Fig. 27.—A monitorial school, with three hundred pupils and but one teacher.
Fig. 27.—A monitorial school, with three hundred pupils and but one teacher.
Fig. 28.—Pupils reciting to monitors.
Fig. 28.—Pupils reciting to monitors.
Fig. 29.—Monitor inspecting slates.
Fig. 29.—Monitor inspecting slates.
But while the monitorial methods met a great educational emergency in the United States, they were clearly mechanical, inelastic, and without psychological foundation.Disappeared when educational sentiment improved.Naturally their sway could not last long, and as enlarged material resources enabled the people to make greater appropriations for education, the obvious defects of the monitorial system became more fully appreciated and brought about its abandonment. Before the middle of the century its work in America was ended, and it gave way to the more psychological conceptions of Pestalozzi and to those afterward formulated by Froebel and Herbart.
The ‘Infant Schools’ in France.—Another form of philanthropic education that came to be very influential during the nineteenth century and has eventually been merged in several national systems is that of the so-called ‘infant schools.’ The first recorded instance of theseinstitutions occurred late in the eighteenth century through the attempt of a young Lutheran pastor namedBeginning with Oberlin;Oberlin to give an informal training to the small children in all the villages of his rural charge in northeasterndevelopment in Paris;France. This type of training was copied in Paris as early as 1801, but did not amount to much until its revival through the influence of a similar development in England a quarter of a century later. It then rapidly expanded, and in 1833 was adopted as part of the Frenchpart of national system.national system of education. In 1847 a normal school was founded to prepare directresses and inspectors for these institutions, and in 1881 they became known as ‘maternal schools,’ and the present type of curriculum was adopted. Besides reading and writing, these schools have always included informal exercises in the mother tongue, drawing, knowledge of common things, the elements of geography and natural history, manual and physical exercises, and singing.
The ‘Infant Schools’ in England.—Quite independently, though over a generation later than Oberlin,Owen at New Lanark;Robert Owen opened his ‘infant school’ in 1816 at New Lanark, Scotland. He was a philanthropic cotton-spinner, and wished to give the young children of his operatives a careful moral, physical, and intellectual training. From the age of three they were taught in this school for two or three years whatever was useful and within their understanding, and this instruction was combined with much singing, dancing, amusement, and out-of-door exercise. They were not “annoyed with books,” but were taught about nature and common objects through maps, models, paintings, and familiar conversation, and their “curiosity was excited so as toask questions concerning them.” To afford this informal training, Owen secured a “poor simple-hearted weaver, named James Buchanan, who at first could scarcely read, write, or spell,” but who, by following the instructions of Owen literally, made a great success of theBuchanan’s school in London,system. But when Buchanan, with the consent of Owen, had been transferred to London, to start a similar school for a group of peers and other distinguished philanthropists, his lack of intelligence reduced the training to a mere mechanical imitation of the procedure he had learned at New Lanark. Unfortunately, this London school became the model for Samuel Wilderspin, who was destined to become the leading exponent of infant schools. The schools of Wilderspin, whilebecame model for Wilderspin,—formal and mechanical.retaining some of the principles and devices of Owen, were much more formal and mechanical. He thought too highly of ‘books, lessons, and apparatus,’ and confounded instruction with education. He overloaded the child with verbal information, depending upon the memory rather than the understanding. Before the child was six, it was expected that he had been taught reading, the fundamental operations in arithmetic, the tables of money, weights, and measures, a knowledge of the qualities of common objects, the habits of different animals, the elements of astronomy, botany, and zoölogy, and the chief facts of the New Testament. Even the games were stereotyped, and the religious teaching most formal.
Spread of schools;
Wilderspin’s first school was opened at Spitalfields, London, and soon attracted a horde of visitors. He then began lecturing upon the subject throughout the United Kingdom, often demonstrating his methods withclasses of children he had taken along, and organizedInfant School Society;infant schools everywhere. In 1824 an ‘Infant School Society’ was founded and through it several hundred schools were established. A dozen years later an organization for training infant school teachers, known asHome and Colonial Society;‘The Home and Colonial School Society,’ was founded at London by Reverend Charles Mayo, D. D., and others. This society undertook to graft Pestalozzianism upon the infant school stock. While the combination resulted in some improvement of the infant schools, and real object teaching and sense training were more emphasized than they had been, the spirit of Pestalozzi was largely lost, and there was too much imitation of the formal instruction of older children, and there was an evident attempt to cultivate infant prodigies. Through these agencies infant schools spread rapidly in Great Britain, and were adopted as a regular part of thePart of public system.public system, when it was established in 1870 (p. 388). And four years later a marked advance was made through merging in them some of the methods and games of the kindergarten.
