USA > Ohio > Annual report of the State Commissioner of Common Schools, to the Governor of the State of Ohio, 1892 > Part 1
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.
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
:
OFFICE OF THE STATE COMMISSIONER OF COMMON SCHOOLS, COLUMBUS, OHIO, December 21st, 1892.
To His Excellency, WILLIAM MCKINLEY, JR.,
Governor of Ohio:
DEAR SIR: In compliance with the law, I have the honor to sub- mit, through you, to the General Assembly of the State of Ohio, the re port of the State Commissioner of Common Schools for the year ending August 31, 1892.
Very respectfully your obedient servant,
OSCAR T. CORSON,
State Commissioner of Common Schools.
Thirty-ninth Annual Report
OF THE STATE COMMISSIONER OF COMMON SCHOOLS.
To the General Assembly of the State of Ohio:
GENTLEMEN: In compliance with the laws of Ohio, the following report is submitted for your consideration :
SCHOOL LEGISLATION.
It is a great pleasure in the beginning of this report to congratulate you, as members of the Seventieth General Assembly, on the most excel- lent school legislation enacted by your body at its first session. Among the many valuable school laws and amendments passed, the most import- ant, on account of its far-reaching effects upon the sub-district or ungraded schools, is the law providing for the more efficient organization of the common schools in township districts, known as the "Workman Law."
This question of the organization of the common schools arose very early in the history of our state. In 1806, before any law for the regula- tion of the common schools had been enacted, the trustees of the origina' surveyed townships were authorized to lay off these townships into proper divisions for the purpose of establishing schools. In 1821, a law author- izing the trustees of any civil township to submit to a vote of the people the question of organizing it into school districts, was passed. A district might be laid off under this law without a township vote provided that twelve or more resident householders of such district petitioned for its formation: The householders in each district were to elect each year a committee of three, a collector who should be treasurer, and a clerk to make the tax bills and keep the accounts.
These district committees had power to build school houses, employ teachers, and to make assessments for expenses. Under the law of 1825, it was made their duty to employ teachers, to manage and superintend the concerns of the schools, and to receive and expend all funds. In 1838, their powers of management and superintendence were considerably in- creased. Under this act they were authorized to make regulations for the government of the schools, to classify them, and to determine the branches to be taught in them. _
6
ANNUAL REPORT
It will be noticed in all this legislation that the local directors were given full power to act in relation to every question connected with the management of the schools, not only to elect teachers, but also to levy taxes, adopt courses of study, build school houses, and make all necessary regu- lations for the management of the schools. For the next fifteen years- from 1838 to 1853-so many laws were enacted and repealed that it is very difficult to tell what was the exact condition of the school legislation of that period. In the first annual report of the 'state commissioner of com- mon schools, issued in 1854, Hon. H. H. Barney makes the following statement :
" Since 1838 the legislation of the state had become so confused that a universal demand existed for a digested school code; and the General Assembly, in furnish- ing such a code, determined to modify some features of the existing system."
As a result of this determination, the law of 1853 was enacted. While there were several important provisions in this law not found in any of the preceding, attention is called especially to the one creating the township board of education, consisting of a representative from each sub-district, intrusted with the general administration of the schools in the township, the assessment of taxes requisite for the construction and repair of school houses, the selection of their sites, the title, care and preservation of all school properties, and kindred duties not inconsistent with those enjoined upon the local directors in each sub-district. The passage of this law, cre- ating a township board of education and granting to it so many powers be- fore conferred upon the local directors, is sufficient evidence that the people were not satisfied with the independent sub-district system. The reasons for this dissatisfaction are plainly shown from the following quotations taken from the report of 1854, referred to above. Commissioner Barney, in speaking of this subject, said:
"Under the independent district system, there was great inequality in the edu- cational privileges of the children of the several districts of the same townships-in some, they uniformly had very good schools; and, in others, as uniformly poor schools. Then, also, township trustees were not a proper body to be entrusted with the important duty of altering or establishing districts. Only three in number, and elected on account of their qualifications for other services, they often yielded to im- proper applications either to multiply, or change districts. A remedy was needed for these inconveniences, which the law aims to supply by establishing a repre- sentative body composed of one local director from each sub-district who shall have been selected by his fellow directors for the current year; and upon the board of education thus organized, are devolved all duties and functions which are general in their nature. Their powers tend to equality and uniformity of educational pro- cesses and privileges."
