USA > Indiana > A history of education in Indiana > Part 13
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37
Naturally, however, chapter xcviii, on common schools, comprises most of the educational work of the session. The chapter is entitled, "An act to provide for a general and. uniform system of common schools and school libraries, and matters properly connected therewith," and embraced 147 sections.
It reaffirmed the provisions of the Constitution concern- ing the school funds ; provided for their safe investment through making the counties responsible; required a State tax for school purposes, and directed its distribution along
145
THE SCHOOL LAW OF 1852.
with other school revenues; empowered townships to levy a special local tax for building purposes; and stipulated that schools should be free and under the immediate control of three trustees in each township. These trustees employed teachers, erected houses, controlled the school lands, and directed the collection of, and reported, all statistics. A library tax was ordered, graded schools legalized, and cities and towns empowered to form themselves into independent school corporations. Besides all this, a State Board of Edu- cation was created and a superintendent of public instruc- tion provided for, by whom, or his subordinates, all teachers were to be examined and State funds apportioned.
Judged by the topics enumerated, the superiority of the law is not strikingly apparent : most of these provisions had at some time been introduced into previous acts-notably the law of 1849. The real changes were not numerous. What was new was rather the evident spirit of earnestness that gave new significance to laws. A half-dozen sections embrace all that was radical in the new school policy. These were really revolutionary. To their special and more extended study the following sections are devoted:
1. Civil Townships as School Townships.
Under the first Constitution there was no uniform mode of doing township business of any character in the several counties. The trustees were so many special agents of the State. The Revised Statutes of 1843 specified only their general duties, their mode of election, and penalties for mal- feasance in office. As late as 1850 the session laws include acts of special legislation in favor of Steuben, Adams, Hunt- ington, Whitley, Warren, Clay, and Jennings Counties, and for various townships in other counties. With a similar administration, there was yet no common policy. Local conditions were supreme.
Besides, throughout the same period there were main- tained the two political divisions-the congressional and the civil townships-sustaining co-ordinate relations to the
146
UNDER THE NEW CONSTITUTION, 1851-'91.
State, and not always well defined. Most public business was managed by the latter; the schools (education) were left to the former. All administration was involved and expensive ; most of all, school administration. The new statutes under the Constitution sought, while simplifying the administrative organization, to make it at once both more rational and less expensive.
To this end, the management of township affairs was made uniform throughout the State, the congressional town- ship, as a political division, being abolished. School mat- ters were delegated to the civil township, and the duties of township officers specified in detail. The change was a somewhat radical one. The township became the political unit for the State. Touching most local matters-the in- spection of elections, the care of roads and bridges, the over- sight of the poor, and the general management of the public property-the township trustees became the representatives of the people in State affairs and State relations.
As marking the educational relations of the township, the law provided * that "each civil township in the several counties of this State is hereby declared a township for school purposes, and the trustees of such township are hereby declared to be trustees also for school purposes, and their clerk and treasurer shall be clerk and treasurer for school purposes also.t These trustees, constituting a local board, were "to have charge of the educational affairs of the township, employ teachers, and visit schools "; "to establish and conveniently locate a sufficient num- ber of schools for the education of the children therein "; to have "charge of all the school-houses," including build- ing, repairs, fuel, and furniture; "to make an enumeration of the children within their respective townships between the ages of seven and seventeen years, distinguishing be-
* See Revised Statutes, 1852, chap. xcviii, p. 440.
+ In each township were three trustees, one clerk, and a treasurer, elected annually and for the one year.
5
147
THE SCHOOL LAW OF 1852.
tween seven and twelve and twelve and seventeen years"; to make transfer of persons when they "can be better ac- commodated at the school of an adjoining township"; to " establish graded schools or a modification thereof, when such establishment is practical and convenient"; to have charge of all school funds and the township libraries ; and to furnish to the county auditor and to the State Superin- tendent annually a report of their proceedings and the condition of the schools. It was altogether a sweeping change, and meant to be reformative.