‘Infant Schools’ in the United States.—Schools open to all younger children also sprang up in the United States during the first quarter of the nineteenth century. For many years they were nowhere regarded as an essential part of the public school system, and were managed separately, but about the middle of the century they were generally united. In 1818 Boston made itsBoston ‘primary schools.’first appropriation for “primary schools, to provide instruction for children between four and seven years of age.” These schools were divided into four grades, beginning with the study of the alphabet and closingwith reading in the New Testament. Besides reading, writing, and spelling, sewing and knitting were taught the girls. A formal course and the monitorial method were employed until about 1840, when the primary schools became largely inoculated with the informal procedure of Pestalozzi. The primary schools were for a long time under a separate committee, but in 1854 the management was fused in a general city board.
New York started an ‘Infant School Society’ in 1827. This organization opened two ‘infant schools’ for poor‘Primary departments’ in New York.children between three and six years of age. One of these schools was located in the basement of a Presbyterian Church and the other in that of a monitorial institution belonging to the Public School Society (see p. 261). The Pestalozzian methods used in these infant schools greatly commended themselves, and in 1830 the Public School Society added them as ‘primary departments’ in all their buildings, but under separate management. A committee was appointed in 1832 to examine the Society’s schools and suggest improvements. Upon the recommendation of two of this committee, who had inspected education in Boston, primary schools were established in rented rooms in sufficient numbers to be within easy reach for the young children. The subject-matter and methods were likewise made less formal.
In 1827 three ‘infant schools’ were also founded in‘Infant schools’ in PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia and other centers of Pennsylvania through Roberts Vaux. By 1830 the number of infant schools in the state had risen to ten, with two to three thousand pupils. As the numbers would indicate, the schools were largely organized upon the Lancasterian plan.Two years later a model infant school was started in Philadelphia, and in 1834 six others were organized. By 1837 there were thirty primary schools in Philadelphiaand other centers.alone. Several other cities started infant schools early. Hartford began them in 1827, and Baltimore in 1829. These institutions were in most cases fostered by the leading men of the community, and the ultimate service performed for American education by this form of philanthropy was considerable. Among other improvements, the infant schools developed a better type of schoolroom, secured separate rooms for different classes, introducedImprovements through infant schools.better methods and equipment, encouraged a movement toward playgrounds, and brought women into the city schools of the United States.
The Importance of Philanthropic Education.—Many other types of charity school arose during the eighteenth century both in Great Britain and America, but the chief movements have been described, and sufficient has been said to indicate the important part in education played by philanthropy. The moral, religious,Purpose,and economic condition of the lower classes had been sadly neglected, and by means of endowment, subscription, or organized societies, a series of attempts was made to relieve and elevate the masses through education. As a result, charity schools of many varieties and more or less permanent in character arose in all parts of the British Isles, the United States, and evenlocation,France. In many instances the pupils were furnishedcourse,with lodging, board, and clothes. The curriculum in these institutions was, of course, mostly elementary. It generally included reading, spelling, writing, and arithmetic, while a moral and religious training was giventhrough the Bible, catechism, prayer book, and psalms, and sometimes through attendance at church under supervision of the master. Frequently industrial or vocational subjects were taught, or the pupils apprenticed to a trade or to domestic service. The course was usually most formal both in matter and method, but occasionally in the later types drawing, geography, nature study, physical exercises, and games were added,and methods.and the more informal methods of Pestalozzi or Froebel were partially employed. Sometimes the training was especially intended for and adapted to children under the usual school age.
These efforts to improve social conditions by meansVarious sorts of opposition.of philanthropic education encountered various sorts of opposition. Often the upper classes held that the masses should be kept in their place, and feared that any education at all would make them discontented and cause an uprising. The poor themselves, in turn, were often suspicious of any schooling that tended to elevate them, and were unwilling to stamp themselves as paupers. Moreover, the sectarian color that sometimes appeared in the religious training not infrequently repelled people of other creeds or kept the schools from receiving their children.
