USA > Pennsylvania > Pennsylvania, colonial and federal : a history, 1608-1903, Volume Three > Part 4
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 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42
At the next gubernatorial election George Wolf was defeated, owing in part to a division in his party on the school question. His successor was Joseph Ritner, who was mistakenly supposed by many to be hostile to the new school system, but who in fact proved one of its most earnest friends. The legislature of 1835- 1836 increased the school appropriation to $200,000, and to the astonishment of both the friends and enemies, Governor Ritner proposed a still further addition of $600,000. In response to his suggestion an act was passed which appropriated $500,000, to be applied by the several districts either for the building, repairing or purchasing of school houses or for other educational purposes.
41
Pennsylvania Colonial and Federal
In 1836 an act was passed to consolidate and amend the sev- eral acts relative to a general system of education in the common schools. It was prepared by Dr. George Smith, chairman of the senate committee on education. He submitted his drafts to Thad- deus Stevens, Charles B. Trego and Almon H. Read, from whom he received several suggestions of importance. It was passed by the legislature and became a law June 13, 1836.
The new law enlarged and more clearly defined the powers and duties of directors in reference to school buildings, salaries of teachers, payment of expenses, school visits, and the creation of joint districts. It also defined the scope of the reports to be made to the superintendent of common schools. The directors were required to report the number and situation of the schools, the character of the teachers, designating whether they were males or females, the number and sex of the pupils admitted, the branches of study taught in the schools, the number of months the schools were kept open, the cost of the school houses (building, renting, repairing) and other expenses incurred in the maintenance of schools, together with such other information as might be benefi- cial in forming a just estimate of the usefulness of the schools. They were empowered to levy a tax not less than equal to nor more than three times the amount which the district was entitled to receive out of the annual State appropriation. The act abol- ished the joint meeting at the county seat and provided for an election in each township or district to determine whether the provisions of the system should be accepted. The power to pur- chase property was taken from the supervisors and vested in the directors, where it has since remained.
The act also made provision for the division of districts into sub-districts for separate schools, and for the annual election of a committee of three, who should have the appointment of a teacher for such sub-district. In case the sub-district failed to elect a committee, the power to appoint the teacher devolved upon the school board. The law of 1809 to educate the poor gratis was
42
The Educational System
kept in force in the districts which did not accept the common school system.
A peculiar section was that relating to endowed schools, viz. : "Where a school is or shall hereafter be endowed, by bequest or otherwise, the board of directors of the district in which such school is located, are hereby authorized to allow such school to remain under the immediate direction of the regularly appointed trustees of the same and to appropriate so much of the district school fund as they may think just and reasonable ; provided, that such school shall be generally conducted in conformity with the common school system of this Commonwealth."
Governor Ritner appointed Thomas H. Burrowes as secretary of the commonwealth, and the latter thereupon became, ex-officio, superintendent of common schools, in which capacity he made for himself a name that will live as long as the common school system shall endure. When his term of service was drawing to a close, Governor Ritner looked with satisfaction upon the work that had been accomplished, as is evident from the following paragraph in his last message :
"The condition of the means provided by the State for general education is so flourishing that little is required to be done by the present legislature. Within three years the permanent State appropriation to this object has been increased from $75,000 an- nually to $400,000. . .. Nor will this large outlay have been without its fruits. Instead of seven hundred and sixty-two com- mon schools in operation at the end of the year 1835 and about seventeen academies (the latter in a state of almost doubtful ex- istence), with no female seminaries in active and permanent operation, she has now five thousand common schools, thirty- eight academies, and seven female seminaries in active and per- manent operation, disseminating the principles of literature, science and virtue over the land. In addition to these there are many schools, academies and female seminaries of a private char- acter, equally useful and deserving in their proper sphere."
43
Pennsylvania Colonial and Federal
The years from 1839 to 1852 constituted a period of steady progress in the history of our common schools, and a firm founda- tion was then laid for later development. The system grew by inherent energy and the almost unaided efforts of the directors. The number of schools increased from 3,939 to 9,699; the number of teachers from 5,034 to 11,713; the number of pupils from 175,355 to 480,778; the tax levied from $385,355 to $982, 196.22, and the total expenditure from $709,582.92 to $1, 116,919.25.
In 1838 the legislature appropriated to common schools a sum equal to one dollar for each taxable inhabitant in the State; in 1852 the appropriation did not reach forty cents for each taxable inhabitant. the amount actually paid being $323,794.23 in 1838, and only $190,266.17 in 1852. According to Dr. Wickersham the cause of this decrease in the State appropriation must be looked for either in declining interest in education or a want of courage or vigor on the part of those charged with the general administration of the system. Of the work of the successive superintendents from 1838 to 1852 he says that they "were distin- guished lawyers and politicians," whose interest in education or whose knowledge of school administration was not taken into account in their appointment.
