsh )
School districts -- Finance -- Kentucky   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 201-208).
Statement of Responsibility:
by Thomas Evans Hagler.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 000163569
notis - AAS9926
oclc - 02754488
System ID:
AA00003935:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text











A STUDY TO DEVELOP A COST-OF-LIVING INDEX FOR
SELECTED SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN THE STATE OF KENTUCKY











By










THOMAS EVANS HAGLER


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY




UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1975














ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


The writer wishes to express his appreciation to a variety of indi-

viduals who have provided advice and assistance throughout the study.

This support was absolutely essential to the completion of the study.

A special note of appreciation is expressed to Dr. Kern Alexander,

Chairman, who provided guidance and support through the various phases

of the study. In addition, appreciation is also extended to Dr. K.

Forbis Jordan, Dr. James L. Wattenbarger, Dr. Ralph Kimbrough, and Dr.

Irving Goffman for their assistance during the study. The writer is

especially indebted to Dr. R. L. Johns for providing the dissertation

topic and for his special counsel during various phases of the study.

The writer would particularly like to express his gratitude to var-

ious members of the Kentucky Department of Education and to the 17 local

District Superintendents for their assistance in the study. Mr. James

Melton, Assistant Superintendent for Administration and Finance, Ken-

tucky Department of Education, was extremely helpful in providing advice

and support throughout the study. Mr. Wendell McCourt, Division of Sta-

tistical Services, Mr. Darrell Boggs, Division of Finance, and Mr. Gary

Smith and Mr. Don Alley, Division of Computer Services, also provided

valuable assistance by supplying the writer with essential data. In

addition, the writer would like to note the support provided by Miss

Charlotte Kinney and Mrs. Wanda Hammond.

Acknowledgment is also noted to Mr. Charles Whaley, Kentucky Edu-

cation Association for his support in the study. Appreciation is also









offered to Ms. Ramona Warrington for the time spent in typing the

dissertation.

Finally, the writer expresses his gratitude to his wife Judy, and

daughter Jill, for their encouragement and understanding during this

endeavor.













TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page


Chapter


I. INTRODUCTION . . .


The Problem . .
Justification for the Study .
Definition of Terms .
Procedures . .
Organization of the Research Report


II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE. . ... 15

Definitions of Cost-of-Living and
Standard-of-Living . ... .15
A Brief History of Cost and Standard-
of-Living Studies. . ... 23
The Consumer Price Index. . ... .26
Cost and Standard-of-Living Studies
and Teacher Salaries ..... .. ....... .31
Cost-of-Living Studies Involving
the Single Teacher . 40
Recent Developments in the Area of
Cost-of-Living .. .... .44

III. INSTRUMENTS FOR MEASURE . ... .51

Food Pricing Instrument . ... .52
Questionnaire . .... 53

IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA .. .58


Districts . .
Food . .
Standard-of-Living . .
Shelter . .
Transportation . .
Summary . .

V. COST-OF-LIVING INDEX AND THE COMPARISON
OF COST DATA WITH WEALTH .

Cost-of-Living Index . .
Comparison of Wealth to Cost Indexes..
Summary . .


104

104
142
150











Chapter

VI.


Page


SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS


FOR FURTHER STUDY. .

lary . .


Conclusions .
Recommendations for Further

Appendix A . .

Appendix B . .

Appendix C . .

Appendix D . .

Appendix E . .

Appendix F . .

Appendix G . .

Appendix H .. .

Appendix I . .

Appendix J . .

Appendix K . .

References . .


Summ


Biographical Sketch .


Study

. .

. .

* .

. .

. .

. .

* .

* .

. .

* .

* .


. . 153


153
156
156

158

160

162

165

168

171

173

175

177

180

198

200














Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate
Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


A STUDY TO DEVELOP A COST-OF-LIVING INDEX FOR
SELECTED SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN THE STATE OF KENTUCKY


By

Thomas Evans Hagler

June, 1975


Chairman: Professor S. Kern Alexander
Major Department: Educational Administration


The purpose of this study was twofold: First, to determine wheth-

er cost-of-living differences existed for single public school teachers

in 17 school districts in the state of Kentucky. Second, if cost-of-

living differences existed, an index would be developed for each of the

17 school districts, based on the data collected.

To determine the existence of cost-of-living differences in Ken-

tucky, a total of 17 county school districts were selected on a geographi-

cal basis. To document and verify cost-of-living differences in the 17

districts, a select population composed of single teachers making a com-

parable salary, living away from home, and with no dependents, were sel-

ected for the study. Cost information on 27 food, shelter, and transpor-

tation items were collected for the select population of teachers in

each district. In addition, data were also collected relevant to the

standard-of-living for the single teachers in the 17 districts. The









cost-of-living data were contrasted with the standard-of-living informa-

tion collected. Also, the cost data were contrasted between districts

with high and low assessed valuation per pupil figures.

Tabulation and analysis of the data, relevant to the cost-of-living,

resulted in the following findings:

1. A difference in food costs was observed in the 17 districts.

There was a $3.35 difference in food costs between the high-

est and lowest districts for the 19 item market basket.

2. There was a notable difference in the standard-of-living among

the 17 school districts. Teachers in the low wealth districts

tended to own their shelter, while most teachers in the high

wealth districts rented their shelter. Statewide, 71 percent

of the respondents rented their shelter. Teachers in high

wealth districts tended to possess better quality shelters

(central air/heating) than teachers in low wealth districts.

Teachers in low wealth districts had to drive farther for

certain services and conveniences than teachers in high wealth

districts.

3. A difference in shelter costs for home owners was discovered

among respondents in the 17 school districts. For home owners,

the high wealth districts paid $37.13 more per month than low

wealth districts.

4. A difference in shelter costs for renters was discovered among

respondents in the 17 school districts. For renters, the high

wealth districts paid $83.50 more per month than low wealth

districts.


vii









5. Over 96 percent of the respondents in the 17 districts owned

their own cars. Teachers in the five low wealth districts

paid more for gasoline per gallon, but had to drive only three

miles to work (one way) compared to five miles for teachers

in the five high wealth districts.

6. The five high wealth districts consistently ranked higher,

in terms of food, shelter, and transportation costs, than the

five low wealth districts for the three cost-of-living com-

ponents used in the study.

7. The standard-of-living for selected items was noticeably low-

er for the low wealth districts, than for the high wealth

districts.

The findings of this study suggest the following conclusions:

1. The cost-of-living for the 27 food, shelter, and transporta-

tion items used in this study differed among the 17 county

school districts in the state of Kentucky.

2. To accurately determine cost-of-living variations, a full

study of all districts would be required.

3. Neither personal income nor property wealth can be considered

as proxies for cost-of-living.


viii














CHAPTER I


INTRODUCTION


The purpose of this study was to determine whether cost-of-living

differences existed for single (unmarried) public school teachers in

selected school districts in the state of Kentucky and to develop a

cost-of-living index based on these differences.

During the past ten years a great deal of progress was made toward

the goal of equal educational opportunity. Years of research and some

historical legal contests have demonstrated the existence of variations

in wealth and educational need among districts and states. Because of

these variations many lawsuits have been lodged against states, chal-

lenging the constitutionality of state school finance systems. As a

result of these legal battles many states have moved toward more equi-

table methods of distributing school funds.

Most of the lawsuits, in recent years, have centered around the un-

equal distribution of property wealth within a state, resulting in un-

equal educational programs among districts, while other lawsuits chal-

lenged the variations in educational need among different types of stu-

dents which are not recognized by most state school finance systems.

During the past five years increasing attention was focused on the

problem of variations among school districts in the cost of delivering

comparable educational services and facilities. Here the concern is

with variations in the cost of personnel, facilities, services, and









equipment, which might have arisen as a result of differences among dis-

tricts in transportation, sparsity and density of population, geography,

attractiveness of living conditions, lack of skilled labor, crime, cost-

of-living differences, and other factors. Due to the possible existence

of these variations in the cost-of-living, geography, living conditions,

and other factors, many districts were unable to maintain comparable

educational services.

The main thrust of the study will be to investigate one phase of

the problem, namely, cost-of-living differences among certain school

districts in Kentucky.


The Problem


Statement of the Problem

The problem of this study was twofold: First, to determine whether

cost-of-living differences existed for selected teachers in 17 public

school districts in the state of Kentucky; second, if cost-of-living dif-

ferences existed in index would be developed for each of the 17 school

districts based on the data collected.


Delimitations

The following are delimitations of the study:

1. The cost-of-living index was confined to information developed

from three cost-of-living components used by the Bureau of

Labor Statistics.

2. The study was restricted to one state, Kentucky.


Limitations

1. The questionnaire used in the study had no established

validity.









2. The usual procedure in studying a particular population is to

randomly select a sample which would be representative of the

total population. However, for purposes of this study, wide

differences in district size and geographic conditions were

desired. Therefore, the 17 school districts were selected

on the basis of the Kentucky Education Development Regions

(KEDR) to assure that all geographic areas of Kentucky were

represented. The districts selected included both large and

small (student population), rich and poor (property wealth)

school districts. Since the original sample of districts

was carefully selected to include these factors, the data ob-

tained would have some important state-wide implications. How-

ever, the data would not be generalizable to all districts.

3. The study was limited to data available on the select popula-

tion in the 17 districts.


Justification for the Study

The primary justification for this study was that it would contri-

bute to an advancement in knowledge of public school finance. An in-

vestigation of factors involved in these cost variations was needed

since little research had been conducted on variations among school dis-

tricts in the cost of delivering needed educational services and facili-

ties. Cost-of-living differences among teachers was only one part of

the larger problem of cost differences in delivering comparable educa-

tional services and programs.









In 1972, the President's Commission on School Finance recommended

that states develop a cost of education index by district. It was,

recommended that this cost of education index include cost differentials

for educational personnel, facilities, services, and equipment. A study

determining differences among Kentucky school districts in the cost-of-

living of teachers would be a step in the direction of constructing a

cost of education index.

In December 1971, in hearings before the United States Senate--

Select Committee on Equal Educational Opportunity, it was recommended

that states take into account "higher than average cost-of-living levels,

in devising their educational finance plans."2

In March 1973, the Governor's Citizens' Committee on Education in

the state of Florida recommended, "adjustments in school finance formu-

las for higher cost-of-living, school construction, and some components

of school transportation in urban areas."3 Subsequently, Florida con-

ducted a study to determine cost-of-living differentials among counties

and has included a provision in its new education finance act (1973) to

recognize these variations among school districts in the cost-of-living.

In 1973, the Kentucky Department of Education released the findings

of a study made by the National Educational Finance Project staff


1Schools, People, & Money, "The Need for Educational Reform." The
President's Commission on School Finance. Final Report. (Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973), p. 33.

U.S. Congress, Senate, The Financial Aspects of Equality of Educa-
tional Opportunity and Inequities in School Finance. Select Committee on
Equal Educational Opportunity, United States Senate, 92nd Congress, 2nd
Session. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972), p. 71.

3Improving Education in Florida. A report by the Governor's Citi-
zens' Committee on Education. (Tallahassee, Florida: Department of
Administration, March 1973), p. 167.









4
entitled, Financing the Public Schools of Kentucky. Among the 11 spe-

cial studies conducted by the National Educational Finance Project staff

was one entitled, "Cost of Delivering Education."5 The study recommend-

ed a comprehensive study of the cost of delivering educational services

concentrating on the following areas:

A. What salary levels must be paid to instruc-
tional personnel in different areas of the
state to assure an equivalent quality of
personnel?

B. Are there differences in the cost-of-living
which favor certain districts?

C. Among school districts, or areas of the
state, are there real cost-of-living dif-
ferences for the same standard-of-living?

D. Will some areas have an advantage in attract-
ing personnel simply because they are viewed
as a more attractive area in which to live
and raise a family?

E. Do districts with the highest cost-of-living
also possess the more attractive living
conditions and cultural environments?

F. What is the net effect of the cost-of-living
versus the effect of the wealth of the com-
munity and its attractiveness and living
conditions?6

The previously mentioned studies and their recommendations have

demonstrated that variations possibly exist among districts in the cost



4Financing the Public Schools of Kentucky. A study made by the
National Educational Finance Project for the Kentucky Department of Edu-
cation. (Frankfort, Kentucky: Bureau of Administration and Finance,
Kentucky Department of Education, 1973), p. 422.

5bid., p. 422.

6Financing the Public Schools of Kentucky, pp. 430-431.









of delivering comparable educational services and facilities, and that

the need existed for further investigation.


Definition of Terms


Cost-of-Living--Involves expenses incurred by single teachers for

food, shelter, and transportation.

Standard-of-Living--The cost of certain food items, the quality

and type of shelter, and the mode of transportation were used as measures

of the standard-of-living. The respondents' standard-of-living were

compared in terms of the following items: food, shelter, and transpor-

tation.

Consumer Price Index--A statistical measure of changes in prices

of goods and services bought by urban wage earners and clerical workers,

including families and single persons.

Single Teachers--Unmarried teachers living away from home, who are

self-supporting, are not supporting anyone but themselves, and are not

dependent on their parents for financial support.

Food--Nineteen food items used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics

in developing their Consumer Price Index. The food items used in the

study are as follows:










7U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Con-
sumer Price Index for January 1974. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, April 1974), p. 20.

8bid., p. 20.










1. White bread 11. Bananas
2. Round steak 12. Oranges
3. Rump roast 13. Grapes, seedless
4. Hamburger 14. Potatoes
5. Pork chops 15. Lettuce
6. Bacon 16. Tomatoes
7. Frying chicken 17. Margarine
8. Milk, fresh 18. Coffee, in can
9. Butter 19. Eggs, fresh
10. Apples

Shelter--

Rented Shelter--The monthly rent, including utilities.

Owned Shelter--The monthly payment (principal and interest),

including utilities, fire insurance, and property taxes.