However, this philanthropic education may, in general, be considered a fortunate movement, although its greatest service consisted in paving the way for better things.Paved the way for national and public education.In contrast to the negative phase of ‘naturalism,’ it represented a positive factor in the educational activities of the century. Instead of attempting to destroy existing society utterly, it sought rather to reform it, and when the work of destruction gave opportunity for newideals, it suggested and even furnished a reconstruction along higher lines. Hence philanthropy in education exercised an important influence in the direction of universal, national, and public training for citizenship. It was in many of its forms merged in such a system in several countries, and in succeeding chapters references to the S. P. C. K., S. P. G., Sunday, monitorial, and infant schools will naturally appear.
Graves,In Modern Times(Macmillan, 1913), chap. III; andGreat Educators(Macmillan, 1912), chap. XII; Parker,Modern Elementary Education(Ginn, 1912), pp. 101-107. Allen, W. O. B. and McClure, E., have presentedThe History of the S. P. C. K.(Christian Knowledge Society, London, 1901), and Pascoe, C. F.,Two Hundred Years of the S. P. G.(Christian Knowledge Society, London, 1898), while Kemp, W. W., gives a detailed history ofThe Support of Schools in Colonial New York by the S. P. G.(Columbia University, Teachers College Contributions, no. 56, 1913), and Weber, S. E., ofThe Charity School Movement in Pennsylvania(Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania). Harris, J., furnishes a good description ofRobert Raikes; the Man and His Work(Dutton, New York, 1899); Salmon, D., ofJoseph Lancaster(Longmans, Green, 1904); Meiklejohn, J. M. D., ofAn Old Educational Reformer, Dr. Andrew Bell(Bardeen, Syracuse); and Salmon, D., and Hindshaw, W., ofInfant Schools, Their History and Theory(Longmans, Green, 1904).
Between the ‘transplantation’ period and that of the purely American conception of education was a distinctive stage in American education,—the ‘period of transition.’During this period Virginia and the other Southern states began to develop sentiment for universal education, and started permanent school funds and ‘permissive’ laws for common schools.In the state of New York, appropriations were made for elementary education, but the public system was not really extended to the secondary field; while in New York City the way for universal education was prepared by quasi-public societies. In Pennsylvania, school districts were established at Philadelphia and elsewhere, but not until 1834 was the state system of common schools started. New Jersey and Delaware were even slower in getting their systems started.The generous support of colonial education in Massachusetts was followed by a decline, and the control of schools was transferred from the towns to the districts. Academies were subsidized by the state and took the place of the grammar schools. A similar decline took place in the schools of the other New England states, except Rhode Island, which for the first time began to develop schools at public expense.In the new states erected out of the Northwest Territory during this period there was a prolonged struggle to introduce common schools among those who had come from states not yet committed to this ideal, and state systems of education began to appear toward the close of the first quarter of the nineteenth century.Thus before the educational awakening spread through the land,a radical modification had taken place in the European institutions with which America began its education.
Between the ‘transplantation’ period and that of the purely American conception of education was a distinctive stage in American education,—the ‘period of transition.’
During this period Virginia and the other Southern states began to develop sentiment for universal education, and started permanent school funds and ‘permissive’ laws for common schools.
In the state of New York, appropriations were made for elementary education, but the public system was not really extended to the secondary field; while in New York City the way for universal education was prepared by quasi-public societies. In Pennsylvania, school districts were established at Philadelphia and elsewhere, but not until 1834 was the state system of common schools started. New Jersey and Delaware were even slower in getting their systems started.
The generous support of colonial education in Massachusetts was followed by a decline, and the control of schools was transferred from the towns to the districts. Academies were subsidized by the state and took the place of the grammar schools. A similar decline took place in the schools of the other New England states, except Rhode Island, which for the first time began to develop schools at public expense.
In the new states erected out of the Northwest Territory during this period there was a prolonged struggle to introduce common schools among those who had come from states not yet committed to this ideal, and state systems of education began to appear toward the close of the first quarter of the nineteenth century.
Thus before the educational awakening spread through the land,a radical modification had taken place in the European institutions with which America began its education.