The township organization was a Western protest against the wasteful district system that had, up to the present gen- eration, prevailed so generally in the East, and was copied indeed in certain of the newer States. This latter policy might develop a multitude of schools, but they would be each independent of every other, existing under more or less different conditions, unequally supported by wealth and ma- terial resources, wastefully or parsimoniously furnished with houses and appliances, often with short terms and generally with poor teachers. It cultivates either weakness or indif- ference through the very lack of co-operation, and leads to wasteful division of authority, and a duplicate, and so ex- pensive administration.
On the other hand, the township control, in its essential nature, represents permanence and stability in the system. Districts are united under a common organization. Their co-operation gives strength. Each is re-enforced by the sup- port of every other; and all are elevated and tempered by the attainments of each. Each township is, in a way, a little republic. Local deficiency lowers the general tone ; but common good makes individual opportunity. The town- ship as a body has an interest in every school. Township control of schools looks to the re-enforcement of each by the contributions of all.
It is historically true that the reform is not now, was not then, peculiar to our own State or the West. Certain towns in New England had already made the experiment;
148
UNDER THE NEW CONSTITUTION, 1851-'91.
but "Indiana has the unquestioned honor of being the first State in the Union to incorporate it into her educational code."* Many States have since followed her example.
A recent report of the Superintendent of Public Instruc- tion in Michigan | thus summarizes the objections to the district system, every one of which may be verified from the history of education in Indiana : 1. Unequal facilities for schooling afforded children in the same township. 2. In- equality in the cost of maintaining schools in different parts of the same township. 3. Nepotism in the selection of teach- ers. 4. Too frequent changes of teachers. 5. Too great diversity of text-books. 6. Too many school officers. 7. Unjust discrimination in local taxation. 8. Children have frequently too long distances to attend school in their own districts when they could be more conveniently accommo- dated in an adjoining district. 9. Difficulty in properly classifying and grading schools. 10. Frequent disputes and bickerings over school house sites, boundaries, etc. 11. In- efficiency of local school officers. 12. Inequality in length of school terms. 13. School laws not properly understood and enforced.
According to the same authority, the advantages of the township system would be fairly shown by a statement of the reverse of these conditions, or the diminution of their ill effects-i. e., more uniform school privileges, a sharing of the cost of schooling, less favoritism in choosing teach- ers, longer service in the school-room, a more general uni- formity in books and school courses, fewer officers, equality of taxation throughout the township, convenience of school- houses, a central control that would obviate local factions, and lengthened school terms. .
In half the States-generally west, sometimes east, occa- sionally south-the township system now prevails. In Indi- ana it is the crowning excellence of administration of a
* See Fifth Annual Report, p. 11.
+ Report of 1887, p. 16.
149
THIE SCHOOL LAW OF 1852.
rural system conceded to be, in theory at least, among the best in this country. It secures to the weak district equal advantages with the strong; the populous one is not favored beyond the sparsely settled. Almost immediately in the revision of the law this security was given statutory form by requiring that the "schools in each township shall be taught an equal length of time, without regard to the diver- sity in the number of pupils in the several schools." Indi- ana has reason to be proud of her attitude toward school or- ganization and the constitution of her school system in 1852.
One serious mistake then made, and one which has been perpetuated to the present day, was the irrational delegation of unrelated municipal duties to one officer. Why the civil official who has charge of roads and bridges, the care of local dependents, and the local oversight of elections, should also be held responsible for the management of schools and the selection of teachers is not clear. It was pronounced in the beginning "a sad blemish, a serious defect, a radi- cal oversight, which can not too speedily be erased from the statute," but it lingers after forty years-almost the sole remnant of the early and merely business view of schooling. The State Superintendent, who was first the State's treasurer; the State Board of Education, formerly constituted of the State officers, who served by virtue of their office; the old common-school examiner, who was gen- erally a professional or business man, rarely a teacher; and the head of the city schools, at first a member of the local school board, delegated to have a closer oversight of the work-have all, speaking generally but truly for Indiana, given place to men and members to whom schooling is more or less a study, not infrequently a profession. Why should it be less so with the trusteeship, a position charged with more, and more responsible, educational duties than any other in the whole system ?