This idea of great benefit arising from the management of the schools by what might be termed the central board of education, was not a mere theory. In 1847, what is known as the "Akron School Law" was enacted and the schools of that city organized under its provisions. This law was followed by others of a similar character providing for the organization of a system of schools in any city or town when a majority of the electors
7
STATE COMMISSIONER OF COMMON SCHOOLS.
voted for such organization at an election held for that purpose. One of the main provisions of these laws was that the schools were to be controlled by one board of education. Although these laws had been in operation only a few years when commissioner Barney issued his first report, the excellent results growing out of such organization had become so well known that he made the following statement:
"It is not a new proposition in Ohio to impart more uniformity and vigor to the schools by the agency of a single board of education. Within a few years remark- able results have been attained by intrusting to such bodies in cities, towns and vil- lages, the management and control of educational matters."
From the history of the passage of that part of the law of 1853, which provides for the election of this township board, it is quite evident that this part was a compromise between those favoring the sub-district as the educational unit and those who believed that the township should be the unit of organization. As a result of these conflicting ideas, there was immediately found to be a conflict of authority between the boards of local directors and the township board of education, as soon as the new law went into effect. That this conflict existed is shown by the following quotation from the report of 1855 by commissioner Barney. In speaking of town- ship school organization, he says:
"Objection to the organization of boards of education seldom proceeds from localities where the whole jurisdiction of the schools is vested in such boards; but is confined to townships where that jurisdiction is divided between boards of educa- tion and local directors. The intention of the act is manifest, that wherever the two-fold systeni is retained, boards of education shall exercise a general provision, leaving to the directors, as far as possible, the local administration of schools. To equalize districts, to select school house sites, to make necessary assessments for school house construction and incidental expenses, to provide a few general rules for the regulation of schools, is the true province of the township board, while the local directors should be encouraged to exercise whatever control of school interests is not expressly given by the provisions of the law to the township boards. Indeed, for the purpose of efficient action, and to avoid collision, it would be well to adopt the general principle that in the absence of explicit regulation of any subject by the central authority, the local directors may be considered as the agents of the board with full power to act within legal limits; at least until their action is controlled by some order of the board. Thus, it may be hoped that confusion and controversy will be avoided, as all experience demonstrates that no interests suffer more from their occurrence than the arrangements of public schools. If these evils cannot be other- wise prevented, instead of restoring the independent district system, the General Assembly is invited to consider the organization of the townships of Indiana, where the trustees, among other duties, are constituted a school board, with authority to erect school houses, suitable in nuniber and locality, and to provide uniformi instruc- tion therein, without any intervention whatever of sub-districts and their directories. It is my deliberate opinion that such a change (adding, if deenied expedient, a fair compensation for the school services of the trustees of the township), would be far preferable to an amendment which would resolve the state into a chaos of discon- nected districts."
It is evident from this language that even at this early date in the administration of the new law serious difficulties presented themselves growing out of this conflict of authority between the two boards of edu-
8
ANNUAL REPORT
cation, and to avoid a repetition of these difficulties, the township system was recommended. Especially was it urged that the old sub-district sys- tem should not again be enacted into law. In almost every school report since the passage of the law referred to above, there is found some state- ment or recommendation indicating that this conflict between the two boards of education was becoming greater each year. In the report of Hon. John A. Norris, State Commissioner of Common Schools, for 1867, an exhaustive discussion of the subject of the "Rural Schools" is found. Among other recommendations found among the conclusions reached by this discussion is the following :
"The abolition of the sub-district system, and the adoption of the township or district system without sub-divisions."
It will be noticed that the change recommended to the Legislature by commissioner Norris is more radical than that provided by the Work- man Law in that it is recommended that the sub-district system be entirely abolished, while the Workman Law does not in any way interfere with these districts. The next commissioner after Mr. Norris, the Hon. W. D. Henkle, makes use of the following language in speaking of the town- ship system:
"To our present system of township boards and local directors, there are grave objections. "A large proportion of the legal questions arising in the operation of the school law, grows out of the conflict of the local directors with the township board. There is scarcely a day that the state commissioner is not called upon to decide such questions. The sub-districts often array themselves against each other, instead of moving along in harmony and taking pride in the success of all the schools in the township.
It is believed that the present mongrel system should give place to the purely township system, in which all the schools of a township should be under the exclu- sive control of a board of education, chosen by the electors of the township. In this case, the system would conform to that which has been adopted in most of the towns of the state with such satisfactory results. The experience of other states in which the purely township system has been tried, demonstrates its superiority to the district system."