Evolution of Public Education in the United States.—We may now return to our discussion of education in America. It has already been seen (chap. XVII) that the organization of schools in the various colonies was largely the result of educational ideals and conditions in the Mother Country. At first the schools of America closely resembled those of the European countries from which the colonists came, and the seventeenth century in American education is largely a period of ‘transplantation.’ But toward the middle of the eighteenth century, as new social and political conditions were evolving and the days of the Revolution were approaching, there were evident a gradual modification of European ideals and the differentiation of American schools toward a type of their own. America has long stood, in theory at least, for equality of opportunity, and this conception of society is apparent in its views of education. The distinguishing characteristic of the AmericanTransition to American conception began about the middle of the eighteenth century.schools has throughout been the attempt of a free people to educate themselves, and, through their elected representatives, the people of the various states have come, in harmony with the genius of American civilization, to initiate, regulate, and control their own systems of education. While the purely American conception of education cannot be fully discerned until almost the middle of the nineteenth century, there can for three-quarters of a century before be clearly distinguished ‘a period of transition’ from the inherited ideals to those of America to-day. This intervening stage of evolutioncovers roughly the last quarter century of colonial life and the first half century of statehood. To it we must now direct our attention.
Rise of the Common School in Virginia.—By the opening of the period, as we noted (p. 193), Virginia had voluntarily made a fair provision for secondary and higher education in various localities, but as yet no real interest in common elementary schools had been shown by the responsible classes. The nearest approach to suchThe ‘field school.’institutions was found in the plantation ‘field school.’ Organized by a group of neighbors, these schools were supported by tuition fees and were not dependent upon any authority other than the good sense of the parents and pupils. But by the close of the Revolution a desire for genuine public education began to appear. The leader in the movement was the great statesman, ThomasJefferson’s plan for universal education.Jefferson. As early as 1779, he first introduced into the legislature a scheme of universal education. His bill proposed to lay off all the counties into small districts five or six miles square, to be called ‘hundreds.’ Each hundred was to establish at its own expense an elementary school, to which every citizen should be entitled to send his children free for three years, and for as much longer as he would pay. The leading pupil in each school was to be selected annually by a school visitor and sent to one of the twenty ‘grammar’ (i. e. secondary) schools, which were to be erected in various parts of the state. After a trial of two years had been made of these boys, the leader in each grammar school was to be selected and given a complete secondary course of six years, and the rest dismissed. At the end of this six-year course, the lower half of the geniuses thus determined were to beretained as teachers in the grammar schools, while the upper half were to be supported from the public treasury for three years at the College of William and Mary, which was to be greatly expanded in control and scope.
This comprehensive plan for a system of common schools was, in the face of most discouraging opposition, constantly adhered to by Jefferson, although he did not live to see universal education an accomplished fact. He did, however, stimulate some movements toward this end. In 1796 the legislature passed an ineffective law whereby the justices of each county were permitted to initiate a school system by taxation, and in 1810 aPermissive law and ‘literary fund.’‘literary fund’ was established for public education. When, in 1816, this fund had been increased to a million dollars, those in charge of it recommended to the legislature the establishment of “a system of public education, including a university, to be called the University ofUniversity of Virginia.Virginia, and such additional colleges, academies, and schools as should diffuse the benefits of education through the Commonwealth.” This revision of Jefferson’s suggestion did not immediately result in any legal steps toward universal education, except the appropriation in 1818 of $45,000 from the income of the literary fund to have the poor children of each county sent to a proper school, but it did bring about in 1820 the foundation of the University of Virginia and a generous grant for the erection of a set of buildings. In the same year the effectiveness of the ‘permissive’ law for common schools of 1796 and of the appropriation act of 1818 was somewhat strengthened by the division of the counties into districts, among which the appropriation for educationof the poor was distributed and managed by special commissioners.
While this law marked one more step in advance, it was hampered by several of the features that in various states continually delayed the establishment of common schools at public expense. In the first place, it was based on the conception of public education as poor relief,Hindrances to universal education,rather than universal training for citizenship. It was often viewed with hostility or indifference by the wealthy, who felt that they were paying for that from which they received no benefit, and with pride and scorn by the poor, who refused to be considered objects of charity. Moreover, the sum distributed ($45,000) was totally inadequate for over one hundred thousand children, and every variety of school, private as well as public, was subsidized without distinction. The system lacked a strong central organization, and the commissioners, often appointed by the county judges from the classes most opposed to the arrangement, were notoriously inefficient. The teachers also were generally incompetent, as it was practically impossible to persuade college or academy graduates to undertake the instruction of the poor. Nevertheless, under this apology for a people’s common school, the state went on for a score of years, and there was a steady growth in the literary fund, the appropriations,but gradual improvement.the length of the school term, and the number of pupils who were willing to take advantage of such opportunities as it afforded. State officials of wide vision, moreover, sought in every way to improve the teaching corps and the defective administration. While the great majority of the school children still attended the denominational, private, and ‘field’ schools (see p. 253), thissystem of subsidies was educating public opinion for something better. By the close of the first half century of statehood, while Virginia was not yet ready to establish a complete system of public education, we shall later (seepp. 327f.) find that the ground had been prepared for the development of common schools that was spreading throughout the country.