Educational Revival .- The years from 1852 to 1857 were eventful in the educational history of Pennsylvania. They have been aptly styled the period of educational revival, during which the school department was made a separate branch of the State government ; the office of county superintendent was created; the law for the establishment of State Normal schools was enacted; the State Teachers' Association was organized; the Pennsylvania School Journal was made the official organ of the department and of the Teachers' Association, and the first steps were taken towards the inauguration of a system of county institutes. We find as we trace the history of these agencies in detail that subsequent hands developed them to their present standard of efficiency, but the foundation of them all is found in the period of 1852-1857.
44
)
William Bainbridge
Naval officer; paved way (1800) for first treaty between United States and the Porte at Con- stantinople. In 1800 he commanded a frigate and sailed for Algiers ; his vessel, the Philadelphia, grounded before Algiers, and he was captured, 1800; active in war of 1812
The Educational System
In his message of 1850, Governor Johnston said that the sys- tem of common schools needed modification, that it did not re- ceive from the people the favor which a sound and enlightened scheme of education deserved, and he claimed that the evil must exist in the laws controlling its practical operation.
A convention of the friends of education met in Harrisburg on January 16-17, 1850. It was attended by men of influence and high social and political standing. Resolutions were adopt- ed, favoring the establishment of two schools for the training of teachers, the organization of teachers' institutes and associations in every county, the creation of a department of education distinct from the office of the secretary of the commonwealth, the publica- tion of a school journal by the department of education, and the establishment of the office of county superintendent. ("Hist. of Education in Penn.," pp. 495-96.) The proceedings of the con- vention were published in pamphlet form, and the resolutions adopted had an important bearing upon educational thought and progress.
In January, 1852, a staunch friend of popular education, Will- iam Bigler, took the oath of office as governor; Francis W Hughes, an able lawyer, became secretary of the commonwealth and ex-officio superintendent of common schools; and Henry L. Dieffenbach became clerk in charge of the department of common schools. Mr. Hughes held office about a year and during that time he made a report, pointing out, among other things, the need of more safeguards against the employment of incompetent teach- ers and urging the adoption of measures to increase the number and secure the services of such only as were competent. He sug- gested the appointment of a competent examiner or board of ex- aminers for each county, and the division of the State into districts for purposes of supervision. He made a plea for better salaries, longer school terms, the employment of more women as teachers, the establishment of Normal schools, and the adoption of a plan for the instruction of teachers at gatherings similar to the teach-
47
Pennsylvania Colonial and Federal
ers' institutes of the present day. He began the preparation of a revised code of school laws, based upon the needs of the system as revealed in the correspondence of his chief clerk with school boards and teachers throughout the State. This work was con- tinued by his successor, Charles A. Black, likewise a lawyer. Charles A. Dieffenbach rendered valuable assistance in the origi- nal plan of the act of 1854. Few of its details were derived from the experience of other States. The various sections were drafted in answer to questions which had arisen in our own school system. It was indigenous to the soil, so to speak, and well adapted to rem- edy the evils of the former system.
The new act passed the senate by the bare majority of one vote, but in the house the majority was larger. It was regarded as an administration and not a party measure, and Governor Bigler is said to have declared with more than ordinary animation, that he "too keenly felt the want of facilities for good common school education to disregard the needs of the youth of the State for fear of personal consequences, and that he would sign the bill though it would sink him so deep in political oblivion that he would never again be thought of in connection with public life." ("Hist. of Education in Penn.," p. 499. )
Unfortunately, not all the proposed changes were enacted into law. The sections relating to Normal schools were stricken out in the senate committee; the section authorizing boards of school directors to select sites for school houses was defeated, and this important feature was first secured in the act of 1867. School boards were given the power to borrow money, to buy and sell property, sue and be sued, etc. Sub-districts were abolished. The idea of dividing the township into parts, each containing one school controlled by a local committee, had been borrowed from the school systems of New York and New England. Theminimum school term was lengthened to four months. The superintendent was authorized to prepare a work on school architecture, and also to appoint a deputy, with power to act in his absence or dur-
48
The Educational System
ing a vacancy. Orthography, reading, writing, grammar, geog- raphy and arithmetic were directed to be taught in every district. School directors were empowered to require instruction in addi- tional branches, and to select the text-books to be used, all others being prohibited for the sake of uniformity. But the provision
Alexander James Dallas
Author; editor; statesman; secretary of the commonwealth 1791-1801; United States district attorney 1801-1814; secretary of the United States Treasury 1814-1816
which afterward caused most discussion was that creating the office of county superintendent. In this Pennsylvania followed the lead of New York, where the county superintendency had been in successful operation from 1841 to 1847, when the office was abolished. (The office was subsequently restored and still exists under the name of county school commissioner. )
County Superintendency .- On May 10, 1854, the state super- intendent forwarded copies of the amended school law (approved
3-4
19
Pennsylvania Colonial and Federal
May 8) to the commissioners of the various counties, and in an official circular he drew attention to the creation of the office of county superintendent as the most important feature of the act. Before the creation of this office any justice of the peace, lawyer, minister, or other person, was considered competent to examine the applicants for schools. A teacher's certificate was simply a license to teach ; it did not indicate the scholarship of the applicant.