In 1873, the school law was amended in several important particulars and additional powers were conferred upon the township board of educa- tion, while the powers of the local directors were confined to narrower limits than before. Thus, local directors were still empowered to employ or dismiss for sufficient causes the teachers in their sub-districts and to certify the amount due each teacher, but they were limited in fixing sala- ries to the aggregate amount of money distributed pro rata by enumera- tion, and the share of the local levy for continuing the schools apportioned to sub-districts by township boards. Hon. Thomas W. Harvey, in his report for 1874, makes the following statements regarding the sub-district and township systems:
"The schools in the township districts have not kept pace, in improvement, with those of the towns and cities. They have not retrograded as a class; but except in a few localities, they have failed to make the progress which public ex- pectation has a right to demand. Those best acquainted with these schools have
-
STATE COMMISSIONER OF COMMON SCHOOLS.
little hope of their improving, to any great extent, so long as the sub-district system is continued. Sub-district boundaries ought to be abolished, pupils permitted to attend schools nearest to their homes, and township school affairs conducted in nearly the same manner as in towns and cities."
Recommendations that the township system, in some form, should be adopted have been made by almost every school commissioner for the last thirty years, but enough has been stated to prove beyond a doubt that, in the first place, the sub-district pure and simple was not satisfactory and that the compromise which resulted in the law of 1853, providing for both sub-district and township boards of education has never been satisfactory in its operations; and in the second place, that the amendments to this law have been of such character as to strengthen the power of the township board and to weaken that of the local directors. There is but one con- clusion to ce drawn from a careful consideration of this matter, and that is that a proper solution of the difficult problems arising from the conflict of authority between these two boards is the election of one central town- ship board of education as provided for in the " Workman Law." No doubt objections will arise to this law, and like all legislation it is not perfect, but it is certainly correct in principle, and it is firmly believed by those who have given this matter special study and consideration that a fair . and impartial trial of the law will convince even its most bitter opponents that it will prove beneficial to the country schools in many ways. The fact that it creates one responsible board of education and must forever do away with the endless disputes and misunderstandings constantly aris- ing under the old plan, is alone, in my judgment, a sufficient reason why it should go into effect and have a thorough trial.
Nearly every mail brings letters to this office containing questions regarding difficulties arising from this conflict of authority. These ques- tions are very frequently of such a nature as to indicate a very bitter feeling between members of the boards of local directors and the township board-feelings which of necessity must work ruin to the schools under their management. Such a condition of affairs cannot possibly arise when the township board has entire control of the schools. It is believed that the election of the director of each sub-district by the people of that sub- district is a valuable feature of the law and will rid it of many of the objections which have been urged heretofore when bills have been intro- duced into the legislature for township organization which would entirely obliterate the sub-district system. Under this excellent law, the people can have all the advantages of township organization and still retain their individuality asa district.
SUPERVISION OF SCHOOLS.
The discussion of the subject of school legislation naturally leads up to the question of supervision of schools. Reference has already been made to the "Akron Law," passed in 1847, and the beneficial results growing out of it.
10
ANNUAL REPORT
Nearly everyone is well acquainted with the plan of organization and the method of conducting the graded school system of our state; and while there are, no doubt, many defects in this system, yet it is very gen- erally conceded that under it there has been great improvement in these schools. While the village, town and city schools have had this efficient and thorough supervision, in the great majority of instances, very little has been done for the sub-district schools in this respect. There are sev- eral reasons for this, a few of which it may be well to mention. In the first place, the friends of supervision who believe thoroughly in its efficacy, have never been able to unite fully upon any measure looking to this end. The teachers and patrons of the sub-district schools have also held so many different views on this subject that no satisfactory measure has ever been reached. Some have been opposed to any kind of supervision, others have favored township supervision, while still others have held the opinion that county supervision is the proper solution of the question. As an instance of this wide difference of sentiment, it is only necessary to state that resolutions have been received at this office within the last six months, from one county condemning the "Workman Law" on account of the fear that it might lead up to some kind of supervision, and from another county condemning it in equally strong terms because it does not provide for such supervision.