Similar Developments in the Other Southern States.—This advance toward the common school in Virginia isMaryland,typical of the South. The development in Maryland was very similar to that of Virginia. The state began to move slowly toward universal education by subsidizing the education of the poor (1816), and by the passage of a ‘permissive’ law for common schools in the countiesSouth Carolina,(1825). In South Carolina an annual appropriation for ‘free schools’ was started in 1811. A law was passed establishing a number of schools in each election district equal to that of its members in the legislature and providing $300 for each school. But these schools were largely regarded as pauper institutions, and, because legislative representation was based upon property, the distribution of the appropriation was very inequitable, for the inland parts of the state, which most needed assistance, received least. Yet the amount of appropriation gradually increased, and sentiment for universal education steadily developed. Within the first half dozen years of statehood, Georgia began the provision of land endowment for schools, and the organization of aGeorgia,state system under the title of the ‘University of Georgia.’ While the value of the land was too small to establish a genuine system of public education so soon, before the close of the transition period, a permanent school fundhad been started, and sentiment for public education hadNorth Carolina,begun to grow. North Carolina made even earlier progress toward common schools. The constitution of 1776 provided for the establishment of schools, and, by 1817, at the request of the legislature, Judge Archibald D. Murphy, a statesman with broad educational traditions, even formulated an elaborate plan for a complete system of public schools. This scheme failed, because it proposed to ‘maintain,’ as well as educate, the children of the poor. But the suggestions of the Murphy committee shortly brought about the establishment of a ‘literary,’ or common school fund (1825), the income of which was to be used for the support of public schools.
In the case of the other Southern commonwealths, which were admitted after the union had been formed,and afterward other commonwealths, had the beginnings of a state system;there was similarly a very gradual growth of sentiment for universal education. In every state there appeared an alliance between far-sighted statesmen and educators and the great middle class of citizens for the purpose of establishing common schools for all white children, and the old ecclesiastical and exclusive idea of education was beginning to fade. By the close of the first half century of national existence, a public system had not actually materialized in any of the states, but most of them had begun to create ‘literary funds,’ subsidize schooling for the poor, and enact ‘permissive’ laws for establishing public schools. Except in Virginia and South Carolina, provisions had been made for general administration in state, county, and district; and in North Carolina the organization of a complete common school systemand the larger cities had organized their schools.awaited only a first hint of the great educational awakening (1835-1860). Moreover, most of the larger cities—Baltimore,Charleston, Louisville, Nashville, Memphis, Mobile, New Orleans—had already organized a regular system of public schools, and all of the older commonwealths had made some attempt at supporting a state institution of higher learning, which was virtually the head of a public school system. The various denominations had begun to found colleges in some numbers, but even these institutions were not so strictly ecclesiastical as William and Mary started out to be, and assumed a wider function than merely training for the ministry, while the aristocratic and classical ‘grammar’ schools had largely given way to the ‘academies’ (Fig. 32), which were nonsectarian, democratic, and more comprehensive in their curriculum.
Evolution of Public Education in New York.—After the English took possession of New York, we have seen (p. 195) how that territory lapsed into thelaissez fairesupport of education. The upper classes of society largely sought their education abroad or through tutors and the clergy, although in 1754 King’s College (now Columbia University) was founded, and during the century a number of secondary schools were organized and granted gratuities by the legislature. The few elementary schools that existed were either private or maintained by some church or philanthropic society. As already shown (pp. 234ff.), this was the period distinguished for the schools founded by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. At the close of the Revolution, however, the various elements of the population had been welded together in the common struggle, and a sentiment for public education began to prevail over vested interests and sectarian jealousies. A series ofbroad-minded governors—the Clintons, Lewis, Tompkins, and Marcy—constantly reminded the legislature ofSystem under Board of Regents, but did not include elementary schools.its duty to establish common schools. In 1787 a system of public education was theoretically organized under the management of a Board of Regents, with the title of ‘The University of the State of New York,’ but it did not include elementary schools. Two years later lands inEndowment of common schools.each township were set apart for the endowment of common schools, and in 1795 it was enacted that the sum of $50,000 for five years should be distributed for the encouragement of elementary education in counties where the towns would raise by taxation half as much as the amount of their share. This arrangement was not carried on beyond the five years, but in 1805 the proceeds from 500,000 acres of land were appropriated for a common school fund, which was not to be used until the interest reached $50,000 per annum.