Comparability of Shelter--Comparability of shelter among

teachers was determined according to the following items:

Hot and cold running water
Private bath
Tub or shower
Cooking stove
Refrigerator
Central air conditioning
Window air conditioning
Central heating
Space heater or other type
Personal laundry equipment
Coin operated laundry equipment
No garage facility
One- or two-car covered garage
Carport

Transportation--The mode of travel, the cost of gasoline (per gal-

lon) and the distance involved in driving to work, to the doctor, to the

dentist, to the grocery store, to the shopping center, and to the movie

theatre.

Kentucky Education Development Regions (KEDR)--The 17 Educational

Development Regions designed to serve as a modular area for delivery of









services provided by the Department of Education, and for cooperative
9
program development among participating local education agencies.


Procedures

The procedures for dealing with the problem are presented in four

major sections. The first section deals with the selection of cost-of-

living components used in the study. The second section deals with the

selection of teachers and districts used in the study. The third sec-

tion presents the instrumentation used and how the data will be collect-

ed. The fourth and final section will focus on the data analysis.


Selection of Cost-of-Living Components

The cost-of-living components used in the study were confined to

three of the six cost-of-living items utilized by the Bureau of Labor

Statistics in developing their Consumer Price Index. The Consumer Price

Index contains the following six major components: food, shelter, house-

hold furnishings and operation, transportation, health and recreation,

and apparel and upkeep.10 The items used in this study were food,

shelter, and transportation.

Household furnishings, health and recreation, and apparel and up-

keep were not used in this study. Household furnishings were not tested

since these items are a matter of individual taste. In addition, it


Educational Regions Policy and Procedure Guide. Policies and Pro-
cedures for Kentucky Educational Development Regions. (Frankfort,
Kentucky: Division of Regional Services, Kentucky Department of Educa-
tion, 1973), p. 4.

10U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer
Prices in the United States 1959-68 Trends and Indexes. Bulletin
1647. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970), p. 31.









11
was expected that few single teachers would own a house. Health and

recreation were not included since teachers spend similar amounts for

these items. Further, this item was not used because it would be dif-

ficult to quantify comparable recreation in different parts of the state.

Also, teachers were generally covered under some type of health plan,

such as Blue Cross and Blue Shield. Apparel and upkeep were not includ-

ed in the questionnaire since clothing is a matter of individual taste.


Selection of Teachers and Districts

Seventeen county school districts were selected on the following

priority basis:

A. Geography

B. Number of teachers in the district

C. If possible, should contain no independent
districts

The 17 county school districts selected for the study included one

from each of the 17 Kentucky Education Development Regions (KEDR). Se-

lecting the districts according to the education development regions

insured a proper geographical distribution. (See Appendix A.)

The participants used in the study were confined to classroom

teachers who met the following criteria:

A. They must be single (unmarried with no
dependents).

B. They must be living away from home.

C. They must make approximately the same
salary.


1National Education Association, Teachers in Rural Communities.
Final Report of the Committee on the Economic Status of the Rural Teach-
er. (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association of the United
States, 1939), p. 9.









A list was developed of all classroom teachers working in the 17

county school districts selected for the study. This teacher informa-

tion was obtained from the Kentucky Department of Education data bank.

Because information was unavailable on the marital status of teach-

ers or on whether teachers lived at home or away from home, the total

number of teachers meeting the criteria for the study was not known un-

til the questionnaires were returned. Consequently, only returns from

self-supported single teachers, living away from home, and with no de-

pendents were included in the study. Questionnaire returns not meeting

this criteria were excluded from the study.

To achieve comparability of salaries and to insure an adequate and

representative number of teachers for the study, a mean teacher salary

was computed for all the classroom teachers in the 17 school districts.

All teachers with salaries falling between minus and plus one thousand

dollars of the mean ($8,823), were mailed a questionnaire. All teachers

with salaries above or below this two thousand dollar range were ex-

cluded from the study. (See Appendix B)


Instrumentation and Data Collection

Two data-gathering instruments were constructed for use in the

study. The first instrument was a food pricing form used to record food

costs in the 17 school districts. Food prices were obtained over a

seven-day period. The following items were priced during this data col-

lection period. (See Appendix C for specifications on each item)









1. White bread 11. Bananas
2. Round steak 12. Oranges
3. Rump roast 13. Grapes, seedless
4. Hamburger 14. Potatoes
5. Pork chops 15. Lettuce
6. Bacon 16. Tomatoes
7. Frying Chicken 17. Margarine
8. Milk, fresh 18. Coffee, in can
9. Butter 19. Eggs, freshly2
10. Apples

The second instrument used was a questionnaire which contained in-

quiries into shelter and transportation costs. This questionnaire was

mailed to identified teachers in the 17 school districts. In the 17

school districts, a total of 3,712 teachers (40 percent of total) were
13
mailed questionnaires out of a total teacher population of 9,349. In

order for the results of the study to be statistically valid, a return
14
of 50 percent was necessary.1

The following is a sample of some of the questions included in this

questionnaire:

type of shelter (number of rooms, baths, etc.)
rent or own?
monthly rent or house payment
cost of gasoline

The questionnaire was mailed two weeks after school opened for the

1974-75 school year. Three to four weeks were allotted for completion

and return of the questionnaire. A self-addressed return envelope was

provided each respondent in the study. Three weeks after the initial


12U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, BLS Handbook
of Methods. Bulletin 1711. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Print-
ing Office, 1971), p. 85.

13Kentucky State Department of Education, Bureau of Administration
and Finance. (Frankfort, Kentucky: Division of Statistical Services,
July 1974), p. 1.

14G. D. McGrath, James J. Jelinek, and Raymond E. Wochner, Educa-
tional Research Methods. (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1963),
p. 106.









mailing to the teachers, a second questionnaire was mailed to each non-

respondent. The second questionnaire was due in two weeks.


Data Treatment

This section of the report is presented in three sections. The

first part of the data treatment section involved the development of

district and state totals for questions on the data collection instru-

ments.

The second part of the data treatment phase involved the develop-

ment of price indexes based on the results derived from the data collec-

tion instruments. The following were the steps involved in the process:

Step 1 reduced the data to dollar equivalents.
The transportation section of the questionnaire
involved asking for distances driven by teachers.
These data were translated to cost by multi-
plying each mile driven by cost per mile figures
developed by the federal government.

Step 2 developed a median price by district for
each of the 19 items used in the food pricing
form and for each item on the shelter and
transportation questionnaire. In addition, a
state median price was developed for each item.

Step 3 developed a district price index for each
food, shelter, and transportation item. The
items were weighted according to the latest
Bureau of Labor Statistic figures. The index
was developed by dividing the district median
price per item by the state median price,
giving the price relative. The price relative
was multiplied by the items' weight as determined
by BLS, resulting in the price index. A similar
index was developed for each district using the
district median price per item as a base.

Step 4 showed districts' price ranking, above
or below the district median price for each item
of food, shelter, and transportation.

Step 5 showed districts' price ranking, above
or below the state median price for all items
of food, shelter, and transportation.








The third phase of the data analysis included comparisons of cost

indexes and wealth factors. The first comparison involved using a cor-

relation technique for the indexes of the 17 counties with assessed val-

uation per pupil and per capital personal income figures per district.

The Pearson Product Moment Correlation was used to compute any relation-

ships between cost indexes and wealth factors used in the study. The

level of significance used in this calculation was five percent. The

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)15 was used to generate

the correlations.

The second comparison of cost and wealth factors included contrast-

ing the cost and standard of living findings for the five wealthiest and

five poorest districts in our 17 county population. These ten districts

were selected on the basis of assessed valuation per pupil figures.


Organization of the Research Report

Chapter I. Introduction

A. The Problem

1. Statement of the Problem

2. Delimitations and Limitations

B. Justification for the Study

C. Definition of Terms

D. Procedures

1. Selection of Cost-of Living Components

2. Selection of Teachers and Districts

3. Instrumentation and Data Collection

4. Data Treatment


15Norman H. Nie, Dale H. Bent, and C. Hadlai Hull, Statistical Pack-
age for the Social Sciences. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1970),
p. 1.






14


Chapter II. Review of the Related Literature

Chapter III. Instruments for Measure

Chapter IV. Presentation and Analysis of Data

Chapter V. Construction of Cost-of-Living Index and the
Comparison of Cost Data with Wealth

Chapter VI. Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations
for further Study.














CHAPTER II


REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE


There has been a great amount of research and a number of important

studies dealing with the area of cost-of-living. For the purposes of

the review, this chapter has been broken into six parts. These are:

a discussion of the definitions of cost-of-living and standard-of-living;

a brief history of cost- and standard-of-living studies and the focus of

these studies; a discussion of the Consumer Price Index, as utilized by

the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor; a discussion

of cost- and standard-of-living studies and teacher salaries; a discus-

sion of cost-of-living studies involving the single teacher; and recent

developments in the area of cost-of-living.


Definitions of Cost-of-Living
and Standard-of-Living

Cost-of-Living. What is meant by the term "Cost-of-Living"? The

term has been defined in different ways over the years. However, most

definitions refer to the term as the expenditures for goods and services

in terms of a certain standard-of-living. Boothe defines it as "the

amount of money spent for the goods and services considered necessary

for adequate living; that is, the cost of meeting the requirements of a

given standard-of-living."'


Viva Boothe, Salaries and the Cost-of-Living in Twenty-Seven State
Universities and Colleges, 1913-1932. Bureau of Business Research
(Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Press, November 1932), p. 139.









According to Ferguson, the "cost-of-living represents the money

price of a particular level of living, which price may fluctuate over

time or vary from place to place."2 Another source defines the term as

"The amount of money needed to buy goods and services to provide a given

standard-of-living. Throughout the world, there are various standards-

of-living, ranging from the subsistence level to the luxury level."3

Paradis defined the term as "the prices people must pay for the goods

and services they buy.

Kyrk stated that the phrase, "cost-of-living," has been used in a

variety of ways. For instance, changes in expenditures for goods and

services and changes in the purchasing power of the dollar due to price

changes, have been used, at times, to describe the "cost-of-living."

Kyrk defined the term "as the expenditure necessary to give a given

group of families the goods they consider essential, that is, the ex-

penditure necessary to enable them to maintain their customary standard."5

Kyrk feels that the cost-of-living or amount for a group can be measured

in two ways. One would be to obtain actual expenditures for the group

(professional class, farm families, steel-workers, etc.) and to call the

the practice of the majority the "cost-of-living," or second, to develop


2Robert H. Ferguson, Wages, Earnings, and Incomes: Definitions of
Terms and Sources of Data. Bulletin 63. (Ithaca, New York: New York
State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University,
July 1971), p. 50.

3The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Modern Economics A Handbook of
of Terms and Organizations. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1965),
p. 121.

Adrian A. Paradis, The Economics Reference Book. (New York:
Chilton Book Company, 1970), p. 44.

5Hazel Kyrk, Economic Problems of the Family. (New York: Harper
& Brothers Publishers, 1933), p. 297.










a particular budget for the group and to price it from time to time.6

The latter example is used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in devel-

oping the Consumer Price Index.

In 1945, the National Education Association (NEA) published a re-

port dealing with trends in the cost-of-living. In this report two

definitions were given for cost-of-living. First, it was defined "as

the total expenditure of a person or family or as the average total
,,7
expenditure of an occupational group during a given period. The

NEA next defined cost-of-living "as the total dollar cost of the com-
8
modities comprising a certain mode or level of living. ." The NEA

report stated that the latter definition was the one most frequently

used by certain agencies which were responsible for preparing cost-of-

living indexes.

Hoyt, Reid, McConnell, and Hooks feel that the term, "cost-of-liv-

ing," differs according to the standard-of-living. That is, "The cost

of a given standard differs from place to place and time to time."

Thus, the authors feel that, in order to be meaningful, a study of the

cost-of-living must be tied to a particular standard-of-living.

The staff members of the Florida Cost-of-Living Research Study, ob-

served that the term, "cost-of-living," implied the "amount of money


Kyrk, p. 297.

7National Education Association, Cost-of-Living Trends--Their Mean-
ing for Teachers. Division of Research. (Washington, D.C.: National
Education Association of the United States, 1945), p. 1.

8bid., p. 2

Elizabeth E. Hoyt, Margaret G. Reid, Joseph L. McConnell, and
Janet M. Hooks, American Income And Its Use. (New York: Harper &
Brothers Publishers, 1954), p. 362.









required to purchase the items" and that it "only had meaning when

applied to a specific standard- or level-of-living."10

The Bureau of Labor Statistics stated that people frequently de-

fine cost-of-living as the cost of dollars of a family budget for a

particular standard of living. Many cost-of-living studies use this

definition as their reference.11

Standard-of-Living. Properly defining the phrase, "standard-of-

living," has occupied the thoughts of many people for a long time. In

1906 Frank Tucker defined the concept as "a measurement of life expressed

in a daily routine which is determined by income and the conditions und-

er which it is earned, economic and social environment and capacity for

distributing the income."12 Comish defines it as the number and

character of wants customarily satisfied."13

F. W. Taussig defines standard-of-living as "the mode of activity

and scale of comfort which a person has come to regard as indispensable

to his happiness and to secure and retain which he is willing to make

any reasonable sacrifice."14 Another economist, T. N. Carver, defined


10James C. Simmons, Project Director, Florida Cost-of-Living Re-
search Study, Preliminary Report (Tallahassee, Florida: Florida Depart-
ment of Administration, January 1973), p. 28.

11U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Changes in
Cost-of-Living in Large Cities in the United States 1913-41. Bulletin
No. 699, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1941), p. 9.

12Robert Coit Chapin, The Standard-of-Living Among Workingmen's
Families in New York City. (New York: Charities Publication, 1909),
p. 256.