The selection of teachers, the erection and furnishing of school-houses, the management of schools, and the disbursing of public-school moneys, are not matters either so unimpor-
11
150
UNDER THE NEW CONSTITUTION, 1851-'91.
tant or of so indifferent repute as to receive a partial and divided interest only. An urgent local need of Indiana rural schools is a township school officer who is also a school man.
2. The Distribution of School Revenues.
In terms of the statute of 1852 the State Superintendent was required annually "to make out a statement showing the number of scholars in each county of the State, the amount of funds in the hands of the county treasurers for distribution, and the proportional amount to which each county was entitled," to inform the county auditors thereof, upon whose requisition the county treasurers should effect the required distribution to the treasurers of incorporated cities, towns, and townships of their several counties. The moneys so distributed were made to include the proceeds of all invested funds in the hands of the counties, including the amounts realized from the sale of the sixteenth sections.
By a decision of the Supreme Court,* however, elsewhere given, this latter fund had been again set off to the uses of the township, and under a revision of the law in 1855 a new mode of distribution was introduced. Sections 97 and 100 of the new law provided that "the State Superintendent shall annually, by the fourth Monday in April in each year, make out a statement showing the number of scholars in each county in the State, the amount of income of the Common School Fund in each county for distribution, and the amount of taxes collected for school purposes, and shall apportion the same to the several counties of the State ac- cording to the enumeration of scholars therein, without tak- ing into consideration the Congressional Township Fund in such distribution."
" The treasurers of the several counties shall annually. on the third Monday of May, make distribution of the in- come to which their counties are entitled (upon the warrant of the county auditor) to the several townships and incor-
* June 11, 1856. See page 214.
151
THE SCHOOL LAW OF 1852.
porated cities and towns of each county, which payment shall be to the treasurer of each township; and in making the said distribution the auditor shall ascertain the amount of the Con- gressional Township Fund belonging to each city, town, and township, and shall so apportion the income of the Common School Fund as to equalize the amount of available funds in each city, town, and township, as near as may be, according to the number of scholars therein; provided, however, that in no case shall the income of the Congressional Township Fund belonging to any congressional township, or part of such township, be diminished by such distribution and di- verted to any other township."
This meant in the last analysis that townships having large school section funds should receive a proportionally small share of the common-school revenue and taxes; and equally, but on the contrary, those townships having, per- haps, large population but meager funds should have their school revenues equalized by a relatively large apportionment of State revenues. Such unequal distribution of the revenues of the State arising from the saline, federal-deposit, bank-tax, and sinking funds, and especially the State tax for tuition purposes, was opposed by classes in every section of the State and denounced as unconstitutional. Notably Whitewater and Springfield Townships, in Franklin County, enjoined their auditor and treasurer from distributing the school fund of their county, in accordance with the provisions quoted above, and demanded the full amount due them "on a fair and equal per capita division and distribution of the whole of said tax fund, and part of the Common School Fund afore- said, without in any wise regarding said Congressional Town- ship Fund, or making said proposed illegal effort to equalize such Congressional Township Fund throughout the county."
The case was won in the lower court, but upon appeal of the county to the Supreme Court judgment was reversed, Judge Perkins holding * that, as "by the Constitution the
* Judge Stuart dissenting. See 7 Indiana, 570.