In 1812 further organization was enacted whereby aState superintendency and further progress.state superintendent of common schools was to be appointed, and the county unit replaced by a more democratic town and district basis. But it had been supposed that the state fund would provide for the entire support of the schools, and there still remained an obstinate opposition to local taxes. The towns, however, were gradually persuaded to raise the amount required to secure their share of the state donation. Much progress was brought about through the first superintendent, Gideon Hawley, and while, after eight years of service, he wasCombination with secretaryship of state.removed by political manipulation and the office combined with the secretaryship of state, each of his successors undertook to distinguish the educational side of his administration by some marked advance orimprovement in the common schools. But for a generation the academies and colleges remained under supervision of the regents, and, except for state appropriations to academies, no one undertook to extend the publicPublic secondary and normal schools delayed by academy appropriations.system into secondary and higher education. Moreover, the professional training of teachers in the academies was encouraged by the state, and thereby the organization of normal schools was delayed. Hence, while New York started the first system of public education adjusted to the political and social conditions of the new nation, and probably had the most effective schools of the times, not until the great period of common school development (1835-1860) were its people fully willing to contribute for a general school system, make it entirely free, or develop it consistently in all directions.
‘Free School Society.’
New York City.—Meanwhile, an interesting development of educational facilities was taking place in New York City. In 1805 the opportunities offered in the private, church, and charity schools were seen by certain of the most prominent citizens to be totally inadequate for a city of seventy-five thousand inhabitants, and aChange of name.‘Free School Society’ was founded to provide for the boys who were not eligible for these schools. The president was De Witt Clinton, afterward governor, and in 1806 the first school was opened, from motives of economy, upon the monitorial basis (see p. 241). The state fund did not reach a sufficient amount to be available until 1815, but special gifts were made to the school society from time to time by the legislature, the city, and private individuals, and there was a rapid increase in the number of the society’s schools during the first quarter of a century. In 1826 the legislature authorizedthe organization to charge a small tuition fee and change its name to the ‘Public School Society.’ While the fee system was soon found to injure the efficiency of the work and was abolished within six years, the new title persisted, as it did not suggest pauperism in the way the old name had. In 1828 the society was allowed the benefit of a small local tax. For quite a time the work of the association was unhindered, but in 1820-1825 a vigorous effort was made to obtain a share of the stateBethel Baptist Church controversy.appropriation for the sectarian schools of the Bethel Baptist Church. This move was finally defeated, but the Roman Catholics made a more successful protest fifteen years later by indicating that the society, while nominally nonsectarian, was really Protestant. To settle this dispute, the legislature in 1842 established aCity board of education.city board of education, and after eleven years the institutions of the Public School Society were merged in this city system. Thus was the way prepared for a public school system in New York City, and this development was typical of the training of educational sentiment through quasi-public societies that took place in Buffalo, Utica, Oswego, and several other cities.
Development of Systems of Education in Pennsylvania and the Other Middle States.—The rise of public systems in the other Middle states was also gradual. In Pennsylvania, the state system slowly arose through aConstitutional provision in Pennsylvania produced only ‘poor schools.’prolonged stage of ‘poor schools.’ The new constitution (1790) of the state declared: “The legislature shall, as soon as conveniently may be, provide by law for the establishment of schools throughout the State, in such manner that the poor may be taught gratis.” Men of broad vision, like Franklin, Benjamin Rush, and TimothyPickering, had striven hard to have popular education introduced, but the general sentiment of the times could not reach beyond providing free education for the poor. Moreover, although this moderate constitutional provision was a compromise, it was not until some years later (1802, 1804, and 1809) that the legislature passed acts to make it effective. Even then public institutions to fulfill the legislation were not established, but it was arranged that the tuition of poor children should be paid for at public expense in private, church, and neighborhood schools, and the proceeds of the sixty thousand acres of land appropriated for ‘aiding public schools’ went to subsidize private institutions. But the idea of common schools continued to develop, and governors and other prominent men constantly called attention to the need of universal education. Philadelphia was the first municipality to be converted, and in 1818, under a special act of the legislature, it became ‘the first school district of Pennsylvania,’ with the power to provide aPublic system in Philadelphia and elsewhere.system of education on the Lancasterian plan at public expense. After three or four years this special legislation was extended to five more ‘districts’, and in 1824 a general law permitting the establishment of free schools in any community was enacted, though soon repealed.