It is quite evident in both instances, that the law as it now exists is either entirely unknown, or misunderstood. Section 4017 of the present law, which has been in effect since 1873, provides that "the board of edu- cation of each district shall have the management and control of the pub- lic schools of the district with full power, subject to the provisions of the next section, to appoint a superintendent and assistant superintendent of the schools, etc." Section 4017 of the "Workman Law" provides for the same thing in exactly the same language. Thus it will be seen that for nearly twenty years the election of a superintendent for the country or town- ship schools has been legal, and that the " Workman Law" does not in any way change this provision. This section containing this permissive fea- ture relating to the supervision of country schools, is a very valuable one; and, since it leaves the settlement of this matter entirely with the people of each township, it certainly ought to be satisfactory. It is firmly believed that, under the new law, when this feature becomes fully under- stood, the great majority of the boards of education, realizing the great advantage of careful inspection and supervision of their schools as well as their additional responsibilities in having the entire management of these schools entrusted to their care, will take advantage of this provision of the law and elect township superintendents. It is not thought necessary in this report to enter upon a lengthy discussion of the benefits of organi- zation and supervision of work. Such benefits are recognized in every department of business, and there is no reason why such organization and supervision should not be a part of the school system, country as well as
11
STATE COMMISSIONER OF COMMON SCHOOLS.
city. Neither is it desirable to discuss at length the relative merits and demerits of township and county supervision. I feel that it is my duty, however, to state that, after carefully investigating this matter, I am very positive in my conviction that township supervision is vastly superior to county supervision. That supervision which does not inspect is poor and incomplete at best, and such inspection is impossible in as large a terri- tory as the average county. I am glad to state in this connection that quite a number of townships in the state have already taken advantage of the permissive feature of the law referred to before and have thoroughly organized the schools of their township and placed them under the direc- tion of a superintendent. The opinion expressed above regarding the beneficial results of township supervision has been reached after visiting several of the townships so organized and there seeing the practical results growing out of such organization and supervision. In the past year, I have visited Forgy, Clark Co .; Alpha, Greene Co .; St. Paul, Pickaway Co .; Madison Twp., Franklin Co .; and Marietta Twp., Washington Co. In each of these places there is thorough organization and careful supervi- sion, and the results are of such character as to convince any one of the great benefits of this system. I have no doubt the other townships in the state that are organized in the same manner are also doing just as effective work. The investigation of this subject of organization and supervision has not been confined to the schools of Ohio. Several months since, the following questions were sent to the state school commissioner of each state in the Union. Answers to these questions have been received from a great majority of them, and are now on file in this office. Following the questions will be found a careful summary of the answers and the conclusions to which they lead.
LIST OF QUESTIONS SENT TO SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS.
1. What is the unit of your educational system-the sub-district, the township, or the county?
2. If you have any township or county board of education, of how many members does it consist, and how are they elected?
3. Have you at any time changed this unit-if so, from what to what?
'4. . Why was the change made, and with what result?
5. Are your country schools organized under the same system as your village, town and city schools are?
6. What tendency do you observe in the organization of your country schools?
7. Are your school officers paid any fees or salaries?
8. Have you township, county, or city supervision?
9. What is the greatest defect in your supervision?
10. How are teachers of country schools employed in your state?
12
ANNUAL REPORT
11. Do the boards which employ these teachers have entire control of the schools?
12. What is your opinion of Ohio's new law?
Answers received from twenty-nine different states indicate the fol- lowing:
(1) In twelve of these states the unit is the township; in twelve the sub-district; in five the county.
(2) Twelve states report township boards of education; six, county boards; eleven, neither township nor county.
(3) In seventeen states there has been no change made in the edu- cational unit; and in six there has been a change from the sub-district to the township. Minnesota reports the change from the township to the sub-district, giving as a reason that it was made in the early history of the state before it was thickly populated. They now realize that it was a great mistake, and want to go back"to the township system. North Caro- lina reports change from township to sub-district on account of the social condition of the people. South Dakota reports having tried all kinds, and, after this experience, the people are decidedly in favor of the town- ship system. New York is making a strong effort to secure the passageof a law providing for the township system. Arkansas reports no change,
but several attempts. California changed from the district to the county.
(4) The reasons given for the changes which have been made are to secure uniformity and more systematic management. The results of these changes are reported to be very satisfactory.
(5) Sixteen states report their schools as being organized under the same system as the village, town and city schools, the remainder under different systems.
(6) Nine states reply to the sixth question, each answer indicating a tendency toward more thorough organization and generally toward the township system.
(7) Seven states report school officers as receiving salaries, and one or two report this payment optional. The other states report no such payment with the exception of a small salary to the clerk and treasurer of the board.
(8) In nearly all the states there is supervision of the town and city schools. Eighteen states report county supervision; six, township super- vision; and two report county, town and city.
(9) Out of eighteen states having county supervision, twelve report it as being unsatisfactory on account of the territory being too large for one man to supervise. Without exception states having township super- vision report it as being in the main satisfactory.
(10) Answers to question 10, are in many instances very indefinite, but, as a rule, indicate that teachers are employed by local directors in states in which the township or the county is the unit.
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.