13Newel Howland Comish, The Standard-of-Living--Elements of Con-
sumption. (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1923), p. 62.

1F. W. Taussig, Principles of Economics. (New York: The MacMillan
Company, 1913), pp. 308-14.









the term as "the number of desires which, in the average person of

the class in question, takes precedence over that group of desires

which result in the multiplication of numbers."15 Jones contends that

standards-of-living are social rather than individually desired wants.

That is, a standard-of-living is a fashion rather than a desire of the

individual.1

The staff of the Florida Cost-of-Living Research Study, defined

the term as, "the total of one's consumption of goods and services

which is determined by:

1. Custom and Taste a wealthy person may choose to maintain a

low standard-of-living. A poor person may attempt to main-

tain a high standard-of-living.

2. Necessity Basics food, clothing, housing, transportation,

etc.

3. Availability of goods and services--whether they are available

in the area.

4. Means income. Whatever the level of prices, a high stand-

ard- or level-of-living costs more than a low standard- or

level-of-living.17

In 1971, Robert Ferguson referred to standard-of-living as "a scale

of consumption which is desirable or should prevail, according to some-

o,18
one's point of view.18 In other words, it is not the actual level-of-


T. N. Carver, Principles of Political Economy. (New York: Ginn &
Company, 1919), p. 393.

1Rosalie Jones, The American Standard-of-Living and World Coopera-
tion. (Boston: The Cornhill Publishing Company, 1923), p. 4.

1Simmons, pp. 6-7.
18Ferguson, p. 50.
Ferguson, p. 50.









living of a particular group, but what someone else thinks it should

be.

Actual standards- or levels-of-living can be developed by studying

the expenditure patterns of a particular family or families. Also,

various standards-of-living can be determined by establishing certain

levels of "family budgets." In other words, a cost can be determined

for a family with a "minimum subsistence budget" and a cost can be de-

veloped for a family with a "minimum comfort" budget.19 Each budget

level represents a different consumption pattern.

In order to classify the various standards-of-living present in a

society, it is necessary to study the consumption patterns for a family

or person at different levels and determine whether it is sufficient to

provide an adequate standard-of-living. The following paragraph dis-

cusses a classification system based on five different levels of

consumption.

David P. Harry, Jr. used this classification system in his study

entitled, Cost of Living of Teachers in the State of New York. Harry

found that there are five different levels- or standards-of-living gen-

erally recognized in cost-of-living studies. "These five levels-of-

living are: (1) the pauper or poverty standard; (2) the minimum of ex-

istence, or subsistence standard; (3) the minimum of health and decency,

or living income standard; (4) the minimum of comfort, or 'American'

standard; and (5) the luxury or cultural standard."20



1Ferguson, p. 50.

20David P. Harry, Jr., Cost of Living of Teachers in the State of
New York. (Ph.D. dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University,
1928), p. 14.









At the poverty level, income is insufficient to provide adequate

amounts of food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and other items. The

income does not provide for physical and psychological health. At the

minimum of existence level the income is sufficient for the physical

needs of the family, but is inadequate for recreation or for savings.

At the minimum health and decency level an income provides for sufficient

food and shelter, and also permits a modest amount for recreation and

savings. At the minimum of comfort standard, an income can provide for

a good home, good food, a car, good clothing, and funds for education,

recreation and savings. This level is often called the "American" stand-

ard-of-living. The luxury or cultural standard is similar to the "com-

fort standard" previously mentioned, only with more comfort, more income,
21
more beauty, more savings, etc.2

In terms of specific components of a standard-of-living, Chapin

offered the following essential elements in the daily routine of life:

I. Government for control of common acts, needs,

and property.

II. Compensation for labor--that there may be secured for

the family:

1. Education

2. Shelter

3. Food

4. Clothing

5. Fuel

6. Light

7. Furniture and household furnishings


21Harry, pp. 14-15.









S 8- Transportation

9. Recreation

10. Provision for sickness and accident, dental,
surgical, and other care necessary for the
establishment and preservation of sound health

11. Savings

12. Insurance

13. Burial (through insurance or savings)22

The Heller Committee, in 1928, gave the following standard-of-liv-

ing which was considered satisfactory by the professional class in the

San Francisco Bay District.

The distinctive features of the standard-of-
living outlined here are as follows: ownership
of a modern house in a 'good' neighborhood; food
that is designedly nourishing but which includes
certain expenditures due to elaboration of menu
and of service; the husband's lunches taken away
from home; some help in the administration of the
household, but no full-time resident service; a
contribution to the Community Chest, more or less
fixed, because the Community Chest now represents
a quasi-tax; an automobile, a vacation, occasional
patronage of commercial amusements, some formal
hospitality. The standard adopted excludes the
possibility of expensive clothing, membership in
exclusive clubs, extensive entertainment, or private
schooling for the children.23

In summary, it should be stated that the terms, cost-of-living and

standard-of-living, are not synonymous, although they are closely re-

lated. The term, cost-of-living, refers to the expenditures for goods

and services in terms of a certain standard- or level-of-living. The

term, standard-of-living, refers to the level of consumption of a

22
2Chapin, p. 256.

2Heller Committee for Research in Social Economics. "Cost-of-Living
Studies--Quantity and Cost Estimate of the Standard-of-Living of the Pro-
fessional Class." Volume 5. (Berkeley: University of California,
Berkeley, 1928), p. 132.









particular family or families, or the ranking of family expenditure

patterns according to a classification system.


A Brief History of Cost-
and Standard-of-Living Studies

Cost-of-living studies have a history dating back over three hun-
24 25
dred years. Jones,24 Chapin,5 and the Bureau of Applied Economics, In-

corporated,26 credit Sir William Petty with directing the first cost-of-

living study. Sir William Petty conducted this study of the laborer

class of Ireland in 1672. In his report, entitled "Economic Writing,"

Sir Petty is credited with one of the early definitions of standard-of-

living, when he stated: "that the expense of the Laborer may well enough

stand for the Standard of the Expense of the whole mass of Mankind."27

The next several hundred years saw attempts to develop statements

or records of actual family receipts and expenditures. The researchers

of this period were distressed with the living conditions of the labor-

ers and attempted to document this condition by collecting information

on family expenditures. Sir Frederick Morton Eden, Frederic Le Play and

Ernst Engel, conducted research on the family budget.

As a result of investigations during the 1850s, Ernst Engel develop-

ed four laws, which are relevant to any investigation of the cost- and

standard-of-living. These are:

1. As the income of a family increased, a small percentage of it

was spent for food.


24
24Jones, p. 16.
25
2Chapin, p. 3.

26Bureau of Applied Economics, Inc., Standards-of-Living. A Com-
pilation of Budgetary Studies, Vol. II. (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of
Applied Economics, Inc., 1932), p. 1.

27Jones, p. 16.









2. As the income of a family increased, the percentage of expendi-

tures for clothing remained approximately the same.

3. With all incomes investigated, the percentage of expenditure

for rent, fuel, and light remained invariably the same.

4. As the income increased in amount, a constantly increasing per-

centage was expended for education, health, and recreation and
28
amusement.

In America there have been many studies conducted in the area of

cost- and standard-of-living. There have been studies of the cost-of-

living for a particular city,29 for a group of cities,30 for a particular

occupation,31 and for a particular class of people (professional class).32

Most notable among these studies have been those conducted by the Heller

Committee (California Cost-of-Living Studies), The National Industrial

Conference Board, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of

Labor.

The Heller Committee measured the living costs for 200 families of

the professional class in San Francisco, by studying their expenditure

patterns. The committee concluded its study by showing a quantity and

cost estimate of customary expenditures at the professional level. That

is, the study showed how goods and services are consumed by professional

families in a particular place and at a certain time. This investigation


28Jones, pp. 22-23.

29Bureau of Applied Economics, Inc., p. 102.

30Bureau of Applied Economics, Inc., p. 145.

31Bureau of Applied Economics, Inc., p. 155.

32Heller Committee for Research in Social Economics, p. 131.









also provided valuable information on this seldom studied segment of the

population.33

In 1928 the National Industrial Conference Board directed a study

of the cost-of-living in 12 industrial cities. The study emphasized de-

termining a fair American standard-of-living for a family of four in

large, medium, and small-sized industrial cities. The study concluded

that the cost-of-living was quite similar for the 12 cities and that

little difference existed in the cost of maintaining a fair American

standard-of-living in the eastern part of the United States.34

The Bureau of Labor Statistics has a history dating back to 1884.

The purpose of the bureau is to collect, interpret, and present statisti-

cal data relevant to the needs of business, labor, government, and the

public. Prominent among bureau functions is the calculating of the Con-

sumer Price Index. The BLS began collecting and supplying information on

the cost- and standard-of-living around the early 1900s.35

Harry says that there are two main types of cost-of-living studies.

The first considers the actual expenditures of the person or group under

study, with little consideration for a standard-of-living for the group.

The second type of study considers what people spend in different com-

munities. In the second study, a standard-of-living must be established

in order to compare the price change among the different communities.36


33Heller Committee for Research in Social Economics, p. 131.
34
3Bureau of Applied Economics, Inc., p. 149.
35
3U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Changes in
Cost-of-Living in Large Cities in the United States 1913-41. Bulletin
No. 699. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1941), p. 1.

36Harry, p. 13.










In summary, cost- and standard-of-living studies are not a new area

of research, but have been the source of a great number and variety of

investigations over the past three hundred years. During this time these

studies have changed in terms of research techniques. Beginning with

estimates of family expenditures in the early days, cost-of-living studies

have progressed to where, today, various levels of living have been es-

tablished depending on the consumption pattern of the family or person.

Today, many of these cost- and standard-of-living studies are conducted

for the purpose of determining if the wages and salaries paid a particu-

lar group are sufficient to afford an adequate standard-of-living and to

chart price changes over a period of time for a select group of items.


The Consumer Price Index

"The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a statistical measure of changes

in prices of goods and services bought by urban wage earners and cleri-

cal workers including families and single persons." The CPI, known by

many as the "cost-of-living index," was initiated during World War I

for the purpose of wage negotiations and during the past 50 years has

been helpful in the development of government policy as well as pointing

out inflationary trends in the economy. Because it measures changes in

the purchasing power of the dollar, millions of workers and retirees

across the country rely on the CPI as a means of adjusting their income

to reflect price changes.

As previously stated, the CPI measures changes in prices of goods

and services. It does not indicate how much a family spends to maintain


37U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, The Consumer
Price Index--A Short Description 1971. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1971), p. 1.










its own particular living style. This process of measuring price changes

involves the pricing of certain items, in certain cities, and at periodic

times during the year.

In order to determine which items to price in developing the CPI,

the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) conducted a survey in 1950 to dis-

cover how wage earners and salaries workers spend their income. As a

result of this survey, the BLS was able to develop the following broad

categories of goods and services, better known as "The Market Basket:"

Food Medical care
Housing Personal care
Apparel Reading and recreation 38
Transportation Other goods and services

Today, this list of goods and services has been revised and now in-

cludes the following six categories: food, housing, apparel and upkeep,

transportation, health and recreation, and miscellaneous.39 Because it

is economically impossible to price all the items characteristic of the

family budget for wage earners and clerical workers, a representative

list of four hundred items were selected for pricing. The four hundred

items selected for the pricing fall into three categories:

1. Items most important in family spending (rent, electricity,

bread, etc.).

2. Items whose price movements represent those of related items

(round steak prices, for example, rise and fall at about the


38.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, The Consumer
Price Index, A Layman's Guide--Its Uses and Limitations--What It Is--How
It Is Compiled. Bulletin No. 1140. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, May 15, 1953), p. 5.

39U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, BLS Handbook
of Methods, Bulletin 1711. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1971), pp. 79-80.









same time and at about the same rate as do prices of sirloin

and porterhouse steaks; so only round steak is priced, and the

-changes in price for sirloin and porterhouse steaks are esti-

mated from price changes for round steak).

3. Items which are relatively unimportant but whose price cannot

be estimated from prices of other items (for example, postage

rates).40

The BLS decided to select certain representative cities across the

country where prices would be collected. The 56 cities eventually pick-

ed for the survey process were selected because they were representative

in terms of size, climate, population density, and income.41

Approximately 18 thousand stores and service establishments are per-

sonally visited by representatives of the BLS. These are stores where

wage and clerical workers normally buy their goods and services (chain

stores, department stores, restaurants, repair shops, etc.). To assist

the pricing agents the BLS has prepared detailed specifications for each

item to be priced. This is done to insure that prices are quoted on the

same item in the 56 cities. Because rent information is difficult to ob-

tain, the BLS has secured approximately 40 thousand tenants in the 56

cities who voluntarily provide information on rental rates.42


40U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, The Consumer
Price Index, A Layman's Guide--Its Uses and Limitations--What It Is--How
It Is Compiled. Bulletin No. 1140. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, May 15, 1953), p. 6.

4llbid, p. 4.

42U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, The Consumer
Price Index--A Short Description 1971. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1971), p. 3.










Some of the four hundred items are priced monthly, while others are

priced every three months. The frequency of price collections depend on

the item and the size of the city. Food items are priced every month be-

cause they are subject to frequent changes, while prices for the other

goods and services are collected each month in five of the larger cities,

and every three months in the remaining cities.

The BLS uses a variety of methods for collecting the price data on

the four hundred items. Personal visits by BLS representatives (food,

clothing, doctor, etc.), questionnaires (rent, streetcar and bus fares,

etc.), and data collected by other agencies (home purchases, college

tuition, etc.), comprise the three main methods of collecting data.43

The BLS uses a standard statistical formula in calculating its in-

dex. The following is a summary explanation of how the index is

calculated:

Average price changes from the previous
pricing period to the current month are ex-
pressed in percentage terms for each item,
and the percent changes for the various goods
and services are combined, using weighting
factors based on the item's importance in
family spending and that of other items which
it represents. This composite importance is
called the cost weight of the market basket
item.