Finally, in 1828, ‘the Pennsylvania Society for the Promotion of Common Schools,’ after demonstratingEstablishment of a state school fund and a state school system.the ineffectiveness of the ‘pauper school’ law in a series of memorials, succeeded in having a state school fund established, and in 1834, “an act to establish a general system of education by common schools” was passed. This law established a state system of schools under the general superintendency of the secretary of state. For thissystem it appropriated $75,000 per annum from the income of the state school fund, and permitted the wards, townships, and boroughs, which it constituted school districts, to share in this, provided they levied local taxes for schools. The Northern counties, settled mostly by New England colonists, and the Western portion of the state, with its large element of Scotch-Irish Presbyterians, ardently favored this encouragement of universal education, but the law was only ‘permissive’ and was bitterly opposed by the Quaker and German inhabitants of ‘old’ Pennsylvania, who feared that their own parochial schools would be replaced. The wealthy classes were also hostile to the new law, on the ground that they ought not to be taxed to educate other people’sEffort to repeal unsuccessful.children. In a vigorous campaign to repeal the act, however, the opponents of the law, largely through the eloquent speech of Thaddeus Stevens, were defeated the following year (1835), and the desire to establish public schools was greatly increased in 1836 by the passage of a new law, which enlarged the annual appropriation to $200,000, in which the school districts might participate only on condition of local taxation. Even then not more than one-half the districts took advantage of the opportunity, and it was several years before most of them claimed their share. Hence, while the battle was won by 1835, the consummation of public education in Pennsylvania did not take place until the great awakening of common schools had swept over the country.
After the formation of the Union, New Jersey andSimilar hindrances in New Jersey and Delaware.Delaware met with the same kinds of hindrance to the development of common schools as did Pennsylvania, and they were even slower in getting a system established.In both commonwealths a state school fund was started early in the nineteenth century, but it was not distributed for about a dozen years, and then it was used mostly for the education of paupers in subsidized private schools. Some ‘permissive’ legislation for the organization of school districts and commissioners and the establishment of public schools was also passed, but it accomplished little before the middle of the century.
Decline of Education in Massachusetts.—In Massachusetts, on the other hand, efforts for the provision of universal training degenerated during the eighteenth century. The generous support of public education that had been started in 1647 was followed by a period of decline for about a century and a half. The causes of this decadence of local interest in education were rather complicated. In the first place, the complete dominationDisintegration of the domination of Calvinism.of Calvinism gradually disintegrated and was replaced by a toleration of several creeds. The non-Puritans, who were constantly increasing in numbers, were obliged by the law of 1638 to preserve an outward conformity to the Calvinistic régime under penalty of banishment, but by 1662 a compromise was granted, whereby persons not conforming in every respect might be admitted to all church privileges, except communion, and the persecution of Quakers, Baptists, and other sects was largely abandoned. In 1670 came the successful secession of the Old South Church from the original church of Boston, as the result of a quarrel concerning this very compromise, and within a decade the Baptists were permitted to build a meeting-house in Boston. By 1692 recognition had been largely granted to all Protestant beliefs, and to be a ‘freeman,’ or voter on all colonial questions, itwas no longer necessary to be a member of a Puritan church. While every town was still required to support by tax an orthodox pastor, by 1728 the Episcopalians, Quakers, and Baptists were permitted to pay their assessments to their own ministers, and the alliance of the State with a despotic Church, which had made possible the system of public education, was largely broken.
Lowering of intellectual standards.
Moreover, there was a decided lowering of intellectual standards upon the part of the colonists. The hard struggle to wring a living from an unpropitious soil, and the disturbances due to wars, Indian skirmishes, and the difficulties of pioneer life greatly lessened their feeling of need for a literary training. Another reason forDispersion of population.the educational decline was the dispersion of the population in the towns. At first, because of possible attacks by the Indians, a law forbade any dwelling to be built more than half a mile from the church and school, and not infrequently the school was equipped with a watch-tower (Fig. 22). But, as the best land near the center was more and more taken up, the towns spread out in various directions, and the intervening hills, streams, swamps, and poor roads, together with the fear of Indians and wild animals, greatly hindered those on the outskirts in reaching the church and school of the town. As a result of all these conditions, the towns, most of which had been eager to establish schools even before being compelled to do so, began to seek various methods ofConsequent attempts to evade the school law.evading the school law without incurring the fine. The minister was at times made the nominal schoolmaster, or a teacher was even employed during the session of the ‘General Court’ (i. e., legislature) and discharged upon adjournment. Laws were enacted against thesesubterfuges, greater vigilance was exercised, and the fine was increased first to £10 (1671) and then to £20 (1683), with a progressive increase where the number of families ran over one hundred (1712). Thus the fine came to be almost sufficient to support a schoolmaster, and it was made more and more unprofitable for a town to disobey the law.