152
UNDER THE NEW CONSTITUTION, 1851-'91.
proceeds of the entire Common School Fund (of which the Congressional Township Fund is to be considered in the dis- tribution a part) are so to be distributed as to produce equal- ity and uniformity in the school system throughout the State, the proceeds of said fund, other than the interest on the Congressional Township Fund, must, therefore, under the Constitution, be unequally distributed, in order to pro- duce the equality required by the Constitution in the final result." It was held, therefore, that the school law of 1855 requiring an equalization of revenues by making an un- equal distribution of the common-school moneys, "conforms to the spirit of the Constitution," and " does not conflict with any act of Congress." *
This mode of apportionment to equalize the revenues to the townships prevails yet.
CHAPTER XII.
THE SCHOOL LAW OF 1852 (Continued).
3. Local Taxes and Building Funds.
PRIOR to 1849 there was no general provision for taxes in the interests of schools. This law directed the levy of ten cents on each one hundred dollars of property taxable for State purposes, "to be appropriated exclusively for the support of common schools." Before this, the nearest ap- proach to any State support other than invested funds was through a permissive law legalizing a local district tax "not to exceed twenty-five cents on each one hundred dollars," directed by the voters and assessed by the auditor of the county. The law lacked every element of uniformity, ex- cept that the privilege was rarely claimed. Even the law of
* The opinion in the case from Springfield Township was rendered by Judge Gookins, Judge Stuart dissenting. See 7 Indiana, 636.
153
THE SCHOOL LAW OF 1852.
1849, which marked a considerable advance, was yet left to the votes-the annual votes-of the people of the counties to accept or reject it. And more than one third of the State chose the local-option freedom and absence of taxes under the former laws.
Money for education might be cheerfully given-much was given-and the contributions made in labor; but school taxes had other associations. To the objector they meant something of coercion, and hence were resisted. It was not education that was objected to, nor schools, nor free schools even, nor superior schools, but coerced taxation for the maintenance of a cause that rightfully belonged to the indi- vidual, certainly to the locality. School taxes were not popular in Indiana only a generation ago.
Nevertheless, the first statutes under the new Constitu- tion reaffirmed the tax provisions of 1849, " that there shall be annually assessed and collected, as the State and county revenues are assessed and collected, first, on the list of prop- erty taxable for State purposes the sum of ten cents on each one hundred dollars, which, together with the income of the Congressional Township and Common School Funds, should be applied to the support of common schools. It was fur- ther provided that the voters of any township should "have power at any general or special meeting to vote a tax for the purpose of building or repairing school-houses and purchas- ing sites therefor, providing fuel, furniture, maps, apparatus, libraries or the increase thereof, or to discharge debts in- curred therefor, and for continuing their schools after pub- lic funds have been expended, to an amount not exceeding annually fifty cents on each one hundred dollars of property and fifty cents on each poll."
Under the new statute there were four sorts of tax differ- ently assessed and differently applied : (1) a State property tax, (2) a township property tax, (3) a State poll tax, (4) a township poll tax. All were to be used for the support of common schools. This support might be in the form of tui- tion or for buildings and appliances-not indiscriminately,
!
154
UNDER TIIE NEW CONSTITUTION, 1851-'91.
but under statutory direction. Based upon these seemingly liberal provisions of the law were the hopes of the friends of the common schools. Here at last seemed an opportu- nity to build up an efficient school system. With such re- sources, good houses and enough of them were possible, and large limits granted to school terms and tuition.
Though approved in June, 1852, the new law became op- erative a year later-few schools being organized under its provisions before the spring and summer of 1853. Before the school year had passed, however, hundreds of houses had been built or begun, local taxes had been levied to extend the school term in districts as well as in cities, and the out- look was as promising as a people could wish. The law, elective in composition and liberal in its provisions, em- braced new and, it was hoped, regenerative features. A central supervision, State and local taxation, and a consoli- dation of interests and resources, were elements that chal- lenged the admiration of law-makers and established the confidence of citizens. There seemed new hope for the Hoo- sier. Rooms were being provided and schools opened very generally through the State, when, on the threshold, again, the right of the officers under the law and the constitution- ality of the law itself were called in question. The power of the township trustees to assess a tax upon the inhabitants of the township for the continuance of the schools after the public funds were expended was another source of dissatis- faction. The exercise of such power, it was held, interfered with the uniformity required by the Constitution.
There was no unity of opinion as to the respective duties of the localities and the State touching either the payment of teachers or the erection of houses. Opposition to the law appeared on every side. Among the cases brought to trial was one in the Putnam Circuit Court, by Alexander Black, enjoining the collection of a tax under section 130, as quoted. At the April election, 1853, in Greencastle Township, a vote was taken upon the proposition to assess a tax of fifteen cents on each one hundred dollars' worth of property, and
155
THE SCHOOL LAW OF 1852.
twenty-five cents on each poll for common-school purposes. The assessment was made. Black, as noted above, instituted suit, which was carried up to the Supreme Court as "Green- castle Township, in Putnam County, and Kercheval, County Treasurer, vs. Black."
It was held by Judge Hovey * that the section (130) was in contravention of section 22, Article IV, of the Constitu- tion, prohibiting local or special laws touching "common schools and the preservation of school funds"; that under its provisions "the uniformity of the common-school sys- tem would be at once destroyed "; and that " the power of controlling schools would necessarily, to a great extent, pass from the State and the Superintendent into the hands of the local authorities of the respective townships." Upon a peti- tion for rehearing, it was subsequently held by Judge Stuart (Judge Hovey having left the bench) that the Constitution regarded common schools "as a State institution, under the Superintendent of Public Instruction .... and to be sup- ported, as to tuition, by State funds." A State school, or a public school supported by State funds, could not admit the application of local tax. It was required that the system contemplated should be both general and uniform. If some localities made their schools better than their neighbors, the aim of the law was frustrated. Touching this point it was formally held that "when the State has raised a common- school fund by uniform assessment and taxation, she has attained the contemplated uniformity in that respect. When she has distributed the fund equally to all entitled to it, she has attained uniformity in that respect." To the present generation this seems to be a very superficial notion of "uni- formity." Nevertheless, the judge held that, "when a tax is levied in one township for common-school purposes which is not a State tax, and may not be so levied on the taxable property of the State, the law itself creates the want of uni- formity. Such diversity where uniformity is attainable is
* December 12, 1854.
156
UNDER THE NEW CONSTITUTION, 1851-'91.
in violation of the Constitution. The meaning of the instru- ment is plain. The burdens to support the system must be apportioned, and the funds distributed generally and uni- formly to all."
It is plain that, while the entire section is declared un- constitutional, the only real question before the Court was the one of local tax for tuition purposes. "As to the mode of levying the tax and paying tuition, the act was repug- nant to the Constitution." So difficult was the problem, and seemingly unsolvable, set to legislators and jurists-the equitable adjustment of State and local interests to secure the largest good of both. For the time it was held that tui- tion revenues could only originate in the Legislature, and must be uniform for the State.
As a result, the school term was shortened to two and a half months. Many schools were altogether closed. Three thousand teachers received for their services an average of $21.42 per month, or $54.41 for the year's salary. Real teachers were driven into other occupations, or opened pri- vate schools. The education of the rural districts was at a discount. "A three-months' school," said Superintendent Mills in 1855, " followed by a nine-months' recess, is so near an approximation to nothing in its practical results that it seems better fitted to illustrate perpetual motion in the pur- suit of knowledge than prove itself a wise and efficient means of obtaining it."
It was even circulated as a rumor by the enemies of free schools that the entire law had been declared unconstitution- al and void; and trustees, believing this, in some instances dismissed the schools, and considered themselves out of office.
Following the decision of the case last mentioned came the revision of the law in 1855. The unconstitutionality of a tax to extend the schools beyond the time afforded by the public funds having been affirmed, the new law, while re- enacting a building tax, makes no mention of local-tuition taxes. Within three years the localities had erected 1,892 school-houses, at a cost of $1,088,261.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.