After the cost weights for each of the
items has been calculated, they are added to
area totals for commodity groups and all
items. The U.S. totals are obtained by
combining area totals, with each area total
weighted according to the proportion of
the total wage-earner and clerical-worker
population which it represents in the index
based on 1960 Census figures. In this process
it is necessary to make estimates for cities
in which price data are not collected in a


43Ibid., pp. 3-4.









-given month. Finally, the U.S. totals for the
current and previous months are compared to
Compute the average price change.44

The BLS has determined the relative importance, in terms of the to-

tal budget, for the six categories used in the CPI. They are as follows:

1. Food -- 22.43 percent

2. Housing 33.23 percent

3. Apparel and Upkeep 10.63 percent

4. Transportation 13.88 percent

5. Health and Recreation 19.45 percent

6. Miscellaneous .38 percent

100.00 percent45

There are certain limitations to the CPI. Due to sampling errors,

the CPI does not accurately reflect price changes. That is, because act-

ual records for all retail purchases are not used to develop the index,

the results can differ due to errors in sampling.46 Another error occurs

when the field representative makes a mistake in reporting the informa-

tion. These are in-house type problems of the index. The CPI was not

intended to measure a standard-of-living considered "ideal," nor was the

CPI intended to reflect the change in prices paid by a particular family.
47
In addition, the CPI cannot be related to any particular occupation.

The CPI cannot measure changes in the standard-of-living or in total





44Ibid., pp. 4-5.

45Ibid., pp. 10-11.

461bid., p. 5.

47Ibid., p. 5.










living costs. The CPI only measures changes in the prices of certain

goods and services.48

In summary, the CPI was developed to measure changes in the prices

of goods and services. These price changes are determined through a

monthly pricing of four hundred items in 56 cities. Due to the value of

the data, extensive use has been made of the CPI over the years. It has

been used for the adjustment of wages in collective bargaining and by

governmental agencies in determining pay scales for their employees. It

has also been used by government and business alike as an economic fore-

caster.


Cost and Standard-of-Living
Studies and Teacher Salaries

The interest in teacher salaries in relation to increases in the

cost-of-living is not a new area of research in education. As early as

1911, the National Education Association appointed a seven member com-

mittee to look into increases in the cost-of-living and its effect upon

teachers.49 Many studies have been conducted on teacher salaries demon-

strating the reduction in the purchasing power of the teacher dollar due

to increases in the cost-of-living.

In the following pages the author will attempt to discuss some of

the major studies in the area of cost and standard of living and teacher


48U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, The Consumer
Price Index, A Layman's Guide--Its Uses and Limitations--What It Is--How
It Is Compiled. Bulletin No. 1140. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, May 15, 1953), p. 18.

49National Education Association, Teacher's Salaries and Cost-of-
Living. (Ann Arbor, Michigan: National Education Association of the
United States, 1913), p. vii.










salaries. Some of the studies will cite the erosion of the purchasing

power of the teacher dollar; others will discuss the effect and the

practicality of using the Consumer Price Index to make adjustments in

teacher salaries; and some will simply discuss the economic status of

the teacher. In order for the reader to gain a proper perspective of

these studies, they will be discussed in chronological order.

One of the earliest (1913) investigations made in this area in-

volved a study conducted by the National Education Association, entitl-

ed, Teacher's Salaries and Cost-of-Living. The committee appointed to

study the problem found that wholesale and retail prices had increased

by 44.1 percent and 50.2 percent, respectively, from 1896 to 1911.50

To determine the reason for this drastic increase in prices the com-

mittee consulted 12 leading economists of the time. The economists gave

the following reasons for the great increase in prices: "increase of

the worlds' gold production, the protective tariff, trusts, high profits

of middlemen and retailers, higher wages and trade unions, drift of popu-

lation to cities and diminishing proportion of inhabitants on the farms,

exhaustion of natural resources, and extravagance,"51 In conclusion,

the study illustrated the poor economic conditions of teachers in various

parts of the country.

In 1918, the National Education Association published another re-

port on teacher salaries and the cost-of-living. In a vein similar to

the 1913 study, this committee also documented the great increases in

prices and the effect it had on teacher salaries. For instance, during


50Ibid., p. xi.

51Ibid., pp. xi-xii.










the tw year period 1915 to 1917, the yearly increase in prices averaged

21.4 percent.52 In order to stop the erosion of teacher salaries due

to cost-of-living increases, the committee recommended that an addition-

al 166 million dollars be raised to bolster teacher salaries in the

United States.53

In 1932, Ramsay conducted a study of the cost-of-living and the

economic status of Missouri teachers.54 He not only studied the income

and expenditure patterns of Missouri teachers, but investigated the to-

tal economic status of the teacher. Ramsay concluded that there was:

A significant relation between the total
incomes and the total expenditures of Missouri
teachers. Apparently, as the total incomes of
Missouri teachers increase, a smaller percentage
of it is allocated to expenditures for food,
for clothing, and for shelter; and an increasing
percentage of it is allocated to miscellaneous
services.

Expenditures for food, for clothing, and
for shelter bear a direct relation to total ex-
penditures; and as total expenditures increase,
the percentage allocated to food, to clothing,
and to shelter decrease.55

In J932, Spencer published the results of a study conducted in

Florida which proposed to develop a state minimum salary schedule for




52National Education Association, Teacher's Salaries and Cost-of-
Living. The report of the Committee on Teachers' Salaries, Tenure, and
Pensions. (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association of the
United States, July 1918), p. 9.

53Ibid., p. 23.

54Calvin Henry Ramsay, "The Cost of Living and the Economic Status
of Missouri Teachers," (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Missouri,
1932), p. 5.

55Ramsay, pp. 41-42.









56
inclusion in the state minimum educational program. In addition to a

study of teacher salary schedules, two studies of teachers' living costs

were included:

.one as a basis for judging the proposed
state salary schedule from an economic point
of view, and the other using Harry's cost-of-
living technique in ten selected counties,
in order to discover whether there were
sufficient variations in the cost-of-living
between counties to justify a state-wide
study of living costs to be used in correcting
the state salary schedule for different
counties and possibly for communities within
counties.57

The Florida study was conducted to determine if cost-of-living vari-

ations existed among 50 communities in ten Florida counties and if vari-

ations did exist, whether a correction of the state minimum salary sched-

ule was needed. Using a revised version of the technique utilized by

Harry in his study in New York,58 the committee considered only two vari-
59
ables: food and rent.59 The study recommended that cost-of-living vari-

ations be determined for each district and that these variations be

reflected in the state minimum salary schedule.60

During the depression (1933) Eells conducted a study of teacher
61
salaries and the cost-of-living in the state of California. It was a


56Paul R. Spencer, A State Minimum Teachers' Salary Schedule. A
part of Florida's State Minimum Educational Program. (New York: Bureau
of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1932), p. 1.
57
5Spencer, p. 3.

58Harry, p. 22.
59Spencer, p. 142.

60
Spencer, p. 146.

61Walter Crosby Eells, Teachers' Salaries and the Cost-of-Living.
(Stanford University, California: Stanford Press, 1933), p. 1.










popular argument of the time that as the cost-of-living declined as

measured by the Consumer Price Index, salaries should be reduced cor-

respondingly. This argument is one of the focal points of Eells' book.

Eells argued that it was unfair to use the Consumer Price Index (CPI)

as a gauge for determining the level of teacher salaries. In support

of his position, Eells argued that the weights used in the index are de-

veloped for the wage-earner and not for the professional.62 The spend-

ing habits of wage-earners and clerical workers differ considerably from

the spending habits of teachers. In addition, Eells cites the fact that

boarding costs lag behind reductions in food costs; thus, to apply the

CPI would adversely affect the teacher.63 Eells cites a host of factors

to support his contention that to apply the CPI to teacher salaries would

be unfair.

A second focus of Eells' study was to demonstrate how teacher ex-

penditure patterns differ from the CPI weightings. Eells achieved this

distinction by comparing the budgets of Fresno, California teachers with

the weightings of the CPI. He found that the teachers spent less than

half the amount for food (16 percent) that the government found was used

by the average wage-earner (38 percent).64

During 1934-35, Mead and committees of the Florida Education Associa-

tion and Department of Classroom Teachers conducted a study of the econo-

mic status of white teachers in Florida.65 A total of 3,415 teachers in

62Eells, p. 40.
6Eells, p. 41.

64Eells, p. 11

65A. R. Mead, The Economic Status of White Teachers of Florida 1934-
35. (Tallahassee, Florida: Florida Education Association and Department
of Classroom Teachers, 1934), p. 1.









67 counties responded to the questionnaire used to collect data for the

study. Information on the expenditures for food, clothing, and housing

were collected. The study reported that expenditures per month exceed-

ed income by $23 a month and the cost-of-living increases were cited as

one of the major reasons for the deplorable condition of teacher salaries

in Florida.66

Burke wrote a book on salary policies in public schools in which

he stated that living standards and the cost-of-living are some of the

most significant factors affecting teacher salaries.67 In looking at

salaries and the cost- and standard-of-living, Burke stated that "dif-

ferences in living standard among school districts are more significant

than differences in the costs-of-living at a fixed standard in estab-

lishing salary levels."68 Burke discussed the difficulty of consider-

ing living standards as a basis for determining salary levels and he also

dismissed the use of a single cost-of-living index for salary policies

because of the wide variations in living standards. Burke stated, that

"up to the present time, no index of teacher living costs has been con-

structed and kept up to date, first because it is extremely difficult to

construct a valid and reliable index and second, because constructing

and keeping such an index up to date would be very expensive."69 In re-

flecting on specific cost-of-living factors, Burke stated that "housing

cost plus transportation cost probably are the best single index of


66Mead, p. 4.

67Arvid J. Burke, Teacher Salary Policies in Public Schools. (Albany,
New York: New York State Teachers Association, 1941), p. 13.

68Burke, p. 16.

69Burke, p. 21.









differences in total cost-of-living at standards in which the costs of

these have a significant place in the budget."70

The National Education Association (NEA) published a report in 1945,

entitled Cost-of-Living Trends--Their Meaning for Teachers. The report

discusses the methods used by three organizations to measure the cost-of-

living--The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS Index), the Heller Committee

for Research in Social Economics at the University of California (Heller

Committee Index), and the U.S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics (BAE

Index).71 After evaluating the various methods, the NEA selected the

BLS Index as "usually the most satisfactory for measuring changes in the

living costs of city teachers."72 For rural teachers the NEA suggested

a combination of components from the BLS and BAE Indexes as best for

measuring cost-of-living changes.73

In 1946 Shuttleworth published a study demonstrating the reduction

in real income for the teacher during the period 1890 to 1945. Although

the dollar income for teachers during this 55-year-period has multiplied

more than five times, the real income of teachers barely doubled. Sev-

eral instances were cited where yearly increases in the cost-of-living

exceeded increases in the dollar income of teachers causing real income

to drop.74


70Burke, p. 22.

71National Education Association, Cost-of-Living Trends--Their Mean-
ing for Teachers. Division of Research. (Washington, D.C.: National
Education Association, 1945), p. 2.
72Ibid., p. 19.
73Ibid., p. 19.
73

74Frank K. Shuttleworth, "The Dollar and Real Incomes of Teachers
and of Wage Workers, 1890 to 1945." School and Society, Vol. 64, August
24, 1946, pp. 121-123.









In 1954, McDonald conducted a study of "whether the Consumer Price

Index (CPI), as a measure of the cost-of-living, does provide a sound

basis on which to make adjustments in teacher's salaries.75 McDonald

conducted several studies in order to determine whether the CPI is a

valid instrument with which to measure the cost-of-living of teachers.

One of these studies is particularly relevant to this review of the lit-

erature. This study sought to determine the existence of cost-of-living

variations among selected Connecticut communities. As a result of his

investigation, McDonald found that the CPI was a valid device upon which

to make adjustments in teacher salaries and that variations in the cost-

of-living did exist among selected cities in Connecticut. However,

McDonald concluded that higher costs-of-living are not necessarily asso-

ciated with large or wealthy communities, and that no formula is avail-

able at the time on which the cost-of-living of a community can be

predicted.78

Cretcher conducted a study to determine the extent to which cost-

of-living indexes, namely the Consumer Price Index (CPI), were used as

escalator clauses for salary schedules in public school districts in the

United States.79 Questionnaires sent to every state, disclosed the fact



75Everett A. McDonald, Jr., "Salaries and Living Costs of Teachers in
Connecticut." (Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1954), p. 1.

76McDonald, p. 33.

77McDonald, p. 167.

78McDonald, p. 161.

79James Russell Cretcher, "A Study of Salary Schedules Based on a
Cost-of-Living Index in the Public Schools of the United States." (Ph.D.
dissertation, the University of Michigan, 1955), p. 1.










that 96 school systems used the CPI in their salary schedules to recog-

nize changes in the cost-of-living.

During past and recent years there have been many books and articles

written which involve the loss of purchasing power of teacher salaries

when measured by the CPI. Brown,80 Tickton,81, NEA,82 Shuttleworth,83

and Green,84 have documented the loss in real income for teachers.

In April 1974, the Pennsylvania School Journal published an article

which showed that, due to increases in the cost-of-living, "a middle in-

come family, who lived on a budget of $11,446 in 1972, had to spend

$12,614 in 1973 to maintain the same living standard."85

On June 28, 1974, the author sent a letter to the National Educa-

tion Association (NEA), asking them for information on whether cost-of-

living provisions are widely used in adjusting teacher salaries. The

NEA stated that they knew of "no state that has an automatic cost-of-

living adjustment provision for teachers." However, the NEA stated that

a cost-of-living provision was a negotiable item at the local district


80Kenneth R. Brown, "Cost-of-Living and Teaching Salaries," Cali-
fornia Teachers Association Journal, Vol. 52, February 1956, p. 47.