Under these circumstances it became advantageous to many citizens, especially those at the center of a town, to have the entire support of the school come through general taxation rather than partially by means of tuition fees. But the people in the more distant portions of the town refused to vote a rate from which they themselves obtained no profit. They demanded that, in return for their taxes, the public school should beInfluence of ‘dame’ and private elementary schools and of parishes.brought nearer to them. Probably they were influenced in this stand by the fact that private ‘dame’ schools, and possibly elementary schools, had for some time been opened in various parts of the town conveniently near their homes. Another factor that may have aided in suggesting this solution was the legal recognition of various remote settlements within the town, known as ‘parishes’ or ‘districts,’ through the grant of self-government, separate church organizations, and other privileges similar to those of the town as a whole, though on a smaller scale. At any rate, we find that in the early part of the eighteenth century, wherever a rate was adopted as the sole means of school support, it was agreed that, instead of holding the town school for twelve months in the center alone, opportunities should be offered for a fraction of that period in various portions of the town. Usually the compromise at first took the form of having one town master teach in different districtsthrough the year, and the result was known as aThe ‘moving,’‘moving’ school. This necessitated holding the school in a number of isolated communities, and the temple of learning often came at first to be located in a private house, usually in the kitchen. And although, in time, another room was added to the farm house for the accommodation of the school, the institution has since then been known as a ‘kitchen school’ (Fig. 30). But, by a later development, when separate schools under different masters or mistresses came to be taught at the same time, the‘divided,’town school was said to be ‘divided.’ Then in the winter, when the big boys were out of the fields and came to school, the session was held in the center of the town, and usually required the brawn of a man. But in summer, when only the younger children could attend, schools were held in various parts of the town and were taught chiefly by women (Fig. 31). The divisions of the town that thus came to be recognized were allowed more and more control of their schools until they practically became autonomous. Before the time of the Revolution ‘divided schools’ were recognized as a regular institution, and, together with other customs that had grown up during the eighteenth century, they were given legal sanction and denominatedand ‘district’ schools.‘district schools’ in the law of 1789. By 1800 the districts were not only allowed to manage their own share of the town taxes, but were authorized to make the levy themselves; in 1817 they were made corporations and empowered to hold property for educational purposes; and in 1827 they were granted the right to choose a committeeman, who should appoint the teacher and have control of the school property.
Thus the year 1827 “marks the culmination of a process which had been going on for more than a century,—the high-water mark of modern democracy, and the low-water mark of the Massachusetts school system.” The district system did in its earlier stages bind the families of a neighborhood into a corporation whose intent was the most vital of human needs,—education, and the people came to feel the necessity of supportingDegeneracy of the district system.it by their own generous contributions. But in the course of time the districts became involved in private and petty political interests, and had but little consideration for the public good. The choice of the committeeman, the site, and the teacher caused much unseemly wrangling, and as each received only what it paid in, the poor district obtained only a weak school and that for but a short term. The increasing expense of the district system had also made it impossible for any except the larger towns to support the old-time ‘grammar’ school, and this part of the old school requirements had fallen into disuse before the close of the eighteenth century. To meet the needs of secondary education,Endowment of academies with public lands.the policy of endowing ‘academies’ (Fig. 32) with wild lands in Maine had gradually grown up, and this custom was legalized in 1797. Seven academies,—four in Massachusetts proper and three in the province of Maine, had originally been endowed with a township apiece, and some fourteen more had been chartered by towns at an early date, and empowered by the state to hold educational funds. By the time of the educational awakening there were some fifty of these private secondaryHigh schools not yet influential.institutions subsidized by the state, although managed by a close corporation. The first public high school(Fig. 41) had been established in Boston (1821), but this type of secondary school had not begun to have any influence as yet. Into such a decadence had the liberally supported system of public education fallen, before the rapid development in common schools began and the influence of Horace Mann and other reformers was felt.