To remedy this evil the superintendency was created. Teach- ers within the same county were thereafter examined by a sworn officer, whose duty it was to visit schools and note the quality of the teaching. The law creating the office, though right in prin- ciple, met with unexpected opposition. Here was a new salary to be paid and incompetent teachers were obliged to change their vocation. Ex-State Superintendent Hickok calls this period "one of the most disturbed and difficult and critical periods ever known in our school history. Its like can never be seen again." The fact that Governor Bigler had signed the act of 1854 helped to defeat him at the next election, and his successor is said to have remarked that it was about as much as a man's life was worth to stand by the county superintendency in those days. Effort after effort was made to abolish the office. A special bill passed both House and Senate excepting several counties from the operation of the law. Mr. Hickok was sent for, that the governor might hear what could be said against the bill. "How can I administer a school system if you smash its backbone," was his exclamation as he entered the executive chamber. Dismay sat upon the faces of the politicians who were present. It was finally agreed that Mr. Hickok should write out a statement of the reasons for a veto and that Mr. Curtin should formulate the veto message. When the message appeared, it spoke of special legislation in its worst form, but did not contain a word of what Mr. Hickok had writ- ten. The governor's veto was sustained and Pennsylvania did not join the States which abolished the office of superintendent after it had been established by law.
50
-
$
The Educational System
That our own State did not recede from its advanced position is partly due to a convention of superintendents, which had been called to meet at Harrisburg on April 11, 1852, and which was in session until the 13th. Petitions asking for the repeal of the law creating this office came from nearly every county in the State. Dr. Wickersham says that Franklin county sent eighteen peti- tions, Montgomery seventeen, Chester sixteen, Crawford seven, Westmoreland seven, Dauphin eight, Berks seven, and others a less number. The number of signatures was alarming. Mr. Curtin determined to bring the members of the legislature face to face with the superintendents themselves. Of the forty-one who responded to the call no one was more enthusiastic than the young superintendent from Lancaster, James P. Wickersham. He gave a glowing account of the interest of the people in the examinations, how they followed the superintendent from school house to school house, trying to get the best teachers. An after- noon meeting was held in the house of representatives, at which Dr. Thomas H. Burrowes delivered an address, and reports of work done were made by Nicholson of Beaver, Barr of Huting- don, Wickersham of Lancaster, Gow of Washington, and Shelly of Cumberland. The convention spent two days in discussing the details and difficulties of examination and supervision. Be- fore it adjourned Dr. J. M. McClintock, chairman of the com- mittee on education, in the Senate, made a speech assuring the superintendents that they need have no fears of repeal at that ses- sion, and that no matter what blow should threaten, a barrier had been erected in the Senate strong enough and high enough to re- sist assault.
Governor Pollock in a powerful speech declared that during his administration there should be no backward step in school affairs; he further said that if any of the pending bills that had been warmly discussed should be passed, there was another branch of the government little farther north (indicating the executive building) that might have something to say on the
51
Pennsylvania Colonial and Federal
subject. Dr. Burrowes instantly remarked to Mr. Hickok, who was sitting by his side: "That's the first time I ever knew a governor of Pennsylvania threaten to veto a bill in advance of its passage."
Frightened by the lions in their path, as Dr. Wickersham calls the veto of the governor and the majority in the senate, the mem- bers in favor of repeal dropped their general bill and inserted a proviso in the general appropriation bill to the effect that the whole amount of the school appropriation should be distributed to the counties pro rata, and where any county refused to employ a county superintendent, the amount due said county should go into the common school fund, a proviso that was adopted by a vote of fifty-four to thirty-one in the house and that could not be reached by veto. The senate committee struck out the clause and efforts to restore it and to insert it as a new proposition both failed by the decisive vote of five yeas and twenty-two nays. Dr. McClintock's senate barrier had proven strong enough for the assault and the county superintendency was saved.
The method of selecting county superintendents at a triennial convention of school directors was wisely conceived and has shown itself superior to the method of choice by popular vote. Separated from every other election by being held on the first Tuesday in May, and thus freed from the entangling alliances of county politics, the choice has generally resulted in the getting of the right man for the right place. Legislation can instil neither honesty nor infallibility into a school director, but it can remove him as far as possible from influences which aim at some- thing outside of the efficiency of the schools. When new offices are created, the payment of the salaries is a question apt to agitate the public mind. The salaries of sixty-five new officials had to be paid out of the school appropriation, which was not large in those days. The salary which the directors voted in some coun- ties was ridiculously low-in one case being only two hundred and fifty dollars.