81Sidney G. Tickton, Teaching Salaries Then and Now--A Second Look.
(New York: The Fund for the Advancement of Education, Established by
the Ford Foundation, May 1961), p. 9.

82National Education Association, "Beginning Salaries for Teachers
in Big Districts 1950-51 to 1970-71," NEA Research Bulletin, Vol. 48,
October 1970, p. 83.

83Shuttleworth, p. 121.

84Louie B. Green, "Changing Living Costs in Teachers' Salaries,"
The Texas Outlook, Vol. 24, November 1940, p. 34.

85"Trapped in the Economic Crunch," Pennsylvania School Journal, Vol.
122, April 15, 1974, p. 162.









level and sent several examples of such provisions. All of these pro-

visions tie salary increases to price changes as measured by the Con-

sumer Price Index.


Cost-of-Living Studies
Involving the Single Teacher

Harry conducted one of the few studies which analyzed the varia-

tions in the cost-of-living for single teachers. The purpose of the

study was to ascertain the existence of the cost-of-living variations

among communities in New York, and to use this information as a measure

of educational need for these communities.86 Harry stated that "the

consensus of opinion of the experts on state support for education is

that the variations in the costs-of-living of teachers among the communi-

ties of the state should be considered in the measure of educational

need."87

To determine the cost-of-living of single teachers, Harry decided

to price a list of particular articles and conveniences chosen to repre-

sent a typical budget of single women teachers living away from home.

The 43 articles chosen for the budget were taken from the cost-of-living

studies conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The major cate-

gories of this budget were assigned to the following weights: food, 25

percent; rent, 20 percent; clothing, 20 percent; miscellaneous articles

and services, 15 percent; and savings and further education, 20 percent.88



86Harry, p. 1.

87Harry, p. 9.

8Harry, pp. 22-23.









To collect the information, an 18-page-questionnaire was mailed to

139 cities in New York. Only 85 cities returned a sufficient amount of

price data that could be used in the development of a cost-of-living in-

dex. An index was developed for each major part of the budget and a

total index for each community.89

In collecting the data on food, if several brands were available,

an average price was calculated for that item. Harry found little vari-

ation among communities in the cost of food.90

Rent proved to be the most variable item in the cost-of-living

among the cities. The larger the community, the greater the variation

in rent; the smaller the city, the less the variation. Thus, small

cities tend to give an accurate picture of rent prices.91

Harry concluded that it is justifiable to base the index of the

cost-of-living in a study of this type in New York state upon food and

rent without attempting to measure the variations in the prices of cloth-

ing and miscellaneous articles among the various communities."92

In 1950, Bair conducted a study of the cost-of-living for single,

self-supporting women teachers in selected towns in Connecticut. To

assist in this investigation, Bair developed an "adequate budget" which

would represent the cost-of-living of most single women teachers. Items







89Harry, p. 175.

90Harry, p. 175.

91Harry, p. 176.

92Harry, p. 178.









on the budget were taken, partly from the Bureau of Labor Statistics
93
studies, and partly from other sources.9

A total of 13 communities were selected for the study. Representa-

tives in each of the 13 communities collected price data on some items,

while questionnaires were distributed to single, self-supporting women

teachers for other price data needs. All prices were collected during

a six-day period.94 After comparing the cost-of-living for single wo-

men in 13 communities in Connecticut, Bair concluded that there were

differences in the cost-of-living among the various communities.95

In an article for Phi Delta Kappan, Cooper analyzed the cost-of-

living for a single woman in a metropolitan community making $2,461.71

per year. For food, it was estimated that the single teacher will eat

most meals in local restaurants at a cost of, not less than, $1.90 per

day during weekdays, and at $2.20 per day during weekends and holidays

(total of $713 per year). For rent,.it was assumed that reasonable

housing for the beginning single teachers would be one room at an annual

cost of $364. It was estimated that the single teacher could not afford

an automobile.96

In 1939, the National Education Association published a report

based on responses to a questionnaire mailed to teachers in rural


93Carl M. Bair, Jr., The Cost-of-Living of Single, Self-Supporting
Women Teachers in the State of Connecticut and a Plan to Utilize this
Factor in State Aid for Schools. (Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard Univer-
sity, 1950), p. viii.

94Bair, p. xii.

95Bair, p. xiv.

96Dan H. Cooper, "When Are Teacher's Salaries Adequate?" The Phi
Delta Kappan, Vol. XXX, May 1949, pp. 360-66.









communities in the United States.97 The questionnaire was designed to

survey the professional, social, cultural, and economic status of rural

teachers. In addition to information on the economic status of rural

teachers, the study also provided data on single teachers, which is the

focus of this study. The study pointed out the fact that few unmarried

teachers own homes and that many do not own cars.98 In terms of travel

to and from school, it was found that over half of all teachers walked

to school and that "the median distance from the teachers' living quar-

ters to their school (one way) was about two miles, in both types of open-

country districts, and about one-half mile in the town districts."99

The study provided data showing that a single woman, rooming or boarding,
100
spent an average of 74 percent of her salary for living expenses.

In summary, it is obvious that little research has been conducted

on the topic of cost-of-living and the single teachers. The two disser-

tations conducted in this area have several commonalities. First, both

used budget items developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for its

Consumer Price Index; second, both used questionnaires to collect part,

or all, of the data; and third, both concluded that cost-of-living

differences did exist among certain communities.






97National Education Association, Teachers in Rural Communities.
Final Report of the Committee on the Economic Status of the Rural Teach-
er. (Washington, D.C.: The National Education Association of the United
States, 1939), p. 6.

981bid., p. 75.

99Ibid., pp. 31-33.

100Ibid., p. 51.









Recent Developments in
the Area of Cost-of-Living

During the past five years, a great deal of progress has been made

in the area of school finance. During this period, increasing atten-

tion has been focused on the problem of variations among school districts

in the cost of delivering comparable educational services and facilities.

In this area, researchers are concerned with possible variations in the

cost of personnel, facilities, services, and equipment. These variations

exist due to differences among districts in transportation, sparsity or

density of population, geography, attractiveness of living conditions,

lack of skilled labor, crime, cost-of-living factors, and other reasons.

Much of the attention has focused on one of the major causes of varia-

tions among school districts in providing comparable educational ser-

vices and facilities; namely, cost-of-living differences. The following

pages will review these recent developments.

State policy makers have become increasingly aware of the rising

cost of education and the different effect it has in various areas of a

state. There is a tendency to associate higher living costs with more

densely populated places. Alonso and Fajans conducted a study of living

costs in large urban cities and found that,

...the cost-of-living, as measured by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics, is only weakly associated with
urban size, especially for lower incomes. Other
factors are more important, among them, local climate
and percent non-white. But the strongest association
is with local income.101




101William Alonso and Michael Fajans, Cost-of-Living and Income by
Urban Size. (Berkeley: Department of City and Regional Planning, Uni-
versity of California, Berkeley, July 1970), p. 2.









Alonso and Fajans further stated, that the high cost-of-living in

urban areas is not a result of supply conditions, but reflects higher

degrees of consumption resulting from higher incomes. Thus, rather than

a rise in the cost-of-living, the higher levels of consumption reflect

a rise in the standard of living. Consequently, the writers concluded
,,102
that, "it is not more expensive to live in larger urban areas.

In 1972, the President's Commission on School Finance recommended

that states develop a cost-of-education index, by district, in order to

recognize variations in the cost of delivering comparable educational

programs. This index would include cost differentials for educational

personnel, facilities, services, and equipment.103

In Florida, the Governor's Citizens Committee on Education stated

that, "although the cost-of-living is not a direct measure of cost-of

education, costs-of- education are affected by differences in the cost-

of-living."104 The Governor's Committee recommended the inclusion of a

provision in the Florida School Finance Act, which would recognize vari-

ations in the cost-of-living around the state. The committee further

recommended that "urban areas should receive higher allotments for cost-

of-living differences."105




102bid., pp. 2-3.

103Schools, People & Money, "The Need for Educational Reform," The
President's Commission on School Finance. Final Report. (Washington,
D.C.: The U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973), pp. 33-35.

104Improving Education in Florida, A report by the Governor's Citizens'
Committee on Education. (Tallahassee, Florida: Department of Adminis-
tration, March 1973), p. 87.

105Ibid., p. 87.









In 1972 the Florida Legislature directed the Departments of Admin-

istration, Commerce, and Education to jointly "study and identify any

significant cost-of-living differentials between and among the counties

of the state of Florida."'06 A group of economists from the State Uni-

versity System contracted to perform the study.

In order to measure intercounty differences in the cost-of-living,

the research team decided to use a list of 111 goods and services util-

ized by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the Consumer Price Index.

The list of "market basket" items included the following categories of

expenditures:

1. Food (26 items)

2. Housing (25 items)

3. Clothing (16 items)

4. Transportation (17 items)

5. Health and Recreation (27 items)107

Florida's 67 counties were statistically divided into ten groups

according to certain variables. The counties to be used in the pricing

process were selected on the basis of the number of state employees and

school teachers. The ten counties selected contained over 60 percent of

all state employees and school teachers.108 Two additional counties

were later added, making a total of 12 counties.

A survey firm was employed to conduct the pricing phase of the study.

Specifications for each item were developed and prices were collected by


106James C. Simmons, Project Director, Florida Cost-of-Living Research
Study: Florida Counties Price Level Index (FPLI). (Tallahassee, Florida:
Department of Administration, June 1973), p. 10.

107Ibid., p. 2.

108Ibid., p. 3.









direct visit to an outlet or by telephone. Identical items were priced

in each of the 12 counties. A price index was developed for each of the

counties and the data received from the 12 counties were used to estimate
109
price levels in the other 55 counties.1

The indexes developed for the 67 counties ranged from a high of

110.33 in Dade County, to a low of 84.47 for 27 counties. Theoretically,

this means that Dade Countians have to spend over 25 percent more to

maintain a certain standard-of-living than Pasco Countians do at 84.47.

According to the researchers, housing costs and health, recreation, and

personal services accounted for the major differences in the price level

index, while food was found to have little impact on the cost-of-liv-
110
ing.1

In 1973, the Florida Legislature adopted a new School Finance Act

which incorporated the findings of the Florida Cost-of-Living Research

Study. In addition to distributing funds on a weighted per pupil basis,

the act also contains a cost-of-living provision with factors ranging

from .91 to 1.09. The legislature has the responsibility of adjusting

these factors according to annual cost-of-living studies. These cost-

of-living factors temper the amount of money a district receives in

state aid. Obviously, a district with the 1.09 factor receives a great-

er proportion of state funds per pupil than the district with a .91
11i
factor.


109Ibid., p. 10.

0Ibid., p. 11-12.

11W. Norton Grubb and Jack Costello, Jr., New Programs of State
School Aid. (Washington, D.C.: National Legislative Conference, April
1974), p. 15.









In 1973, the State Department of Education in Kentucky conducted

a comprehensive study of its public school finance system. One of the

ten research areas involved in this massive study was an investigation

of differences in the cost-of-delivering education among Kentucky school

districts.12

The consultants studying this area recommended additional studies

focusing on the following specific questions:

1. Are there differences in the cost-of-living which favor

certain districts?

2. Among school districts, or areas of the state, are there real

cost-of-living differences for the same standard-of-living?113

In the consultants' report was a discussion of a state-wide "market

basket" survey, conducted by a Louisville newspaper, The Courier-Journal.

This survey covered 68 stores in 32 Kentucky counties. The survey showed

wide variations in prices of similar products within the same region.

The Courier-Journal concluded that, any adjustment for cost-of-living

differences, based on personal income, would be suspect because their

study showed that, in some instances, residents of high-income areas can
114
buy their food for fewer dollars.1

In summary, the concern over cost-of-living variations has a his-

tory dating back over 300 years, yet there are considerable differences


112Financing The Public Schools of Kentucky, A study made by the
National Educational Finance Project for the Kentucky Department of Edu-
cation. (Frankfort, Kentucky: Bureau of Administration and Finance,
Kentucky Department of Education, 1973), p. 421.

113Ibid., p. 430-31.

114Frank Ashley, "Contrasts in Costs," The Courier-Journal, Louis-
ville, Kentucky, April 8, 1973, p. 14.









among researchers in how to define the term. Generally, the term "cost-

of-living" refers to the expenditures for goods and services in terms

of a certain standard-of-living. It is important to note that most re-

searchers in this area consider a cost-of-living study meaningful, only

if tied to a particular standard of living. Historically, researchers

have taken two approaches in studying the area of cost-of-living. First,

actual expenditures for a particular group were collected and second, a

particular budget was determined for a group and priced from time to

time. The latter approach is used by the BLS in developing the Consumer

Price Index. The BLS has been collecting and disseminating information

relevant to the cost-of-living since the early 1900's.

Educators exhibited an interest in the cost-of-living and its effect

on teacher salaries early this century (1911). Most of these studies

centered on the erosion of the purchasing power of the teacher dollar

due to the rise in the cost-of-living. Only two studies concentrated

on variations in the cost-of-living for single teachers. Harry and Bair

found noticeable variations in the cost-of-living among single teachers

in New York and Connecticut.

In recent years, considerable attention has been focused on the

area of cost-of-living. In 1972, the President's Commission on School

Finance recommended that variations in the cost of delivering comparable

educational programs be considered in state school finance formulas.

In Florida, the Governor's Citizens' Committee recommended that a cost-

of-living provision be included in the Florida School Finance Act.

Florida incorporated a cost-of-living provision in its new finance for-

mula in 1973. In 1973 Kentucky conducted an investigation into the

differences in the cost of delivering education among school districts.






50



It is apparent that society has become quite aware of variations

in educational need and the problem of providing equal educational oppor-

tunity. Recent court cases and some important research studies have

shed some light on the problem and increased public awareness. However,

overall knowledge is limited in the area of cost-of-living. It is ob-

vious that more research is needed to learn more about how cost varia-

tions affect education.















CHAPTER III


INSTRUMENTS FOR MEASURE


The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the two data collection

instruments used in the study. The first instrument involved a food

pricing form used to collect food prices, and the second instrument in-

volved a questionnaire used to gather information on shelter and

transportation.

Two different instruments were used in the study because of the

diversity and type of data desired. The first instrument was designed

to substantiate variations in food prices among the 17 school districts

selected for the study. Historically, variations in food costs have

been determined by utilizing techniques developed by the United States

Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Therefore, this

facet of the study was accomplished by pricing a market basket of food

items taken from the BLS in each of the 17 school districts. This

instrument was not mailed to the teachers identified for the study.

The second instrument involved the use of a questionnaire and was

designed to collect information on shelter and transportation. In order

to determine the extent of variations in shelter and transportation

costs, a questionnaire was mailed to each teacher selected for the study.

This chapter is divided into two parts. The first part of the

chapter discusses the rationale for the food pricing instrument, the









criteria for selecting the food items in the market basket, and the

method of securing prices. The second part of the chapter discusses

the rationale for the questionnaires mailed, how it was constructed, and

the process for collecting the data.


Food Pricing Instrument

The most frequently used approach in collecting food prices has

been the "market basket" methodology used by the United States Depart-

ment of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics in developing the Consumer

Price Index. The methodology of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)

has been used in a number of cost-of-living studies similar to the one

under discussion. The BLS "market basket" method was used in pricing

food items in this study, because it is a thoroughly tested procedure in

demonstrating cost-of-living variations.

In order to determine variations in food costs among the 17 dis-

tricts in Kentucky, it was decided to use 19 of the 26 food items used in

the Florida Cost-of-Living Research Study. These 19 food items are also

major components of the food portion for the Consumer Price Index. These

particular 19 food items were chosen because they are common components

of most food budgets and would accurately reflect cost-of-living varia-

tions for teachers living in the 17 districts. (See Appendix D)

To assure consistency in the pricing of food items from one dis-

trict to the next, a set of specifications for each of the 19 food items

was developed. The specifications used in the study were taken pri-

marily from those used in the Florida Cost-of-Living Research Study.

(See Appendix C)









Thirty-four food outlets were used in pricing the 19 food items in

the 17 county school districts. The decision on the number of food out-

lets to be priced in each school district was dependent on the popula-

tion size of the district involved. For instance, prices were collected

from eight outlets in Jefferson County (Louisville), and from four out-

lets in Fayette County (Lexington). In the remaining 15 school districts,

which have smaller populations, prices were collected in at least one

outlet and if time permitted, two outlets were priced.

Brand names were not utilized as a criteria in pricing the 19 food

items in each outlet. Every brand was priced that conformed to the

specifications developed for that particular item. Specials were avoid-

ed in pricing the food items. The food pricing phase of the study was

accomplished over a period of seven days, (September 5-12).


Questionnaire

The second instrument for measure involved the use of a question-

naire mailed to teachers selected for the study. There was a variety

of considerations affecting the decision on how best to collect expendi-

ture data for shelter and transportation for single teachers living away

from home. The first consideration was to determine the existence of

data relevant to this particular study. Data were available on the num-

ber of teachers by district and their salaries; however, data were non-

existent on the marital status of teachers, whether they were living at

home or away from home, and the standard-of-living of teachers. Most

notably, data were not available on how single teachers spent their

salaries for shelter and transportation. Various data collection in-

struments were considered for the study; however, only two approaches









were-appropriate for the objectives of the study--the interview and the

questionnaire. Similar studies indicated that a questionnaire mailed

to the respondents was the best approach because it provided a way to

"reach many people in widely scattered areas quickly and at a compara-

.tively low cost."

Due to the difficulty in identifying all the single teachers in

the 17 school districts who live away from home, a decision was made to

mail the questionnaire to all teachers falling within the salary range of

$7,823-$9,823, calculated for the study. The Bureau of Administration

and Finance in the Kentucky Department of Education has the addresses of

all classroom teachers in its computer data bank. Once a mean salary

was calculated for the 17 districts, it was a simple process to identify

all teachers falling within, plus and minus $1,000 of the mean. Thus,

the questionnaires were mailed to all teachers making approximately the

same salary; however, only returns from single teachers living away from

home were used in the study.

The questions used in the instrument were developed, primarily, from

reviewing the relevant research and other data collection forms. A sec-

ondary source of information on what items to include in the question-

naire came from a publication by the United States Department of Labor,

Bureau of Labor Statistics, entitled, Consumer Expenditures and Income:

Survey Guidelines. The BLS utilized a plethora of questions in develop-

ing the Consumer Price Index. However, for purposes of this study, a

limited number of representative inquiries into housing and transportation

costs were developed for use in the questionnaire. (See Appendix E)


1Deobold B. Van Dalen. Understanding Educational Research: An
Introduction. (San Francisco: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Third Edition,
1973), p. 325.






55


The individual questions on the instrument were constructed with

four objectives in mind: first, to separate self-supporting, single

teachers, living away from home, from the other teacher respondents;

second, to collect information on the standard-of-living for single

teachers; third, to collect information on the cost of shelter; and

fourth, to collect information on transportation costs.

In constructing the instrument, a one-page questionnaire was de-

veloped which would require less of the respondents' time and, hopefully,

result in a higher percentage of returns. Over 4,000 teachers were

identified for the study in the 17 school districts, thus, a one-page

instrument would greatly enhance the return.

In formulating the individual questions for the study, an attempt

was made to eliminate any unnecessary or sensitive questions. For in-

stance, questions of age and race were deleted, because they were un-

necessary for the study and could possibly inhibit the return of the

instrument. Sensitive questions, such as the teachers' salaries, were

deleted since the information was readily available through the Depart-

ment of Education. In addition, the teachers' names were not required

on the questionnaire assuring anonymity for the respondent.

As to the form of the questionnaire, the closed-end and checklist

approach was used. The closed-end approach limits the respondent to

certain responses and was used in contrast to the open-end format which

allows the subject to make any response he wishes in his own words.2

The closed-end approach was deemed appropriate for this study in terms

of the data desired. A total of 17 inquiries were included on the

questionnaire.


2Bruce W. Tuckman. Conducting Educational Research. (New York:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1972), p. 198.









In reviewing the literature, it was suggested, repeatedly, that

protesting the questionnaire is very desirable. If possible, the in-

strument should be pretested with a sample of the population to whom

you intend to mail the questionnaire. Various reasons prohibited pre-

testing the questionnaire; however, the instrument was reviewed by a

number of knowledgeable people and approved for use in the study.

In view of the large number of respondents and school districts

involved in the study, the questionnaires were coded. The Kentucky De-

partment of Education supplied two printouts containing the name and

salary of each teacher identified for the study in the 17 districts. In

addition, the Department of Education also supplied two sets of address

labels for use in mailing the instruments. The two printout lists of

teacher names, the two sets of address labels, and the questionnaires

were all coded. As the questionnaires returned from the initial mailing,

they were checked off from the second set of address labels so that

only non-respondents received a questionnaire for the follow-up mailing.

To assure a maximum return of responses from the mailing, the co-

operation of the Kentucky Department of Education was secured. The

cover letter for the mailing was sent out under the endorsement of the

Department of Education. The Assistant Superintendent for the Bureau

of Administration and Finance signed the cover letter. (See Appensix F.)

In addition, the endorsement of the Kentucky Education Association was

also secured. (See Appendix G.) A letter of endorsement, signed by an

official from the Kentucky Education Association, was also included

with each mailed questionnaire.

A technique frequently used in questionnaires is to enclose a stamp-

ed, self-addressed return envelope for the respondents' convenience.






57


These items were provided in the hope that this would assure a higher

rate of return.

Due to the large number of respondents and the wide geographical

area covered, it was decided that the follow-up mailing to non-respon-

dents would come approximately one month after the initial mailing. The

follow-up mailing concluded attempts to collect data for the study. The

cover letter for the follow-up mailing is contained in Appendix H.














CHAPTER IV


PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA


The purpose of this study was to determine whether cost-of-living

differences existed for single public school teachers in selected school

districts in the state of Kentucky and to develop a cost-of-living index

based on these differences. The data presented and analyzed in this

chapter were based on information derived from the food pricing form and

from questionnaires mailed to teachers in 17 county school districts,

who are single, living away from home, and making approximately the same

salary.

The findings from the two data collection instruments are divided

into five main parts: districts, food, standard-of-living, shelter, and

transportation. A total of 217 teachers who met the selection criteria

returned questionnaires. The findings for shelter and transportation

in this chapter are based on their responses. The findings for food

costs are based on data obtained in each of the 17 districts.

In order to identify trends in the cost-of-living and standard-of-

living, the results from the two data collection instruments were con-

trasted with assessed valuation per pupil figures for the five wealth-

iest districts and the five poorest districts in the 17 district popula-

tion. The five wealthiest county school districts are: Woodford

($65,254), Fayette ($54,546), Jefferson ($49,836), Rowan ($44,141), and









Boone ($43,006). The five poorest county school districts are: Clay

($9,324), McCreary ($12,291), Letcher ($15,457), Floyd ($17,602), and

Marion ($26,109). Throughout this chapter, these two groups will be

used to analyze and contrast the data collected. -


Districts

Seventeen county school districts were selected for use in the

study. Table 1 provides information on the total number of teachers in

the 17 school districts, the number of teachers identified for the study,

and the target population or the actual number of single teachers re-

sponding. The returns from single teachers were greater in the more

populous areas of the state, such as Jefferson and Fayette County. The

217 respondents included a disproportionate number of females--184 fe-

males (85 percent) to 33 males (15 percent). In addition, 187 of the

217 respondents (86 percent) resided in the county in which they taught.

Appendix I provides additional information on the percent and number of

questionnaires returned.

As mentioned earlier, throughout the study, the results from the

two instruments were contrasted with assessed valuation figures for five

property rich and five property poor school districts. Table 2 provides

information relevant to the wealth of the 17 county school districts.

Per capital personal income and assessed valuation per pupil figures

demonstrate a wide range of economic circumstances for the districts

involved in the study.


Food

Tables 3-19 provide information concerning the food component of

the study. Each table shows the number of pricing collected for each









TABLE 1

TOTAL NUMBER OF CLASSROOM TEACHERS, TOTAL NUMBER
OF TEACHERS SELECTED FOR THE STUDY, AND THE TOTAL
NUMBER OF TEACHERS RESPONDING, PER DISTRICT


Total Number Total Number
of Classroom of Teachers Total Number
Teachers Selected for of Teachers
County (1973-74) Study Responding


Marshall
Christian
Ohio

Simpson
Marion
Bullitt

Boone
Jefferson
Rowan

Boyd
Floyd
Letcher

Clay
McCreary
Woodford

Clark
Fayette


State Totals


200.5
452.0
190.6

148.5
179.0
332.0


337.0
4,132.3
119.0

163.0
398.0
235.0

271.5
157.9
158.2

250.5
1,623.7


9,348.7


72
166
62

69
71
121


154
1,445
53


136
79
57

96
624


3,712


217


Source: Division of Statistical Serv
cation, Frankfort, Kentucky.


ices, Kentucky Department of Edu-









TABLE 2

PER CAPITAL PERSONAL INCOME AND ASSESSED
VALUATION PER PUPIL, PER DISTRICT


Per Capita Per
Personal Pupil
Income Assessed
County 1972 Valuation


Marshall $ 3,525 $ 39,999
Christian 3,952 29,063
Ohio 2,964 30,779

Simpson 3,677 39,224
Marion 2,607 26,109
Bullitt 3,034 31,525

Boone 3,902 43,006
Jefferson 4,787 49,836
Rowan 2,026 44,141

Boyd 4,009 32,350
Floyd 2,281 17,602
Letcher 2,678 15,457

Clay 1,760 9,324
McCreary 1,428 12,291
Woodford 4,691 65,254

Clark 4,228 42,645
Fayette 4,563 54,546


State Median $ 2,938 $ 33,689


Source: Division of Statistical Services,
cation, Frankfort, Kentucky.


Kentucky Department of Edu-










of the 19 food items, the range in prices, and the median price per item

in each separate district. The median price for each item in each

district is added to determine the total median price.

A summary of the food pricing phase of the study is illustrated in

Table 20. Here, districts are ranked according to the district median

price paid for the 19 food items and the percent deviation from the

state median ($17.49) for each district total.

The highest median price paid for the 19 food items in the market

basket was expended in Floyd County ($19.44), which is one of the five

poor districts in terms of assessed valuation per pupil or property

wealth. Among the eight districts exceeding the state median price of

$17.49, the evidence shows that teachers in the four property rich dis-

tricts (Woodford, Fayette, Boone, and Jefferson) are paying a higher

amount for the 19 market basket items, while only two of the property

poor districts are in this position (Floyd and Marion).

Table 21 shows the state median price paid per item for all food

items priced in the study. The total state median price of $17.45 com-

pares favorably with the district median price of $17.49 in Table 20.


Standard-of-Living

This phase of the study involved a limited investigation of the

food, shelter, and transportation. In the review of literature, it was

recommended that differences in the cost-of-living must be viewed in

conjunction with differences in the standard-of-living.1 Some studies

have been conducted to determine the existence of differences in the

cost-of-living with little regard to variations in the standard-of-living


Simmons, p. 7.