52
-7
John Gottlieb Ernestus Heckewelder
Missionary; assisted war department in ar- ranging treaty with Indians 1792 and 1793; lived in Bethlehem 1810 to 1823; student of languages, manners and customs of Indians and author of historical books and papers on kin- dred subjects, Reproduced for this work from a canvas in American Philosophical Society
The Educational System
During the session preceding the second election of county superintendents, Andrew G. Curtin rendered conspicuous service "in organizing a movement in the house to increase the annual State appropriation to common schools from $230,000 to $300 .- 000 to give more margin for a needed increase of salaries and to prevent an open revolt on the part of the oppressed taxpayers against the school law of 1854, many of whom had been paying twenty-six mills upon the dollar every year for three successive years for only a four months' term. It was carried in the house, and Mr. Curtin returned to his office very much relieved, but greatly surprised and disturbed by the discovery, on the floor of the house, of active opposition from prominent educational sources. The senate cut down the amount to $280,000, and that amount was carried by a majority of a single vote, the rich eastern counties voting solidly against it, except Senator Joseph J. Lewis of Chester county, who, seeing the peril of the situation, gave the casting vote in favor of the bill and thus saved the day. If the bill had been defeated, the county superintendency could not have been maintained."
When upwards of sixty new offices were created the question arose out of whose purse their salaries were to be paid. At first the money was taken out of the general school appropriation. Mr. Wickersham wishing to increase the school appropriation, succeeding in having a special appropriation made for the pay- ment of the salaries of county superintendents. In 1878 Hon. John Q. Stewart introduced a bill fixing a minimum salary of eight hundred dollars and basing the compensation of county superintendents upon the area of the county, the number of schools to be visited, and the average length of the school term. Directors were given power to increase the salary above the amount fixed by law, the increase being taken from the aggregate appropriation due said county. In 1893 the minimum salary was increased from $800 to $1,000. In 1899 an attempt was made to fix the minimum salary at $1,500, but the bill, after passing the
55
Pennsylvania Colonial and Federal
house and senate, was vetoed by the governor on the ground of a lack of sufficient funds in the State treasury. In 1901 another bill was introduced and passed to equalize the salaries. The law thus enacted makes the salary ten dollars for each of the first one hundred schools under a superintendent's jurisdiction, five dollars additional for each school above one hundred and not over two hundred, and two dollars additional for each school above two hundred. Three provisos are added : First, that the salary shall in no case be less than one thousand nor more than two thousand dollars per annum ; second, that in all counties having twelve hun- dred square miles of territory, or a school term exceeding seven and one-half months, the salaries of the superintendents shall not be less than fifteen hundred dollars; and third, that a convention of school directors assembled for the purpose of electing a county superintendent may vote him a salary greater than the amount he would receive by this act, such increase to be in all cases taken out of the school fund appropriated for the county thus voting.
The salary in conjunction with the intellectual and profes- sional qualifications required by law before a superintendent can be commissioned, has in nearly all cases sufficed to secure for the office men and women of superior talent and executive ability. The question is sometimes asked: How does a superitnendent earn his salary? It is, of course, possible for this official to pursue a vigorous policy at doing nothing and to spend his time in coddling the directors so as to pave the way for his re-election. However, it is to be said that the superintendents who have been most efficient in the discliarge of their duties have as a rule been retained in office for the longest period. In many counties rota- tion in office is no longer applied to the superintendency. In 1899 a bill introduced by Representative Palm, of Crawford county, was passed to compensate directors for their expenses in attending the triennial convention. One purpose was to put an end to the custom which had grown up in some counties of ex- pecting the superintendent to pay the dinner and traveling ex-
56
The Educational System
penses of the directors at the convention electing him. This legislation is so recent that its wisdom remains to be tested.
When the act creating the county superintendency was passed, Philadelphia, Lancaster and Carlisle were excepted from its pro- visions. Lancaster voluntarily accepted the law. Philadelphia elected a superintendent in 1884, and Carlisle in 1895.
The cities gradually began to feel the need of supervision by experts. An act was passed in 1867 to enable the cities and bor- oughs, with a population of ten thousand or over to elect their own superintendents. In 1881 the law was amended to include boroughs with a population of five thousand, and in 1885 to include townships with the same population.
The salaries of city, borough and township superintendents are paid out of the local treasury. This has caused objection from several cities ; but when it is borne in mind that the method of distributing the school appropriation works on the whole in favor of the growing centres of population and against the sparsely settled districts, not much objection can be raised against the present policy, and no voice of opposition has in recent years been heard against payment of the salaries of county superin- tendents by a special appropriation.
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.