TABLE 3

NUMBER OF FOOD ITEMS PRICED, THE PRICE RANGES,
AND THE MEDIAN PRICE IN MARSHALL COUNTY (BENTON)
(Two Stores)


Number of
Food Food Items Price Median
Item Priced Range Price


1 2 $0.57 $0.59 $0.58

2 2 1.49 1.89 1.69

3 2 1.59 1.89 1.74

4 2 1.29 1.29

5 2 1.39 1.69 1.54

6 4 0.99 1.39 1.07

7 2 0.47 0.59 0.53

8 3 0.81 0.82 0.81

9 3 1.15 1.15

10 2 1.96 2.60 2.28

11 2 0.10 0.25 0.17

12 2 0.20 0.25 0.23

13 2 0.39 0.59 0.49

14 3 0.50 0.65 0.59

15 2 0.39 0.39

16 2 0.39 0.59 0.49

17 4 0.85 0.93 0.88

18 4 1.35 1.39 1.39

19 2 0.69 0.80 0.75

Total 47 $18.06






64


TABLE 4

NUMBER OF FOOD ITEMS PRICED, THE PRICE RANGES,
AND THE MEDIAN PRICE IN CHRISTIAN COUNTY (HOPKINSVILLE)
(One Store)


Number of
Food Food Items Price Median
Item Priced Range Price


$ .40

1.99

.89

1.29

1.89

1.35 1.49

.53

.79 .83

.85 .93

1.16

.19

.23

.39

.28

.49

.49

.73 .79

1.31

.79


$ .40

1.99

.89

1.29

1.89

1.42

.53

.81


1.16


.23


.28

.49

.49

.75

1.31

.79

$16.19


Total


1









TABLE 5

NUMBER OF FOOD ITEMS PRICED, THE PRICE RANGES,
AND THE MEDIAN PRICE IN OHIO COUNTY (HARTFORD)
(One Store)


Number of
Food Food Items Price Median
Item Priced Range Price


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Total


1

1

1

1

1

4

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

3

2

1

28


$ .46

1.59

1.79

1.29

1.39

1.15 1.45

.55

.78

1.14

1.20

.21

.21 .25

.59

.95 .99

.30

.39

.83

1.33

.77


$ .46

1.59

1.79

1.29

1.39

1.22

.55

.78

1.14

1.20

.21

.23

.59

.97

.30

.39

.83

1.33

.77

$17.03






66


TABLE 6

NUMBER OF FOOD ITEMS PRICED, THE PRICE RANGES,
AND THE MEDIAN PRICE IN SIMPSON COUNTY (FRANKLIN)
(One Store)


Number of
Food Food Items Price Median
Item Priced Range Price


$ .46

1.49

1.59

1.09

1.29

1.19 1.49

.55

.77 .79

1.25

1.20

.17

.30

.39

.45 .89

.33

.35

.77

1.29

.78


$ .46

1.49


1.59

1.09

1.29

1.34


1.25

1.20


1.29


.78

$16.09


Total


1






67


TABLE 7

NUMBER OF FOOD ITEMS PRICED, THE PRICE RANGES,
AND THE MEDIAN PRICE IN MARION COUNTY (LEBANON)
(One Store)


Number of
Food Food Items Price Median
Item Priced Range Price


$ .36 .42

2.09

1.89

1.39

1.29

1.59

.39

.90

.89

1.20

.23

.25

.39

.80

.39

.49

.75 .85

1.31

.79


$ .39

2.09

1.89

1.39

1.29

1.59


.90


1.20


1.31


.79

$17.52


Total


1









TABLE 8

NUMBER OF FOOD ITEMS PRICED, THE PRICE RANGES,
AND THE MEDIAN PRICE IN BULLITT COUNTY (SHEPERDSVILLE)
(Two Stores)


Number of
Food Food Items Price Median
Item Priced Range Price


1 5 $ .33 .47 $ .45

2 2 1.49 1.99 1.74

3 2 1.59 2.19 1.89

4 2 1.09 1.09

5 2 1.09 1.49 1.29

6 5 .89 1.49 1.39

7 2 .49 .59 .54

8 3 .79 .83 .81

9 2 .99 .99

10 2 1.44 1.96 1.69

11 2 .19 .25 .22

12 2 .18 .30 .24

13 2 .69 .69

14 2 .35 .80 .57

15 2 .39 .39

16 2 .49 .49

17 4 .81 .89 .84

18 4 1.33 1.45 1.39

19 2 .77 .79 .78

Total 49 $17.49









TABLE 9

NUMBER OF FOOD ITEMS PRICED, THE PRICE RANGES,
AND THE MEDIAN PRICE IN BOONE COUNTY (FLORENCE)
(Two Stores)


Number of
Food Food Items Price Median
Item Priced Range Price


$ .39 -

1.29 -

1.39 -

1.09 -

1.39 -

1.39 -

.39 -

.83 -

.93 -

1.32 -

.19 -

.25 -

.48 -

.50 -


3

3

2

2

2

2

3

2

2

12

7

2

65


.53

1.69

1.85

1.29

1.59

1.79

.61

.87

.99

1.96

.20

.98

.59

.80


.49

.45 .49

.69 .85

1.25 1.35

.85


$ .53

1.49

1.62

1.19

1.49

1.59

.50

.85

.99

1.64

.20

.62

.54

.59

.49

.47

.78

1.35

.85

$17.78


Total






70


TABLE 10

NUMBER OF FOOD ITEMS PRICED, THE PRICE RANGES,
AND THE MEDIAN PRICE IN JEFFERSON COUNTY (LOUISVILLE)
(Eight Stores)


Number of
Food Food Items Price Median
Items Priced Range Price


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Total


22

8

8

8

8

24

8

15

16

8

8

8

8

12

8

8

24

19

8

228


$ .33 -

1.47 -

1.47 -

.89 -

1.59 -

.79 -

.33 -

.83 -

.79 -

1.16 -

.19 -

.25 -

.39 -

.27 -

.23 -

.29 -

.57 -

1.25 -

.73 -


.69

2.09

2.09

1.49

1.89

1.69

.59

.87

1.12

3.56

.23

.89

.59

1.39

.49

.69

.89

1.59

.81


$ .47

1.99

1.89

1.24

1.79

1.32

.57

.84

.97

1.32

.22

.36

.49

.45

.44

.42

.79

1.31

.76

$17.64









TABLE 11

NUMBER OF FOOD ITEMS PRICED, THE PRICE RANGES,
AND THE MEDIAN PRICE IN ROWAN COUNTY (MOREHEAD)
(One Store)


Number of
Food Food Items Price Median
Item Priced Range Price


$ .40 .49

1.79

1.79

1.49

1.19

1.13 1.45

.55

.78 .80

1.13

.99

.19

.25 .40

.69

.45 .49

.35

.29

.87

1.35 1.41

.73


$ .45

1.79

1.79

1.49

1.19

1.39

.55

.79

1.13

.99

.19


.33

.69

.47

.35

.29

.87


1.35


.73

$16.83


Total


1









TABLE 12

NUMBER OF FOOD ITEMS PRICED, THE PRICE RANGES,
AND THE MEDIAN PRICE IN BOYD COUNTY (ASHLAND)
(Two Stores)


Number of
Food Food Items Price Median
Item Priced Range Price


$ .43 .53

1.89 2.09

1.49 1.99

1.09 1.39

1.19 1.59

.99 1.87

.57 .59

.71 .81

1.02 1.13

1.32

.19

.35 .40

.69

.50 1.00

.29


5

2

2

2

2

6

2

4

2

2

2

2

2

3

2

2

7

4

2

55


.49

.86

1.41

.85


$ .48

1.99

1.74

1.24

1.39

1.34

.58

.77

1.07

1.32

.19

.38

.69

.60

.29

.44

.79

1.35

.81

$17.46


.39 -

.71 -

1.33 -

.77 -


Total









TABLE 13

NUMBER OF FOOT ITEMS PRICED, THE PRICE RANGES,
AND THE MEDIAN PRICE IN FLOYD COUNTY (PRESTONBURG)
(One Store)


Number of
Food Food Items Price Median
Item Priced Range Price


$ .47

1.99

1.79

1.29

1.59

1.45 1.69

.59

.80 .88

1.15

1.32 2.20

.25

.29

.79

1.00

.29

.53

.89

1.39 1.47

.79


$ .47

1.99

1.79

1.29

1.59

1.67

.59

.84

1.15

1.76

.25

.29

.79

1.00


.29

.53

.89

1.47

.79

$19.44


Total


1









TABLE 14

NUMBER OF FOOD ITEMS PRICED, THE PRICE RANGES,
AND THE MEDIAN PRICE IN LETCHER COUNTY (WHITEBURG)
(Two Stores)


Number of
Food Food Items Price Median
Item Priced Range Price


1 4 $ .39 .49 $ .49

2 2 1.39 1.89 1.64

3 2 1.69 1.89 1.79

4 2 1.19 1.19

5 2 1.69 1.89 1.79

6 6 1.19 1.79 1.49

7 2 .39 .49 .44

8 4 .80 .89 .88

9 4 .85 1.29 .96

10 2 1.04 1.16 1.10

11 2 .19 .19

12 2 .25 .25

13 2 .39 .59 .49

14 2 .60 .99 .80

15 2 .39 .49 .44

16 2 .39 .49 .44

17 5 .73 .98 .79

18 5 1.33 1.49 1.39

19 2 .75 .79 .77

Total 54 $17.33









-TABLE 15


OF FOOD ITEMS PRICED, THE PRICE RANGES,
MEDIAN PRICE IN CLAY COUNTY (MANCHESTER)
(One Store)


Number of
Food Food Items Price Median
Item Priced Range Price


$ .51

1.59

1.69

1.29

1.29

1.39

.55

.89

1.16

.59

.15

.18

.79

.80

.39

.39

.89

1.45

.75


$ .51

1.59

1.69

1.29

1.29

1.39


1.16


1.45

.75

$16.74


NUMBER
AND THE


Total


1









TABLE 16

NUMBER OF FOOD ITEMS PRICED, THE PRICE RANGES,
AND THE MEDIAN PRICE IN McCREARY COUNTY (WHITLEY CITY)
(One Store)


Number of
Food Food Items Price Median
Item Priced Range Price


$ .53

1.59

1.59

1.39

1.19

1.09 1.29

.57

.87

1.09 1.38

1.16

.15

.19

.69

.89

.39

.39

.79 .93

1.33

.79


$ .53

1.59

1.59

1.39

1.19

1.19

.57

.87

1.29

1.16

.15

.19

.69


.39


1.33

.79

$17.05


Total


1









TABLE 17

NUMBER OF FOOD ITEMS PRICED, THE PRICE RANGES,
AND THE MEDIAN PRICE IN WOODFORD COUNTY (VERSAILLES)
(Two Stores)


Number of
Food Food Items Price Median
Item Priced Range Price


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

.10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Total


8

2

2

2

2

5

2

3

4

2

2

2

2

3

2

2

4

3

2

54


$ .33 -

1.99 -

1.89 -

1.09 -

1.29 -

1.29 -

.53 -

.89 -

.95 -

1.44 -

.19 -

.22 -

.39 -

.32 -


.59

2.59

1.99

1.39

1.79

1.49

.65

.94

.93

2.36

.23

.33

.49

.50


1.49


.45 -

.69 -

1.31

.79


$ .45

2.29

1.94

1.24

1.54

1.39

.59

.89

.88

1.90

.21

.27

.44

.50

.49

.47

.76

1.31

.79

$18.36









TABLE 18

NUMBER OF FOOD ITEMS PRICED, THE PRICE RANGES,
AND THE MEDIAN PRICE IN CLARK COUNTY (WINCHESTER)
(Two Stores)


Number of
Food Food Items Price Median
Item Priced Range Price


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Total


7

2

2

2

2

5

2

4

3

2

2

2

2

6

2

2

6

5

2

60


$ .39

1.99

1.89

.89

1.79

.79


.88

.79

1.32


- .57

- 2.09

- 1.99

- 1.49

- 1.89

- 1.69

.59

- .91

- 1.02

- 1.56

.19


.35 -

.59 -

.37 -

.29 -


.39


.83 -

1.31 -

.73 -


$ .51

2.05

1.94

1.19

1.84

1.49

.59

.91

.92

1.44

.19

.37

.69

.70

.31

.39

.86

1.35

.74

$18.48


.91

1.38

.75









TABLE 19

-NUMBER OF FOOD ITEMS PRICED, THE PRICE RANGES,
AND THE MEDIAN PRICE IN FAYETTE COUNTY (LEXINGTON)
(Four Stores)


Number of
Food Food Items Price Median
Item Priced Range Price


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Total


12

4

4

4

4

14

4

8

7

4

4

4

4

9

4

4

11

10

4

119


$ .33 -

1.89 -

1.49 -

.89 -

1.39 -

.99 -

.53 -

.88 -

.79 -

1.16 -

.19 -

.23 -

.37 -

.35 -

.33 -

.39 -

.67 -

1.25 -

.67 -


.59

2.09

2.09

1.39

1.89

1.69

.59

.93

.99

2.36

.25

.50

.89

.80

.49

.49

.93

1.31

.79


$ .51

1.99

1.89

1.14

1.84

1.44

.59

.89

.89

1.38

.23

.33

.44

.45

.49

.49

.79

1.30

.79

$17.87









TABLE 20

FOOD PRICE RANKING AND PERCENT DEVIATION
FROM THE STATE MEDIAN, PER DISTRICT


Percent
Deviation
District From State
County Median Median
District Ranking Price ($17.49)


Floyd

Clark

Woodford

Marshall

Fayette

Boone

Jefferson

Marion

Bullitt

Boyd

Letcher

McCreary

Ohio

Rowan

Clay

Christian

Simpson


$19.44

18.48

18.36

18.06

17.87

17.78

17.64

17.52

17.49

17.46

17.33

17.05

17.03

16.83

16.74

16.19

16.09


+ 11.15

+ 5.66

+ 4.97

+ 3.26

+ 2.17

+ 1.66

+ 0.86

+ 0.17

0.000

- 0.17

- 0.91

- 2.52

- 2.63

- 3.78

- 4.29

- 7.43

- 8.01






81


TABLE 21

TOTAL NUMBER OF FOOD ITEMS PRICED, THE PRICE RANGES,
AND THE MEDIAN PRICE FOR THE STATE (17 DISTRICTS)


Total Number State
Food of Food Items Price Median
Item Priced Range Price


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Total


85

34

34

34

34

92

34

60

54

35

34

39

34

54

34

34

105

95

34

959


$ .33 -

1.29 -

.89 -

.89 -

1.09 -

.79 -

.33 -

.71 -

.79 -

.59 -

.10 -

.17 -

.39 -

.28 -

.23 -

.29 -

.59 -

.88 -

.67 -


.69

2.59

2.19

1.49

1.89

1.87

.65

.94

1.38

2.28

.25

.62

.89

1.00

.49

.69

.98

1.59

.85


$ .47

1.89

1.85

1.28

1.59

1.39

.56

.85

.98

1.24

.20

.25

.54

.60

.39

.45

.82

1.31

.79

$17.45









or economic circumstances. It is important that the two areas be studied

in concert, because comparable costs for a particular item in one area

of a state may purchase a vastly different quantity and quality of goods,

services, or shelter in other parts of the state. In addition, the

standard-of-living can vary greatly in different parts of a state. Con-

sequently, in this study, variations in the standard-of-living for the

17 county school districts were compared with differences in the cost-

of-living.

Table 22 illustrates that, state-wide, most single teachers rent

rather than buy or own their shelter. However, in rural and in low-

property wealth parts of the state, there is a tendency for single

teachers to buy or own their shelter. (Note districts, 1, 3, 4, 9, 10,

11, 12, 13, 14, and 16). This is probably due to a lack of rental pro-

perty in the rural and property poor districts. Later, this becomes

an important factor to consider as the data are contrasted for rich and

poor districts.

Table 23 shows that more teachers live in apartments than in any

other type of shelter. The predominant use of houses in the rural or

low assessed valuation districts may also be observed.

The questionnaire mailed to single teachers asked for a descrip-

tion of the type and quality of shelter occupied by the respondents.

In Appendix J, a description of the number and percent of certain shelter

items possessed by the 217 respondents in each district is given.

The following discussion centers on a comparison of the data using

the five high and five low property wealth districts identified at the

beginning of this chapter.





83


TABLE 22

TOTAL NUMBER AND PERCENT OF TEACHERS RENTING OR BUYING SHELTER


Total Total
Number Number
Number of Percent of Percent
County of Teachers of Teachers of
District Returns Renting Total Buying Total


Marshall 2 2 100

Christian 12 3 25 9 75

Ohio 3 3 100

Simpson 1 1 100

Marion 9 9 100 -

Bullitt 10 8 80 2 20

Boone 3 3 100 -

Jefferson 93 86 92 7 8

Rowan 2 2 100

Boyd 3 3 100

Floyd 14 4 29 10 71

Letcher 7 1 14 6 86

Clay 3 1 33 2 67

McCreary 2 2 100

Woodford 5 4 80 1 20

Clark 9 3 33 6 67

Fayette 39 33 85 6 15


State Total 217


155 71


62 29






84


TABLE 23

TYPE OF SHELTER UTILIZED BY TEACHERS


Number
County of Apart-
District Returns ment House Room Trailer Other


Marshall 2 2 -

Christian 12 2 10 -

Ohio 3 3 -

Simpson 1 1 -

Marion 9 4 1 4

Bullitt 10 7 1 1 1 -

Boone 3 3 -

Jefferson 93 86 6 1 -

Rowan 2 2 -

Boyd 3 3 -

Floyd 14 14 -

Letcher 7 6 1 -

Clay 3 1 2 -

McCreary 2 2 -

Woodford 5 4 1 -

Clark 9 3 5 1 -

Fayette 39 29 9 1


State Total 217 139 68 1 5 4

Percent
of Total 64 31 1 2 2









In terms of hot and cold running water, private bath, tub or show-

er, cooking stove, and refrigerator features, no significant difference

was noticed in the responses from high or low wealth districts. However,

differences were noted in heating and cooling systems. Central heating

and air conditioning features were more prevalent among respondents from

high property wealth districts than from low wealth districts. Con-

versely, window air conditioning and space heaters were more predominant

among respondents from low property wealth districts. It appears that

the shelter available to teachers in high wealth areas has a tendency

to contain more desirable shelter features than shelter in low wealth

districts.

As for laundry equipment and garage facilities, it was noted that

teachers in low wealth areas had their own laundry equipment and had

some form of garage facility more often than did their high wealth coun-

terparts. In view of Table 22, which showed that the majority of re-

spondents rented, most respondents in rural areas owned their shelter

and the data showed that the rural areas generally comprise the low

wealth districts. Personal laundry equipment and some form of garage

or carport is generally found more often in homes than in rented shelter.

This explains why low wealth districts tend to possess these facilities

more readily than respondents from wealthy districts. Appendix K illus-

trates the differences in shelter features among the 17 school districts

and Table 24 provides information on the prevalence rates of these 14

items state-wide.

Another part of the questionnaire obtained information on the total

number of bedrooms, bathrooms, and the total number of rooms in the









TABLE 24

TOTAL NUMBER AND PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS POSSESSING SHELTER FEATURES
(State Totals)


Number Percent
With This of
Shelter Item Item Total


Hot and Cold Running Water 216 99.5

Private Bath 195 89.9

Tub or Shower 207 95.4

Cooking Stove 213 98.2

Refrigerator 210 96.8

Central Air Conditioning 127 58.5

Window Air Conditioning 57 26.3

Central Heating 179 82.5

Space Heater or Other Type 32 14.8

Personal Laundry Equipment 66 30.4

Coin Operated Laundry Equipment Only 109 50.2

No Garage Facility 158 72.8

One or Two Car Covered Garage 23 10.6

Carport 23 10.6









shelter of the target population (see Table 25). For the 217 teachers

responding little or no difference was found between the high and low

wealth districts in the total number of rooms and in the total number

of bathrooms. However, in the total number of bedrooms category, the

five low property wealth districts were found to be noticeably higher

than the five high wealth districts. Again, this is probably attribut-

able to the fact that home ownership was more prevalent among respon-

dents in the low wealth districts and, in general, most homes contain

more bedrooms than does rented shelter.

Another important component relevant to the standard-of-living

phase of the study involved the frequency of visits and number of miles

traveled by the respondents to the doctor, dentist, grocery store,

shopping or trade center and movie theatre. Tables 26-30 provided this

information.

Some notable differences were found in the frequency of visits and

the distances traveled by respondents of low and high wealth districts.

The two groups make approximately the same number of trips to the doctor

and the dentist, but the median distance traveled by respondents in the

five low wealth districts was almost twice that of the high wealth dis-

tricts. For instance, respondents from the five high wealth districts

made two trips annually to the dentist, traveling a median distance of

five miles. The respondents from the five low wealth districts also

made two trips per year, but had to travel a median distance of 9.5

miles to the dentist. Table 31 illustrates some of the differences be-

tween low and high wealth districts in the median number of trips and

in median distances traveled.









-- TABLE 25

.--MEDIAN NUMBER OF ROOMS, BEDROOMS, AND BATHROOMS, BY DISTRICT


Number Median Median Median
County of Number of Number of Number of
District Returns Rooms Bedronos Bathrooms


Marshall 2 5.5 2.0 1.0

Christian 12 6.0 2.0 1.0

Ohio 3 6.0 2.0 1.0

Simpson 1 6.0 2.0 1.0

Marion 9 5.0 2.0 1.0

Bullitt 10 4.0 1.0 1.0

Boone 3 5.0 2.0 1.0

Jefferson 93 5.0 2.0 1.0

Rowan 2 8.5 3.0 1.5

Boyd 3 8.0 2.0 2.0

Floyd 14 6.0 3.0 1.0

Letcher 7 5.5 2.5 1.0

Clay 3 6.0 3.0 1.0

McCreary 2 5.0 2.5 1.0

Woodford 5 4.0 1.0 1.0

Clark 9 7.0 2.0 1.0

Fayette 39 5.0 2.0 1.0


217 5.0 2.0


State Totals









TABLE 26

MEDIAN NUMBER OF TRIPS AND NUMBER OF MILES TRAVELED
BY RESPONDENTS IN EACH DISTRICT TO THE DOCTOR


Estimated Median Total Median
Number Total Number Number Distance Number
County of of Trips of in Miles of
District Returns (Per Year) Trips One Way Miles


Marshall 2 6.0 3.0 16.0 8.0

Christian 12 83.5 6.5 86.5 2.0

Ohio 3 7.0 1.0 42.0 12.0

Simpson 1 -

Marion 9 50.0 3.0 236.2 12.0

Bullitt 10 46.0 2.5 223.0 22.5

Boone 3 12.0 4.0 2.5 1.0

Jefferson 93 383.0 3.0 759.5 8.0

Rowan 2 7.0 3.5 2.0 1.0

Boyd 3 7.0 3.5 3.0 1.5

Floyd 14 78.0 6.0 310.5 7.0

Letcher 7 32.0 3.0 253.0 12.0

Clay 3 14.0 4.0 126.0 20.0

McCreary 2 13.0 6.5 6.5 3.3

Woodford 5 15.0 3.0 34.0 7.0

Clark 9 30.0 2.0 33.0 2.5

Fayette 39 242.0 2.0 417.0 8.0


State Totals 217 1,025.5 3.0 2,550.7 7.5


1,025.5 3.0


2,550.7 7.5


State Totals 217









TABLE 27

MEDIAN NUMBER OF TRIPS AND NUMBER OF MILES TRAVELED
BY RESPONDENTS IN EACH DISTRICT TO THE DENTIST


Estimated Median Total Median
Number Total Number Number Distance Number
County of of Trips of in Miles of
District Returns (Per Year) Trips One Way Miles


Marshall 2 2.0 2.0 8.0 8.0

Christian 12 15.0 2.0 188.8 2.0

Ohio 3 4.0 1.0 61.0 12.0

Simpson 1 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0

Marion 9 13.0 1.0 60.0 5.0

Bullitt 10 21.0 2.0 140.0 11.5

Boone 3 4.0 2.0 9.0 4.0

Jefferson 93 180.0 2.0 1,450.5 10.0

Rowan 2 5.0 2.5 1.5 .8

Boyd 3 5.0 2.5 3.0 1.5

Floyd 14 52.0 2.0 129.8 9.5

Letcher 7 14.0 2.0 62.0 5.0

Clay 3 19.0 2.0 55.0 20.0

McCreary 2 4.0 2.0 36.0 18.0

Woodford 5 13.0 2.0 27.1 5.0

Clark 9 11.0 2.0 41.5 2.5

Fayette 39 90.0 2.0 824.0 6.0


454.0 2.0


3,097.2 6.0


State Totals 217









TABLE 28

MEDIAN NUMBER OF TRIPS AND NUMBER OF MILES TRAVELED
BY RESPONDENTS IN EACH DISTRICT TO THE GROCERY STORE


Estimated Median Total Median
Number Total Number Number Distance Number
County of of Trips of in Miles of
District Returns (Per Year) Trips One Way Miles


Marshall 2 110.0 55.0 10.0 5.0

Christian 12 818.0 101.0 21.3 3.0

Ohio 3 156.0 52.0 17.0 4.0

Simpson 1 104.0 104.0 1.0 1.0

Marion 9 469.0 52.0 209.0 12.0

Bullitt 10 567.0 56.0 19.8 2.0

Boone 3 71.0 35.5 10.0 5.0

Jefferson 93 7,690.0 55.0 450.13 2.0

Rowan 2 300.0 300.0 1.0 1.0

Boyd 3 71.0 35.5 2.5 1.3

Floyd 14 1,171.0 52.0 162.0 8.0

Letcher 7 321.0 50.0 33.0 5.0

Clay 3 283.0 50.0 36.0 15.0

McCreary 2 104.0 104.0 .5 .5

Woodford 5 255.0 36.0 2.12 .2

Clark 9 916.0 100.0 19.8 1.0

Fayette 39 3,134.0 60.0 77.5 1.5


16,540.0 55.0 1,072.6


2.0


State Totals 217









TABLE 29

MEDIAN NUMBER OF TRIPS AND NUMBER OF MILE5
TRAVELED BY RESPONDENTS IN EACH DISTRICT
TOTHE SHOPPING OR TRADE CENTER


Estimated Median Total Median
Number Total Number Number Distance Number
County of of Trips of in Miles of
District Returns (Per Year) Trips One Way Miles


Marshall 2 75.0 37.5 26.0 13.0

Christian 12 388.0 52.0 21.8 2.8

Ohio 3 18.0 9.0 75.0 37.5

Simpson 1 8.0 8.0 80.0 80.0

Marion 9 262.0 12.0 244.0 10.0

Bullitt 10 210.0 22.5 128.0 20.0

Boone 3 72.0 26.0 21.0 6.0

Jefferson 93 6,034.0 50.0 775.6 5.0

Rowan 2 430.0 215.0 71.0 35.5

Boyd 3 72.0 36.0 3.0 1.5

Floyd 14 169.0 10.0 567.0 65.0

Letcher 7 154.0 17.5 45.0 5.5

Clay 3 55.0 20.0 60.0 20.0

McCreary 2 330.0 165.0 36.0 18.0

Woodford 5 174.0 51.0 8.3 1.5

Clark 9 245.0 25.0 178.0 4.0

Fayette 39 2,358.0 52.0 193.3 5.0


-State-Totals- 217.. 11054_0._ .. 50.0 ..2,532... 7..5




Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EOMZP1W6W_N06T2I INGEST_TIME 2012-03-08T19:43:34Z PACKAGE AA00003935_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES