OHIO
Archaeological and Historical
PUBLICATIONS.
HISTORY OF THE
EDUCATIONAL LEGISLATION IN
OHIO FROM 1803 TO 1850.
EDWARD A. MILLER
INTRODUCTION.
Ohio's educational history has been an
especially interest-
ing one. Many causes have combined to
make it so. It was
the first state admitted from the
Northwest Territory, and as
such carried on the earliest experiments
with the great state-wide
grant of school lands that has
characterized our policy since that
time in the admission of new states to
the Union. It was set-
tled with unexampled rapidity, changing
from a wilderness
frontier to a great and prosperous
commonwealth in a single
generation. The settlement was a
singularly heterogeneous one,
coming from the east, the middle states
and the south, with a
considerable influx directly from
Europe. These early settle-
ments were being established, too, while
those democratic and
individualistic tendencies that marked
the first decades of the
nineteenth century were in progress.
During these years the
district school idea was at its height
in Massachusetts and the
East, the private academy was displacing
the town grammar
school, and state control of public
education was at low ebb.
These causes, with others more local in
nature, were instru-
mental in shaping the educational
activities of the state in the
first fifty years of its history, and
have left their imprint on all
the later development.
It is my purpose to give a careful study
and interpretation
of the educational legislation of the
state from territorial days
down to 1850. In this legislation one
finds the truest expression
of the constructive educational thought
and activity of the period.
(1)
2 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.
In such a study there must be included
not merely the laws
that bear on the development of a state
system of public educa-
tion, but the much larger number that
are concerned with private
educational ventures of various kinds.
To these must be added
those laws that bear on higher and
professional education, all
that touch upon supplementary agencies
of any kind, and also
any provisions made for the indigent,
defective and delinquent
classes.
A study of this kind is needed as a
background before any
adequate state or national history of
education is possible. Such
a study also gives the general student
of history a view of one
of the most important phases in the
social development of a state,
and a closer acquaintance with the
growth of some of the most
important institutions that society has
discovered to aid it in its
progress.
I have attempted in the following pages
to present the ma-
terial in such a way that it will be of
service to the general
student, and also, in the appendices to
furnish a guide for any
one desiring further information from
the source material on
any particular phase of the state's
educational activities.
The plan of arrangement is as follows: A
discussion and
interpretation of the laws passed from
1803 to 1850; Appendix
A: A classified list of the titles of
the more important acts;
Appendix B: A complete index, page and
volume, to all the
legislation that in any way touches upon
education, in the ses-
sion laws of Ohio from 1803 to 1850,
including both the general
and the local laws.
In many cases I have not given the exact
titles in the ap-
pendices, for the sake of both brevity
and clearness; enough of
titles and content to indicate the
general meaning of the act is
given. In Appendix A, a brief abstract
of the laws is also in-
cluded where it seemed necessary to give
more information than
the title itself conveys.
This is especially the case in the acts
of incorporation of
that large number of secondary and
higher institutions that were
so abundant in the first fifty years of
Ohio's history. A com-
plete tabulation of these acts is here
given and as it is the only
complete list of these institutions that
has been made it seemed
Educational Legislation in Ohio From
1803 to 1850. 3
best to preserve in a few words the
chief points of historical
interest that appear in the laws.
I felt this to be particularly the case
with the secondary
schools. These have nearly all passed
out of existence, and as
they mark one of the most important
stages in the development
of our secondary education, a somewhat
more complete abstract
is given than that dealing with most of
the other subjects.
The public school laws are more easily
accessible and they
are usually indicated by title only.
There was an exceptionally
large amount of legislation, especially
of a local and special
character, dealing with the School
Lands. The more important
of these acts are included by title in
the first appendix with a
mere tabulation of those that had only
local significance.
The laws in Appendix A, are grouped
under the following
headings:
1. The Public School System.
1. General Legislation.
2. City and Town school charters.
II. Legislation concerning the School
Lands.
III. Secondary and Higher Education.
1. Academies, seminaries, institutes and high schools.
2. Universities,
colleges and theological seminaries.
3. Medical and legal education.
IV. The Education of Defectives,
Dependents and Delin-
quents.
V. The Training of Teachers.
VI. Supplementary Educational Agencies.
Appendix B furnishes a page and volume
index to all laws,
resolutions and memorials that have any
educational significance
in either the general or local laws,
from 1803 to 1850. The in-
dices in the volumes of the session laws
themselves are some-
times defective, and they are, too, an
unreliable guide, as many
important items are found in laws the
titles to which give no
hint that they contain material that
relates in any way to educa-
tion.
The primary source material has been the
session laws of
4 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.
the state of Ohio. The revised Statutes
for this period have
also been consulted.
It was found necessary to examine all
the laws of the period,
special and general, as the titles and
indices were not dependable.
A considerable amount of material was
also found in the resolu-
tions and memorials.
The United States Statutes at Large were
used to secure
federal legislation concerning school
lands in Ohio. Nashee's
Compilation of Laws, Treaties and
Ordinances which relate to
Lands in the State of Ohio, was relied
upon especially for acts
passed during the territorial period.
The earliest Congressional legislation
was secured from the
Journals of the American Congress,
reprinted by Way and
Gideon, in 1823, under the title as
given.
The chief secondary sources consulted
are indicated in the
Bibliography.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER 1. PAGES
THE SOURCES
OF OHIO'S PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM ............... 1-23
Introductory.
Ohio's admission to the Union. Consti-
tutional
provisions for education. Traditions of decentral-
ization.
Early settlements and centers of influence. Growth
in
population. Conflicting educational ideals. Dominant
educational
influences at the time of settlement. New Eng-
land
influences. School Lands. Early practice in N. E. Its
extension in
Ohio. The Ordinance of 1785. The Ohio Com-
pany and
Symmes Purchases. The state wide grant. New
England men
and school legislation. Ephraim Cutler and
the law of
1821. Caleb Atwater and his report.
Nathan
Guilford and
the law of 1825. The work of Samuel Lewis
and the law
of 1838. The schools that preceded the school
laws.
CHAPTER II.
THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM .............. 24-68
Organization. Summary. School
support. Rates.
Revenue
from School Lands. Permanent
funds. State
school fund.
Surplus Revenue. Taxation. Fines and pen-
alties.
Control and Supervision. Certification of Teachers.
Curricula.
Length of school year. School officers. Schools
for colored
children. City and village schools. Cincinnati.
Cleveland.
Portsmouth. Zanesville. General laws for cities
and towns,
before the Akron act. Dayton. Columbus. Mt.
Vernon.
Akron. Akron act made general in application.
CHAPTER III.
THE PUBLIC SCHOOL
LANDS ..................................... 69-92
Various
tracts and grants. Methods of Survey. School
grants for
the different tracts. Reasons for lack of uni-
formity in
the method of granting the lands. Location of
the tracts
receiving grants other than Section 16. Legisla-
tive
responsibility for the school lands. Formal legal guard-
ing of
school rights. Methods of making the grant pro-
ductive.
Temporary leasing. Results. Permanent leasing.
Results.
Atwater's report. Cessation of leasing. Memorial
to Congress
for authorization to sell the school lands. The
sale of the
lands. State losses in selling the leased land.
Summary.
(5)
6 Contents.
CHAPTER IV. PAGES
SECONDARY AND
HIGHER EDUCATION ............................ 93-119
Secondary
Education. Legal provisions. The recom-
mendations of
Supt. Lewis for township high schools.
Kinds of
secondary institutions. Method of incorporation.
Enumeration
and classification of Secondary schools. Edu-
cation societies.
Denominational influences.
Curricula.
Manual labor
influence. Limits of State control. Higher
Education.
Enumeration of institutions incorporated. State
influence on
higher education. Ohio University.
Miami
University.
State aid to other colleges. Denominational
influences.
Agricultural education. Summary. Professional
Schools.
Medical education. Legal education.
CHAPTER V.
THE EDUCATION OF DEFECTIVES, DEPENDENTS AND
DELINQUENTS.. 120-128
Legislation
concerning the education of the deaf and
dumb.
Legislation concerning the education of the blind.
Legislation
concerning dependents. Orphan asylums. Edu-
cation of delinquents.
CHAPTER VI.
THE TRAINING
OF TEACHERS
.................................... 129-133
State
attitude. Voluntary associations. The Western
College of
Teachers. The Teachers' Institute.
Private
enterprises.
County teachers' institutes authorized. Private
normal
schools.
CHAPTER VII.
SUPPLEMENTARY
EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES ......................... 134-137
Libraries.
Lyceums. Institutes. Athenaeums and Lit-
erary
Societies. College Societies and Fraternities. Mis-
cellaneous
Organizations of educational significance.
CHAPTER VIII.
CONCLUSION
......................................
.... 138-142
Main
features. Decentralization. Permissive legisla-
tion.
Educational experimentation. Advanced position on
taxation for
schools. Lack of efficient organization. The
blinder of
1840. Disastrous experience with school lands.
Attitude
toward Secondary and Higher Education. Influ-
ence of early
history on the later educational development
of the state.
APPENDIX A ................................................. 143-211
APPENDIX B ..................................................
212-265
BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................
266-271
CHAPTER I
THE SOURCES OF OHIO'S PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM
Introductory.
Ohio was admitted into the Union as a
state February 19th,
1803.1 It was the first state admitted
from the Northwest Ter-
ritory, and the first state to which the
grant of Section 16 for
school purposes was made. The
legislation concerning school
lands was intimately connected with the
development of the
Public School System, and in the method
to be adopted to make
this great grant productive of the
desired results Ohio had no
precedents or warnings for her guidance.2
The Constitution adopted when Ohio
became a state re-
mained in force until 1851. It made no
specific provisions for
education, but stated that means of
education3 should be en-
couraged by legislative enactments; that
all institutions of all
grades, endowed in whole or in part from
revenues derived from
the donations of the United States,
should be open without dis-
tinction to all scholars; and that
associations of persons might
receive letters of incorporation from
the legislature to enable
them to hold estates for the support of
their schools, academies,
colleges and universities.
No provision for public schools was made
by any general
law during the first eighteen years
after Ohio's admission, the
first school law being passed in
1821.4 From this period until
1850
eight general school codes were enacted
with numerous
amendments and supplementary acts, and a
mass of special
legislation concerning particular
districts or territory.
Statistical Abstract, U. S., 1910, page
21.
2Land set aside for individual towns had
been common in New
England and elsewhere, but there was no
precedent to direct action in
the case of a state wide grant intended
for the use of the individual
townships.
3O. L. I., Art. 8, Sec. 3; Art. 8, Sec.
25; Art. 8, Sec. 27.
4O. L. XIX, 51.
(7)
8 Ohio Arch. and
Hist. Society Publications.
The traditions of Ohio were from the
first against centrali-
zation.5 The first
constitution was formed soon after the bitter
political struggle between Jefferson and
Adams, and at a time
when the arbitrary domination of the
Territorial Governor,
Arthur St. Clair, had prejudiced the
people against centralized
executive power. Nowhere is this
prejudice against centralized
administration better illustrated than
in the various phases of
educational legislation. The tendency throughout the period
under discussion was to depend largely
upon local initiative and
control. The encouragement of education by legislative pro-
vision specified in the constitution was
interpreted by the legis-
lature to mean the passing of a large
number of local acts to
meet the special needs or desires of
particular districts, or even
in the case of school lands, the desires
of individuals, while the
general laws may be said to have pointed
out methods of or-
ganization and control rather than
devising any efficient system
of supervision or penalties to actually
bring about specific educa-
tional results.
The general laws are largely permissive
in character, with
the initiative left in many cases to the
discretion of the local
community. There are doubtless other reasons for this than
the prejudice against the acts of Arthur
St. Clair and the gen-
eral political state of mind in the West
during the early period
of Ohio's history.
Ohio in its early statehood was a
frontier community, settled
by a class of people that in the very
nature of the case were
compelled largely to be self-reliant,
and to solve their own prob-
lems, educational as well as others. It
was a heavily timbered
area. Means of communication were
difficult. It would have
been a hard matter to establish any
general system of control
or supervision in the early period, and
when means of communi-
cation had become simplified, through a
system of state roads
and canals,6 the people had
become habituated to attending to
their own educational needs.
5Orth-The Centralization of
Administration in Ohio, page 11.
6A large part of the early legislation
of Ohio is concerned with
state roads, turnpike companies, plank
roads, canals, etc.
Educational Legislation in Ohio From
1803 to 1850. 9
The settlers in Ohio, too, had no common
educational back-
ground. They came from New England, from
Virginia, Mary-
land and Kentucky, and, in fact, from
nearly all the older states.7
A glance at the map on page 70 shows
that the state was
divided into a number of separate
districts such as the Western
Reserve, the Ohio Company's Purchase,
the Symmes Purchase,
the Virginia Military Lands and the
United States Military
Lands. The early settlements in these
sections were usually
made up of people who came into the
wilderness together from
one or another of the older states of
the Union.
Each of these districts, in its customs
and ideals reflected
the current thought and practice of that
part of the country
from which its settlers came, and in no
field was this more evi-
dent than in that of education. The Ohio
Company's Purchase
and the Western Reserve were at first
largely settled by colonists
from New England. Marietta, dating from
1787, and Cleveland,
from 1796, were the respective centers
of influence in these two
districts.
Three colonies were planted in the
Symmes purchase in
1788; the one at Losantiville, later
rechristened Cincinnati by
Governor St. Clair, was destined to be
in many ways a leader
for the entire state as well as for the
Miami country. The early
settlers here, as at Marietta, had many
of them seen service in
the Revolutionary War. They came from no
single locality,
but New Jersey men seemed most prominent
in the early settle-
ment, aided by the other Middle States.8
Later there were many
settlers from Virginia, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, New York, and
the New England states.
9The Virginia Military Lands, located between the Little
Miami and the Scioto Rivers, received
its first settlers from
Virginia and the South. General
Nathaniel Massie and Duncan
McArthur founded Chillicothe, on the
Scioto River, in 1796, the
first colony in this district.
7Atwater, A History of the State of
Ohio, page 351.
8Cincinnati. Charles Cist, page 38. The
Old Northwest. Hinsdale,
page 288, 9.
9Ibid. 290. Western Reserve Historical
Society. Vol. II., pages
153, 4.
10 Ohio
Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.
On the
eastern edge of the state, south of the Western Re-
serve, are
the so-called Seven Ranges, the name given to the
ranges of
townships first surveyed in Ohio. While there was
no such
colonization here as in the districts already named, the
first
settlers were largely from Pennsylvania, and of German
stock, with a
considerable number of Irish, Scotch and Scotch-
Irish.
The United
States Military Lands seem to have had no
early homogeneous
group, but drew settlers from all the older
states.
There was
also a considerable French settlement at Gal-
lipolis, and
a sprinkling of French all along the Ohio River.
From 1830 on
there was a very considerable German in-
fluence from
the influx of German immigrants that began at
that time.10
The
population increased with astonishing rapidity after
Ohio was
admitted as a state, constant accessions from the older
states were
added to the early settlements, and in the years from
1810 to 1840
the transformation from a thickly wooded frontier
to a settled
farming community had largely taken place. The
census
figures from 1800 to 1850 give some idea of this trans-
formation. At
the beginning of the century the population was
45,365, fifty
years later it had increased to 1,980,329. The
record of
increase by decades, which follows gives an even better
picture of
the sudden changes that must have occurred:
1800 ................................... ..... .
. 45,365
810 ............................................... 230,760
1820 ............................................... 580,434
1830 ............................................... 937,903
1840 ....................... ........................ 1,519,467
1850 ............................................... 1,980,329
11
The census
figures for the last decade of this period show
a foreign
born population of 218,193. In 1850 there were almost
10Orth- The
Centralization of Administration in Ohio, page 164.
Chaddock-A
Study of the Early Influence of Pennsylvania and South-
ern
Populations in Ohio, page 30.
11Statistical
Abstract of U. S., Washington, 1911, page 40.
Educational Legislation in Ohio From
1803 to 1850. 11
as many people of foreign birth in the
state as its entire popula-
tion had amounted to only forty years
earlier in 1810. These
people of foreign birth were largely of
German stock.
It was no easy problem to develop a
system of education
to meet the needs of this surprising
growth, coming as it did from
all the older states and from foreign
shores.
There was in these early years no
agreement as to the means
of financing any general system of
education, nor any real
agreement as to the needs of such a
system. The educational
traditions were quite different in
different portions of the state.
Samuel Lewis in his second annual report
in 1838 says: "The
people have not heretofore followed any
particular system. The
directors of each district have done
that which was right in
their own eyes, and generally adopted,
as far as they could, the
particular system of the state from
whence they came."12 Those
from the South brought traditions of the
private school and
parental responsibility for education.
The New England settlers
brought with them the idea of a public
school system, with taxa-
tion and public control, but
unfortunately for Ohio's subsequent
educational history the New England
migration came at a period
when the public school sentiment in
Massachusetts and the East
was at a comparatively low ebb, and when
the decentralizing
tendency that gave Massachusetts the
district school legislation
of 1789 was at its time of greatest
influence. From this time
for nearly forty years, the process of
decentralization went on.
Martin says the year 1827 is "the
high-water mark of modern
democracy and the low-water mark of the
Massachusetts school
system."13 The
New England influence in Ohio began with the
Marietta colony in 1787. By 1830
the population of the state
had reached nearly a million, and it was
during just these
years that the school sentiment in
Massachusetts was lowest.
It was at this time, too, that the
Academy was supplanting
the Latin Grammar School of the colonial
period as the typical
secondary school.
The New England settlers favored the
public school idea,
but it was the highly decentralized
district system with which
12Ohio Documents, 1838, Doc. 32, page
30.
13 Martin-Evolution of the Massachusetts
School System, page 92.
12 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.
they were familiar. The Academy idea was
the common posses-
sion of settlers from all the states.
The common school as a district school,
the secondary school
as an academy, were two fundamental
conceptions in the minds
of all those who were active in securing
Ohio's early school
legislation. While many influences were
thus instrumental in
shaping Ohio's early educational
history, her debt to New Eng-
land for the men and ideas most
significant in determining her
early public school system is so large
that a brief sketch of a few
of these men, and of the forces that
worked through them, is a
necessary prerequisite to an intelligent
study of the development
of that system.
The most important of these forces were,
first: the School
Lands.14 Second: the
conception of a State System of Schools,
and third: the idea of State Wide
Taxation for the benefit of
such a system.
The use of public lands for the aid and
support of schools
had its origin in New England. The men
most instrumental in
urging Ohio's first law, giving a legal
basis to the conception of
a State System of Schools, were born in
New England. The
men most active in legalizing the idea
of state wide taxation to
support this system, were also New
England born, and the man
who did most to make these ideas,
incorporated into law, actually
operative in the establishment of
schools and to give a real
organization to the system legally
created, was a man of New
England birth.
When Ohio was admitted as a state,
section 16 in each
township, or an equivalent amount of
land in those districts not
belonging to the United States, was
permanently set aside for
the use of schools.
This grant gave for the use of schools
an amount of land
equal to one square mile or 640 acres
for each surveyed town-
ship of 36 square miles.
The practice of using public lands for
the support of schools
had been from early colonial times a
common New England
device and by 1647 certain towns had
"assumed responsibility
14 discussion of the School Lands,
with maps, methods of survey,
etc., is given in Chap. III.
Educational Legislation in Ohio From
1803 to 1850. 13
for the support of schools out of public
property, partly through
gifts of land to school masters, partly
by setting aside grants
of land as a permanent endowment."15
This New England practice first found
state wide expres-
sion when Ohio was admitted to the Union
and from that time
on became an established policy in the
admission of all later
states. The Ordinance of 1785 "for
ascertaining the mode of
disposing of lands in the Western
territory"16 reserved section
16 in each township "for the
maintenance of public schools
within the said township." This
provision, according to Donald-
son17 was the inception of
the rule of the reservation of certain
sections of land for school purposes.
The first action in accord
with this provision occurred within the
next two years when
Manasseh Cutler, as agent for the Ohio
Company, completed
the bargain for the lands acquired by
the company at the mouth
of the Muskingum.l8 Not only
did Mr. Cutler obtain a re-
affirmation of the provision for the
grant of section 16 for school
purposes, but a grant of section 29 in
each township for the
support of religion, and also an added
grant of two townships
for the support of a University. It was
this bargain of the
Ohio Company, engineered by Manasseh
Cutler, that put into
actual operation the provisions of the
Ordinance of 1785 con-
cerning school lands. This was followed
immediately by the
Symmes purchase, between the Miami
Rivers, and sections 16
and 29 were similarly reserved.
With the admission of Ohio as a state
the same provision
for schools, section 16 or its
equivalent for each township, was
extended to the remainder of the state
except the portion still
held by the Indian tribes. Ultimately
the reservation was ex-
tended to all territory within the
state.
In this state wide grant was found an
interest that directed
the attention of settlers in all parts
of the state, and from all
parts of the United States, to the
purpose for which the grants
15Jernegan- Beginnings of Education in
New England. School
Review. Vol. 23, page 379.
16Laws of U. S., 1789-1815. Vol. I,
Chap. 32.
17T. Donaldson--The Public Domain. Chap.
13.
18Hinsdale-The Old Northwest, page 268.
14 Ohio Arch. and
Hist. Society Publications.
were made, the schools. The first
legislation concerning schools
is found in efforts made to work out a
method of handling the
school lands, and they remain during
Ohio's early statehood one
of the persistent incentives to
educational legislation and a con-
stant suggestion of a state school
system.
The first general school act for Ohio
was passed January 22,
1821.19 It is a significant fact that the four men most
instru-
mental in putting on the statute books
of Ohio, laws providing
for a tax supported system of common
schools were all of them
born in Massachusetts. These men were Ephraim Cutler,
Caleb Atwater, Nathan Guilford, and
Samuel Lewis.
Ephraim Cutler, of Ames, Washington
county, near Mari-
etta, was the son of Manasseh Cutler,
the inspired lobbyist of
the Ohio Company. He was born in
Edgartown, Mass., but
spent his boyhood in Killingly, Conn.,
with his grandparents, and
came to Ohio in his early manhood. He
was one of the drafters
of the state constitution and it was due
to his efforts that there
were incorporated the clauses providing
that "religion, morality
and knowledge, as essentially necessary
to good government"
were to be supported by the General
Assembly and "that schools
and the means of instruction shall
forever be encouraged by
legislative provision."20
Judge Cutler in December, 1819,
introduced a bill in the
House of Representatives, providing for
a system of common
schools. The bill as introduced was
passed by the House but
allowed to die without action in the
Senate. It was this bill
however, that led to the law of 1821, a substitute
measure that
did little more than outline a method of
school organization and
in so doing recognized the State's
responsibility of legislating
for schools.
Caleb Atwater was born in North Adams,
Mass.21 He was
appointed one of a committee of seven,
in December, 1821, to
consider the subject of schools and
school lands, and report to
the House of Representatives. As a
result of the deliberations
of this committee a commission of five
was appointed in January.
19O. L., XIX, 21.
20Biography of Ephraim Cutler, pages 8,
114.
21History of Franklin and Pickaway
Counties, Ohio, page 98.
Educational Legislation in Ohio From
1803 to 1850. 15
1822, to report
to the next General Assembly on a system of
common schools.
This commission collected much valuable
material which
was presented to the Assembly in 1823, but the
friends of educa-
tion were in a minority, and no
legislative action was taken dur-
ing that session. One of the members of
this commission was
Nathan Guilford, a book dealer and
publisher of Cincinnati, the
editor of the Freeman's Almanac, a
western counterpart of Poor
Richard, popularly known as Solomon
Thrifty's Almanac.
Mr. Guilford was born in Spencer, Mass.,22
and was edu-
cated at Yale. He was a constant
advocate of popular educa-
tion and of taxation for schools in
Ohio.
Samuel Lewis, Ohio's first and greatest
State Superintendent
of Schools, was born in Falmouth, Mass.,23
but came to Ohio
as a boy. He was the author and prime
mover for the school
law of 1838, which gave to Ohio its
first completely organized
school system.
The act of 1821 had done little more
than legalize means
by which the settlers in the townships
could move to lay off dis-
tricts and establish schools. It made no
provision for taxation
and organized no definite system. It
was, however, important
as the first state recognition of a
system of common schools. It
was evident to friends of public
education that the law of 1821
was inadequate and ineffective and there
began at once a cam-
paign for a more effective law.
Nathan Guilford used the sayings of
Solomon Thrifty to
arouse the people of the state to the
need of a free common
school education. In 1824
he says :24 "The
Legislatures of
Ohio and Kentucky have taken the subject
of free schools into
consideration. It is hoped that their
zealous endeavors to es-
tablish a system of common education
will be crowned with
success. Millions unborn would rise and
bless them."
Caleb Atwater and his committee after
careful study and
much correspondence had recommended a
commission of seven
22 History of Ohio. Randall and Ryan.
Vol. III., page 374.
23Biography of Samuel Lewis. Wm. G. W.
Lewis, page 13.
24Freeman's Almanac. Maxims and Advice
of Solomon Thrifty.
1824.
16 Ohio Arch. and
Hist. Society Publications.
to report on the subject of the school
lands and a school system.
This commission25 consisted
of Caleb Atwater, Rev. John Collins,
Rev. James Hoge, Nathan Guilford,
Ephraim Cutler, Josiah
Barber and James Bell. The number
corresponded with the
total number of different grants of
school lands and each man
was to study and report upon the
condition of the lands in the
territory assigned him. Caleb Atwater
was assigned the Con-
gress Lands; John Collins the Virginia
Military Lands; James
Hoge the Refugee Lands; James Bell the
U. S. Military Lands;
Ephraim Cutler the Ohio Company Lands;
Nathan Guilford the
Symmes Purchase Lands and Josiah Barber
the Connecticut
Western Reserve Lands.
It was evidently the original opinion of
many of the settlers
in Ohio, and perhaps the design of
Congress, that these land
grants, if properly managed would
support public schools with-
out a tax upon the citizens. There was a
growing belief, how-
ever, that this one source of income
would continue to prove
inadequate. Nathan Guilford, who
strongly advocated taxation,
did not serve upon the commission,
evidently believing he could
aid the cause of education better as a
free lance. He addressed
a public letter to the chairman of the
board arguing for a school
tax upon property and insisting that an
adequate school fund
could not be raised from the school
lands alone.
The commission had been directed to
report upon three
topics: The actual condition of the
school lands; a bill proposing
a system of school law; a report on the
necessity and value of
the system proposed. Pamphlets were
issued on these topics
and widely circulated, and served to
awaken an interest through-
out the state in public education.
The system proposed was modeled on the
New York State
system.26 It
provided for an economical management of the
school lands, but made no provision for
taxation. The legisla-
ture of 1823 was however opposed to any
liberal action for
public education. Atwater says :27 "In this legislature were
many influential men who were opposed to
a school system, to
25Atwater. History of Ohio, page 259.
26 Biography of Samuel Lewis, page 101.
27Atwater. History of Ohio, page 261.
Educational
Legislation in Ohio From 1803 to 1850. 17
a sale of school lands
and to internal improvements." * * *
"This session had
a majority of both houses opposed to a school
system and the sale of
school lands, and all that was done by
them was to quarrel
about these subjects. They finally broke
up in a row and went
home."
In the campaign for
the state election of 1824 the subjects
of internal
improvements, the public school system and the
taxation system of the
state were the main issues before the
people. A majority
favorable to the public schools and internal
improvements was
chosen, among them Nathan Guilford,
elected to represent
Cincinnati. When the legislature assembled
Governor Morrow
presented the necessity for adequate legis-
lation on all these
questions. His message recognizes the dif-
ficulty of bringing
people of divergent educational views, with
no common educational
inheritance, to united action for public
schools. In discussing
the subject he says :28 "In this state there
are causes, extensive
in their nature, for difference of opinion
on the subject. The population is composed principally of
emigrants from the
different States of the Union, with habits
and modes of thinking
on the subject, as different as are the
regulations of the
States from whence they came." * * *
"The act of the
22nd of January, 1821," he declares, is in-
effective because the
establishment of schools and school dis-
tricts was made
optional for the voters in each township. "Was
this act made
positive, and in some respects modified, we should
have a system in force
- perhaps not perfect - for the regula-
tion of common
schools, which could be further improved, as
experience under it
should point out its defects. A joint com-
mittee29 was
at once appointed in the General Assembly, to study
the subject and report
an adequate bill. Mr. Guilford was made
chairman of this
committee and drafted the report and bill,
which finally passed
both houses without amendment and be-
came the law of 1825.
There was a widespread feeling in the
state against imposing
a tax for general school purposes, but
Mr. Guilford and Mr.
Cutler stood firm for this measure, and
with the assistance of
the supporters of the public school idea,
28Ohio School System.
Taylor, pages 132, 3.
29Ibid., page 141.
Vol. XXVII-2.
18 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.
insured its passage by forming an active
coalition with those
legislators who were working in the
interests of internal im-
provements, especially the advocates of
state canals. In this
work Mr. Guilford showed himself a
skilled lobbyist and
shrewd judge of men in his personal
campaign among the mem-
bers of both houses.30
While the vote was proceeding in the
house Mr. Cutler stood
beside Mr. Guilford as they anxiously
awaited the outcome,
and when the result was announced, and
it was assured that
taxation for education had prevailed he
turned to his companion
and exclaimed: "Lord, now lettest
thou thy servant depart in
peace, according to thy word, for mine
eyes have seen thy salva-
tion." The great initial victory
for public education had been
won, and had been won primarily by New
England ideas backed
up by New England men.
It remained to give these ideas and this
system effective
organization. This was not accomplished
until thirteen years
later, in 1838, under the leadership of
Samuel Lewis, when a
wholly new school code was adopted.
Following the act of
1825 there were numerous modifications
and amendments of
the law but no essential change in the
system of administration
was made until 1838.
The law of 1825 had made no provision
for centralized con-
trol, and had created no adequate
machinery for uniting the
various schools and districts
established into a true state system.
There was neither state, county, nor
township supervision,
and but little actual knowledge, and no
control, of what various
communities were doing educationally.
While the law had
established the fundamental principle of
taxation for schools,
the actual system remained a headless,
disjointed, decentralized
and ineffective one.
The first suggestions for reform came
from the friends
of education in Cincinnati. A group of
teachers and other
earnest advocates of popular education
had organized a voluntary
association known as the College of
Teachers or Western Ac-
ademic Institute.31 This body met
annually for the discussion
30 Biography of Samuel Lewis, page 103.
31O. L., XXX, 232.
Educational Legislation in Ohio From
1803 to 1850. 19
and study of educational topics and
attracted to its meetings, not
only Ohio teachers, but educational
leaders from the other
western states as well. Partly as a
result of a demand for a
better organization, created through the
discussions of this asso-
ciation,32 a bill was
introduced in 1837 to create the office of
State Superintendent of Common Schools.
It met with de-
termined opposition, but finally passed
the House by a vote
of 35 to 34, and became a law in March,
of the same year,
with a decisive vote in its favor in the
Senate.
Samuel Lewis, of Cincinnati, was the
first and only in-
cumbent of the office, which he held for
three years. The law
of 1838 was a direct result of the work
of his first year and
his study of the needs and conditions of
schools as he saw them
while touring the state visiting the
schools and addressing meet-
ings, in an attempt to arouse people to
an active interest in the
need of better school conditions. In
this work he visited more
than 300 schools, traveling on
horse-back over 1,200 miles
over the rough country roads, visiting
schools by day, address-
ing public meetings by night, and
everywhere preaching the
gospel of a better school system and a
free education for every
Ohio boy and girl. He always found it
hard, and often dis-
couraging work. He writes from Cleveland
in November, 1837:
"I arrived here today almost worn
down; have rode on an
average twenty-six miles a day this
week. I generally spend
three or four hours a day in
conversation, answering questions,
giving explanations, and making
suggestions. It is harder than
it would be to deliver an address every
day an hour and a half
long. * * * I fear you overvalue my
efforts. * * * I
shall, however, do my best. I leave here
on Monday, if health
permit, and shall get along as fast as I
can to Columbus, visiting
on my route, as I suppose, about sixteen
counties. * * * The
task before me is so great, that with
all my time and close at-
tention, I shall hardly be able to get
through." In a later letter
he writes: "On Saturday last, I
delivered an address at Canton,
and after riding twenty-six miles on
Monday, spoke in the eve-
ning to a large audience, and I believe
I did good. * * * I
work hard day and night, and I find it a
kind of up-hill business.
32Biography of Samuel Lewis, pages 119,
120.
20 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.
If men would only do something, even in
opposition, it would
be better than it is. Almost every man
agrees with me; thou-
sands listen and applaud; and even
candid men of sense declare
they have never heard this subject
treated with so much interest,
and then leave it to go alone, or get on
unaided by their efforts.
Still I am not discouraged, but am
determined to work on till
my report is in, hoping at least for the
final triumph of sound
principles and practice." 33
His report for the year 1837, based on
his own observation
and such statistics as he could gather
from the county auditors,
gave the first assembled information
about the common schools
of the state. The report found the legislature
in a receptive
mood, and the law of 1838 was passed
with but little opposition.
The essential feature of the new law, in
comparison with those
that had preceded, consisted in the fact
that it gave organization
and headship to the system.
The new code retained the State
Superintendent at the head
of the schools;-the act of 1837 had
created the office-,but
had done nothing to change the rest of
the law, or the machinery
of administration. In each county the new law made the
county auditor also the county
superintendent of schools, and
as such, responsible to the State
Superintendent in all educational
affairs. Similarly in each township the
township clerk was made
the township superintendent of schools,
subordinate to the county
superintendent.
An organization had been established by
means of which
an authorized state officer could reach
out into the most remote
district of the state, either to give
help or information, or to
see that the law was obeyed. If equipped
with the proper men,
Ohio, through this law, had the
mechanism for effective educa-
tional administration.
The real strength of the system rested
in the office of State
Superintendent. Mr. Lewis filled the
office for three years, and
in those three years did the same kind
of work for Ohio that
Horace Mann was doing for Massachusetts.
Unfortunately for
Ohio and her subsequent educational
history, Mr. Lewis, because
of failing health, gave up the office
after three years of tireless
33Biography of Samuel Lewis, page 123.
Educational Legislation in Ohio From 1803 to 1850.
21
service, and the legislature, because
some opposition had de-
veloped, transferred the work to the
office of the Secretary of
State.
This office was given four hundred dollars additional
for clerk hire, and the work became the
collection of statistics
and making of reports, not the
administration of a state wide
school system.
We have seen that the old New England
idea of using
lands for schools first found
application in Ohio, and that New
England men were chiefly instrumental in
giving to the State
the first law of 1821, the principle of taxation in 1825, and the
organized system of 1838. We may now
turn to a more de-
tailed study of the laws themselves.
Before doing this however, a few words must be said
about the schools from 1803 to 1821, the
date of the first school
law. The general type of common schools
during this period
was the pay or subscription school.34
The following agreements
and advertisements give a picture of the
practice, such that any
added explanation is unnecessary.
An advertisement in the Western Spy,
October 22, 1799,
reads as follows:
"ENGLISH SCHOOL.-The subscriber
informs the inhabitants of this
town that his school is this day
removed, and is now next door to Mr.
Thomas Williams, skin-dresser, Main
Street. Gentlemen who have not
subscribed may send their scholars on
the same terms as subscribers,
(commencing this day). He also intends
to commence an evening school
in the same house on the third day of November next, where writing and
arithmetic, etc., will be taught four
evenings in each week, from 6 to 9
o'clock, during the term of three
months. The terms for each scholar
will be two dollars, the scholars to
find firewood and candles. He also
furnishes deeds and indentures, etc., on
reasonable terms."
JAMES WHITE.35
This is given by Venable, together with
the following, ap-
pearing in a Cincinnati paper in 1804.
34 The Historical Sketches of Ohio, a
Centennial publication gives
an account of the development of the
school system in 47 cities and vil-
lages of the state. In 41 cases the
writers mention some form of private
school as preceding or paralleling the
Public School.
35 Venable. Beginnings of Literary Culture in the Ohio Valley
Pages 185, 6.
22 Ohio Arch. and
Hist. Society Publications.
"NOTICE. -- The public in general
and my former subscribers in par-
ticular, are respectfully informed that
I expect to commence school again
on the 1st day of January, 1805. I shall
teach reading, writing, arith-
metic and English grammar,
indiscriminately, for two dollars per quarter.
The strictest care will be given to the
school, as my circumstances will
then admit of my constant presence with
the school. Those who place
confidence in my abilities and fidelity
may be assured that both will be
employed to please the parents who shall
commit, and benefit the children
who shall be committed to my care."
EZRA SPENCER.35
The two agreements between teacher and
parents which
follow illustrate the common practice in
the employment of a
teacher and establishment of a school.
"This article between the
underscribed subscribers, of the one part,
and Jabez P. Manning, of the other,
Witnesseth: That said Manning
doth on his part engage to teach a
school at the school-house near the
center of Youngstown for the term of one
quarter, wherein he engages
to teach reading, writing, arithmetic
and English grammar; and further-
more, that the school shall be opened at
9 o'clock A. M. and close at 4
P. M., of each day of the week (Saturday
and Sunday excepted), and
on Saturday to be opened at 9 o'clock
and close at 12 o'clock A. M., and
we, the subscribers, on our part
individually engage to pay unto the said
Manning $1.75 for each and every scholar
that we subscribe at the end
of the term; and we, furthermore, engage
to furnish the necessary ex-
pense of furniture, wood, and all other
things necessary for the use of
the school. Furthermore, we do engage
that unless by the 6th of April
of the present year the number of
scholars subscribed amount to 35, that
the said Manning is in no way obligated
by this article. Furthermore,
we allow the said Manning the privilege
of receiving five scholars more
than are here specified."36
"(Signed)" J. P. MANNING.
"Youngstown, March 31, 1818."
"We the subscribers, do hereby
mutually agree to hire Miss Sally
Rice to teach a school in the school-house
near Mr. William Smith's, for
the term of three months, to commence on
the 9th day of June, instant.
She is to commence the school at the
hour of 9 o'clock in the forenoon,
and keep until 12; and at the hour of 1,
and continue until 4 o'clock in
the afternoon. She is to teach reading,
and to instruct the young Misses
35 V enable. Beginnings of Literary
Culture in the Ohio Valley.
Pages 185, 6.
36Historical Sketches of Ohio. Youngstown.
Educational Legislation in Ohio From
1803 to 1850.
23
in the art of sewing; and to keep all
necessary regulations as is usual in
schools; for which we agree to give her
the sum of one dollar and
twenty-five cents per week during the
said term, which sum shall be
assessed in proportion to the number of
scholars we have set to our
names. Provided, also, that in case more
are sent by any individual than
he has subscribed for, or any persons
send who do not subscribe, they
shall be assessed in proportion to the
number they send; the money to be
assessed and collected by a committee to
be appointed for that purpose.
And for the performance of the foregoing
we hold ourselves bound."
"Dated this 8th day of June, A. D.,
1814."37
This last agreement was for a school
taught in Warren,
Washington county, and was signed by 19
subscribers, guaran-
teeing 281/2 pupils. Ephraim Cutler
leading with four, while
five subscribers sign for only one-half
a pupil each.
37Biography of Ephraim Cutler. Page 172.
CHAPTER II
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM
The Public School System, 1803 to 1850.
The general educational legislation of
this period is con-
cerned only with the district school.
There was no general
legislative enactment to establish
secondary or higher institutions
of learning as a part of the state
system of education, and it
was not until 1847 that there was any
legislation to make pro-
vision for town and city schools and a
graded system, other than
that found in special town and city
charters.
The chief legislative enactments that
divide this period and
mark especially important phases in the
growth of the system
of public schools are as follows:
18211-- The first school law.
Recognition of State need and
responsibility.
18252-The
second school law. The first tax for schools.
I8383-A state system organized. A
definite school fund
guaranteed and the schools,* in theory,
made free.
1847-484 - The Akron Act passed. A
system for town and
city schools established.
These dates mark off periods that may be
roughly charac-
terized as follows:
1803 to 1821- Subscription or pay
schools.
1821 to 1825 - State recognition of the public school idea.
1825 to 1838- Property taxation to aid
schools.
1838 to 1850-Operation under a loose
state organization.
1847 to 1850-The development of town and
city school
systems.
1O. L., XIX, 51.
2O. L., XXIII, 36.
3O. L., XXXVI, 31.
* School rates were not definitely
abolished from the Public Schools
until after 1850. Taylor. The Ohio
School System. Introduction,page4.
4O. L., XLV, local, 187.
(24)
Educational Legislation in Ohio From
1803 to 1850. 25
Numerous school laws were passed from
1825 to 1838, but
the changes were minor in character, and
developed no new
principles.
A clearer view of the growth of the
Public School System
can be gained if the more important
phases of that development
are treated separately, showing the
various stages that each of
these phases passed through during the
entire period.
For the purposes of this discussion the
following topics
have been selected, and are discussed in
the order given below.
The Organization of the School System.
Methods of Common School Support.
Control and Supervision of Schools.
Certification of Teachers.
School Studies.
Length of School Year.
School Officers.
Schools for Colored Children.
City and Village School Systems.
THE ORGANIZATION OF THE SCHOOL SYSTEM, 1803-1850
It may be said that the school system of
the state had its
beginning in the grant of one section in
each township for the
use of schools that Ohio received from
the United States when
she became a state.5 This
grant, wasted as it afterwards was,
served as one center of common
educational interest, and brought
the topic of common schools constantly
before legislators and
people.
The unit of organization during the
entire period was the
district. The earliest legislation
bearing in any way upon the
organization of schools is found in an
act of January 2, 1806,6
establishing the method of incorporating
townships.
This act provides: "That so soon as there are twenty
qualified electors in any original
surveyed township of six miles
square, or fractional township within
the state wherein there
5A description of this grant and the use
made of it will be found
in the discussion of the school lands in
Chapter III.
60. L., IV, 56.
26 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.
is the reserved section number 16,
granted by the Congress of
the United States for the special use of
schools; they are hereby
authorized under the provision hereafter
provided, to elect
three trustees and one treasurer for the
purpose of taking into
their care the section above mentioned,
who shall be a body
politic, capable of suing and being
sued, pleading and being
impleaded."
This early legislation precedes any
specific school act, and
is found in the laws concerning the
organization of the township.
It is the undoubted result of the grant
of school lands and is
an indication of the importance of this
grant in keeping before
the people the ideal of state-wide
education.
All parts of the state had land set
aside for school use.
This was the one common fact in all
attempts to meet local
educational needs. On this subject there
had to be legislation
general in nature. It was the one
subject of common educational
interest. This earlier legislation was
concerned primarily in de-
termining how the scant funds from this
source might be legally
used, either to support for short
periods schools that depended
solely on this source of income, or to
supplement and assist pri-
vate and subscription schools of various
kinds.
The trustees chosen in compliance with
this legislation of
1806, were given authority to divide the
township into districts
for the purpose of establishing schools,
but were not directed
to do so. They were, however, directed
to divide the profits7
arising from the school lands, among the districts that were
established, in proportion to the
inhabitants. In passing this act,
the legislature was evidently primarily
interested in the man-
agement of Section 16, not in the
establishment of schools.
Those townships that wished to do it
were given the right to
organize districts and use the funds
obtained from the school
lands to support their schools. It is
evident from subsequent
legislation,8 and from the
reports of Superintendent Lewis,9 that
7Legal
provision had been made as early as 1803, the year Ohio
was admitted, for renting the school
lands. See Chapter III for a dis-
cussion of the legislation concerning
the treatment of these lands.
8 0. L., XXXIV, 19.
9Ohio Documents, 36th G. A., Doc. 17,
pages 9, 10.
Educational Legislation in Ohio From
1803 to 1850. 27
these funds were also used to pay or
lessen the expense of
subscription schools already under way
in the community. In
all laws touching on this subject,
following the act of 1806, the
township trustees are the officers
charged with the duty of
dividing the township into school,
districts, but the final decision
as to whether such divisions are to be
made does not legally rest
with them, although in practice it is
evident that it often did so.
In 1814,10 in an act
supplementary to the above, it was made
obligatory upon the trustees to lay the
township off in districts
upon the application of six householders
of the township, but
no penalties were imposed for a failure
to do so. This same
act directed that those establishing a
school in a district should
choose three (school) trustees, whose
sole duties seemed to be
to get from the teacher a certified list
of the pupils who had
attended the schools, and the length of
time they had been
taught, and present it to the township
trustees as a basis for
the distribution of the revenue from the
school section.
On January 22, 1821,11 Ohio's first
general school act was
passed. By its provisions the method of
organizing districts
legalized in 1814 is evidently repealed
though it is not so speci-
fied. The specific provisions of the act
that concern organiza-
tion are that the voters in each
township should have the right
to vote upon the question of districting
the township. In case
the vote was in favor of such
districting, the trustees were di-
rected to lay off the school districts
in such a way as to have
not less than twelve, nor more than
forty householders in
one district. They were also directed in
their districting to
have regard to any school companies
incorporated, so as to in-
clude the members within one district.
The householders in each district were
to elect annually a
school committee of three, and a
collector. The duty of the
latter was evidently to collect rates
for the support of the school
from those who sent children to it, the
tax for building a school
house in case such a tax was levied, and
any amount levied as
necessary for paying the rates for the
indigent children of the
district. This law also required the
directors to appoint a dis-
10 O. L., XIV, 295.
11. L., XIX, 21.
28 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.
trict clerk, whose duties were to keep a
record of the meetings,
make out the tax bills when a tax was
levied, and keep such
accounts as the school committee might
direct.
The legislation up to this point has
been chiefly concerned
in providing an organization for two
purposes: a fair and legal
method for distributing the revenues
that arose from the school
lands, and a method by which local
communities could legally
lay out their districts and set up
schools. There was nothing
in this earliest legislation that in any
way approached a state
system, or compelled any state-wide
action concerning education.
It was the evident intention of the next
general law, passed
in 1825,12 to establish a system that
should be state wide in its
operation. Its great advance over
preceding laws was, however,
in its use of the principle of
state-wide taxation, rather than any
significant change in the organization
of schools. The establish-
ment of districts and schools remained a
local and decentralized
activity and no true state system was
formed.
It was made the duty of the township
trustees to lay off
each incorporated township in the state
into one or more school
districts. Certain negative penalties
were imposed in this law
upon townships that were not divided
into districts and upon
districts that did not employ teachers,
but any real compelling
force that such a provision might have
had, was destroyed by
the excessive liberality of the time
limitation allowed to meet
the minimum requirements of the law.
No township was entitled to receive any
portion of the
monies collected for school purposes,
either from the school
lands or from taxation, unless it was
laid off into districts. (It
might be laid off in one district six
miles square and meet the
legal requirement.) Furthermore, if it were not laid off into
districts within five years, the money
due it arising from the
school tax was apportioned to the other
townships of the county
which had been so laid off. Similarly,
any district which for a
period of three years failed to hire a
teacher and keep a school
was penalized by having the money due it
apportioned to the
districts that obeyed the law.
120. L., XXIII, 26.
Educational Legislation in Ohio From 1803 to 1850. 29
This did not refer to the money from
Section 16. By the
terms of the original grant, this was
set aside for the use of
the schools of the township, and the
funds from it could not
be alienated to the use of another
township.
The law of 1825 provided for a
school tax, and the penalty
for not districting the township
consisted13 in losing after a five-
year period the township share in this
tax. No provision was
made other than this for the enforcement
of the law. There
were no penalties for the township
trustees, and no officers,
whose duty it was to see that the law
was carried into effect.
It was the evident idea of the
legislators that the incentive
afforded by a share in the school tax
would be sufficient to
bring about the erection of school
districts in all the townships
of the state. That this was not the
universal result is shown
by the fact that throughout the period,
even as late as 1849,14
there reappears in general laws and in
amendatory and supple-
mentary acts constant directions to the
township trustees to lay
off the township into school districts.
The later directions prob-
ably usually refer to the organization
of new counties and town-
ships in the more unsettled portions of
the state. In general,
the townships seem to have followed the
mandates of the law
and availed themselves of the
opportunity to share in the money
raised by the tax.
Mr. Lewis in his first report as State
Superintendent, in
1837,15 showed that there
were 7,748 organized school districts in
the state. There were 1,129 townships in 71 of the 75 counties of
the state, which would give an average
of nearly seven school
districts to the township, an indication
that the law was quite
generally obeyed. There was however no
uniformity in the
amount of territory included in the
districts (an entire town-
ship might be organized as one
district), and as Mr. Lewis
pointed out the number in each township
did vary from one or
two to eighteen. The district lines were
"frequently made on
personal considerations, or to defeat
some contemplated improve-
130.
L., XXIII, 36.
140. L., XLVII, 52.
15Documents of the State of Ohio. 36th
Gen. Assembly, Doc. No.
17, page 45.
30 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications.
ment. It is not uncommon to find
districts so bounded as to
exclude whole tracts of land from the
operation of the law."16
The report further indicates that there
were individual town-
ships even in the older counties that
had not organized school
districts at the date of the report,
1837, "and many more in the
new counties that have just commenced
operations."
The organization within the district was
effected by the
district meeting chosing three
directors, who were to have direct
control and management of the schools.
It should be kept clearly in mind in
this, and subsequent
legislation, that the directors are
officers of the district, the
trustees are officers of the township.
The only compulsory feature in the
district organization
was a fine of two dollars, which was
provided for by an amend-
ment in 1830,17 imposed upon
any person who was elected school
director or treasurer and refused to
serve. This provision was
repeated in the general laws of 183218
and 1834.19
These amendments were evidently caused
by frequent refusal
to serve by those elected to the school
offices in the local dis-
tricts. That the work was a real burden
and rested upon a
small army of local school officers may
be seen in another quo-
tation from the State Superintendent's
first report.
"There is no feature in the present
law more burdensome
than that of requiring so many officers
to spend several days
in every year in doing what would be
better done by one-fifth
the number. * * * The amount of time now required, if
the officers do their duty, will, if
computed at the average price
of day labor, amount to a heavier tax
than is assessed in money
for the support of schools. * * * There
are now 38,740
officers, enough certainly to break down
any system however
otherwise good."20
To summarize: On the side of local
organization, the law
of 1825 directed the township trustees
throughout the state to
16Ibid. Page 20.
17 0. L., XXVIII, 57.
18 0. L., XXX, 414.
19 O.
L., XXXII, 25.
20 Ohio Documents, 36th. G. A., Doc. 17, page 19.
Educational Legislation in Ohio From
1803 to 1850. 31
lay off the townships into school
districts, in which the electors
might organize by choosing directors.
The only compulsion
for either township or district coming
from a loss in the share
of the school tax.
County contact with the township and
district was first
established in the law of 1825,21 by
which the county officials
were made responsible for the collection
and distribution of the
school tax,22 and through the
appointment of a Board of Ex-
aminers by the Court of Common Pleas.
This county relation-
ship was concerned only with the
distribution of school funds
and the examination23 of
teachers, and had no direct element
in it of control or supervision. The
certification of teachers
by a county authority, rather than a
local authority, did, of
course, introduce one element of
control.
The next step in the direction of county
organization was
taken in the law of 1836,24 which
provided that the county
auditor should open an account directly
with each school dis-
trict in the county, and made the
further provision that each
district school clerk should report
annually to the county auditor.
The county auditor became the
intermediary officer in gather-
ing information for the use of the state
as to the general school
conditions. It is evident that the
legislature felt the need of
information regarding school conditions
throughout the state
as a basis for legislative action. The
directions are specific as
to the information wanted, and included
the following items:
The enumeration of white children from
four to twenty-
one years old in the district;
The time the school had been kept in the
district
The time the school had been supported
by the school fund;
The time the school had been supported
by taxation;
The time the school had been supported
by voluntary sub-
scription;
The amount of money from each source;
The number of children that had been
taught;
21 O.
L., XXIII, 26.
22 See page 44 for full explanation of
this tax.
23 See page 54.
240. L., XXXIV, 19.
32 Ohio Arch. and
Hist. Society Publications.
The whole amount spent for teachers'
wages;
The amount paid for school-houses and
repairs, giving as
separate items the sum raised by
taxation for this pur-
pose and that raised by voluntary
subscription.
25Each county auditor was directed to make an abstract of
the information so gathered for his
county, and to report the
same annually to the General Assembly.
It will be seen that the law up to this
point connected the
state, county and district into a loose
organization through a
system of reports, and through certain
financial contacts in
the collection and distribution of the
school tax.
The system lacked a supervising head,
with definite
responsibility for following up the
directions given by the law,
and seeing that the information asked
for was actually gath-
ered and used. The legislature evidently
realized this, and the
following year,28 1837,
passed a law creating the office of
Superintendent of Common Schools, with
an annual salary of
five hundred dollars.
The chief duties of the office so
created were to collect and
tabulate statistics, to investigate the
conditions of the various
school funds resulting from the sale of
lands, and, in general,
to study the school needs of the state
and suggest plans for
better regulation and control of
educational affairs to the Gen-
eral Assembly. Samuel Lewis of
Cincinnati was appointed to
the office April 1, 1837.29 Following his
recommendations, the
25It was largely from these abstracts
that Mr. Lewis made up the
statistical tables in his first report.
He recognized the incompleteness
and inaccuracy in them, but despite that
gathered much valuable informa-
tion. In commenting upon the laxness
shown in the reports he says:
"If all the districts had reported
accurately, the result would be bad
enough; but they have not. * * * There
are in the State 75 counties
of which 62 have reported in whole or in
part; some are extremely de-
fective, not only on account of the work
of the school officers, but also
the extreme carelessness of some of the
auditors. Most of the auditors,
however have done the best they could
with the materials furnished."27
27Documents. Ohio. 36th. G. A., Doc. 17,
page 47.
28 0. L., XXXV, 82.
29 O. L., XXXV, local, 560.
Educational Legislation in Ohio From 1803 to 1850. 33
legislature enacted in 183830 an act for
the support and better
regulation of Common Schools, and to
create permanently the
office of Superintendent of Common
Schools. Mr. Lewis had
recommended legislation the preceding
year, which had included
"School libraries; a state school
fund of two hundred thousand
dollars; township high schools; township
Boards of Education;
evening schools in towns and cities;
county superintendents; a
school journal to be distributed to
school officers gratuitously;
encouragement for the formation of
Teachers' Institutes;
authority for districts to borrow money
to erect school-houses;
the employment of women as teachers; and
full reports from
teachers and school officers."31
The resulting legislation was the most
important and com-
plete act bearing upon public education
passed in Ohio from
1803 to 1850, and was the last school
code passed during the
period. Much of its effectiveness was
destroyed by subsequent
amendments that will be indicated, but
the act in itself attempted
to establish an organized system of
common schools for the
state, with state, county, township and
district officers. The
State Superintendent stood at the head
of the system. In each
county the county auditor was made
superintendent of common
schools for the county, and in each
township the township clerk
was made superintendent of common
schools for the township.
The district meeting elected three
directors as in the case of the
preceding laws. The district clerk was
directed to make an
annual report to the district meeting
and to file a copy of his
report with the township clerk. This
report was to contain
full financial and educational
statistics of the district for the
year. The duties of the township clerk,
acting as superintend-
ent, were as follows: to take an
enumeration of the youth of
school age in each district of the
township (for failure to do this
a fine of $15 was imposed upon him); to
fill vacancies that
occurred in any board of directors in
his township; to appoint
directors in case the district meeting
failed to elect them, or in
case the directors failed to serve, and
if those who were ap-
pointed refused to serve, to himself
perform the duties of the
3O. L., XXXVI, 21.
31 Ohio Documents. 36th. G. A., Doc. 17,
pages 11-34.
Vol. XXVII- 3.
34 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications.
directors for the district in question.
He was directed further
to report annually to the county
superintendent an abstract of
the reports made by the district clerks,
and it was made his
duty to visit each common school in the
township at least once
a year to examine the teacher's record,
the discipline and mode
of instruction, and to keep a journal of
his observations. He
was also directed by the law to estimate
each year the addi-
tional amount necessary to be raised in
the district to maintain
six months' school for all children.
The chief duties of the auditor as
county superintendent
of schools consisted in transmitting an
abstract of the reports
from each township to the State Superintendent,
and in dis-
tributing blanks, circulars and other
information from the State
Superintendent to the proper township
and district officers.
It will be seen that in its working the
system was nominal
rather than actual, so far as any
control of the local unit, the
district, was concerned. It was designed
chiefly to afford con-
venience for the collection of data
needed by the State Super-
intendent, and the dissemination of
information from the State
Superintendent's office. It did provide
for district officers, and
even the possible establishment of
schools, where the district
failed to act, by giving the township
clerk power to exercise
the authority of the directors, and it
also made some pretense
at supervision through the same
officers. Aside from this, it
was a loose and inefficient system,
depending for its value
upon the energy and ability of the State
Superintendent in
arousing educational sentiment
throughout the state, and upon
the thoroughness with which the township
clerk performed the
duties laid upon him. There was still no
actual compulsion in
the law.
The strong points of the system
consisted in the definite
relationship established through state,
county, township and dis-
trict officers, and the possibility of
dissemination and collection
of educational information through these
channels. Its real
effectiveness depended upon the wise
leadership of the State
Superintendent. The law pointed out the
way to a school sys-
tem, and the Superintendent, as an
authorized educational
agent, could do much to arouse
state-wide interest in the
Educational Legislation in Ohio From
1803 to
1850. 35
schools. In his Third Annual Report in
1839, Mr. Lewis
speaks of the law in the following
words:
"This law, though not perfect, was
the best that could be passed;
and with all its imperfections, I still
think it is better adapted to our
wants than any other school law that has
come under my notice. It gives
to the people the power to do their own
business, whether in townships
or districts, as the majority may think
best. The widest possible latitude
is given for popular action. The most
that the law does is to prescribe
certain general rules within which the
people can act under the sanction
of the law, and it gives to such popular
action the aid of law to effect
its purpose. An arbitrary law imposing
duties binding upon the people
without their assent could prescribe the
forms and details of the work
in a few words and with great
simplicity. Such would do for despotic
countries, but in a free country where
the actors are a people whose
action depends upon their own wills,
there must be a wide scope given,
allowing each district to accommodate
its own peculiar views, requiring
it only to keep within the general
outlines (and they must be only out-
lines) laid down by the law."32
The effectiveness of the organization
was destroyed by
action of the legislature March 23, 1840,33 when the
office of
State Superintendent was abolished, and
the work of tabulating
and transmitting school statistics and
other educational informa-
tion was transferred to the office of
the Secretary of State.
The one other point at which the law had
promise of
effectiveness was in the creation of the
township and county
superintendents. The weakness, of
course, was in attaching
these offices as mere appendages to the
duties of the county
auditor and the township clerk.
The supervisory duties of the township
clerk were made
dependent upon the decision of the
township trustees in 1839,34
and the amount of pay for the
supervision of any one school
limited to a maximum of one dollar for
any one year. This
made actual supervision practically
impossible. The results of
these two acts were to leave the system
without effective leader-
ship and largely to destroy any
possibility of controlling the
32Third Annual Report of the
Superintendent of Common Schools,
Ohio, page 4.
33O. L., XXXVIII, 131.
34O. L., XXXVII, 61.
36 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.
school work of the district through
supervision. There were
portions of the state where the
organization was felt to be
ineffective. Samuel Lewis had advocated
county supervision,
and the appointment of the county
auditor to this position was
felt by many not to meet educational
needs. Voluntary asso-
ciations of teachers35 discussed
the question of school organiza-
tion in their conventions. In 1846 Henry
D. Barnard of Con-
necticut came to Ohio and lectured in
numerous towns and
cities,36 urging the cause of free
public schools.
As one result of these discussions
numerous petitions were
circulated in the northern and central
portions of the state,
asking for a law that would give county
supervision. In 184737
the legislature passed a weak permissive
act applicable to
twenty-five counties located largely in
the Western Reserve and
in the central portion of the state near
Columbus. This act
shows clearly the general legislative
willingness to legalize edu-
cational procedure and the unwillingness
to adopt means to
enforce the measures given the sanction
of law.
The twenty-five counties in question
were allowed to have
county superintendents. The initiative
was left in the hands
of the county commissioners, who were
authorized to set aside
such sum as they deemed proper for the
payment of a county
superintendent. They were allowed to
levy a tax for the pur-
pose if they wished to do so. If a sum
were set aside for the
support of this office, the county
superintendent was elected by
the district clerks of the county. He
became chairman of the
county Board of Examiners, and was
directed to visit annually
each common school in the county as a
supervising officer.
The provisions of this act were made
applicable to all
counties in the state the next year,
1848.38 The act remained
virtually a dead letter in the original
twenty-five counties as well
as in the rest of the state. It simply
pointed out a way in
which a county might legally appoint a
county superintendent
35 See Chapter VI, page 129, for a brief
account of some of these
associations.
36Taylor, page 359.
37 O. L., XLV, 32.
38O. L., XLVI, 86.
Educational Legislation in Ohio From 1803 to 1850. 37
of schools if it really wished to do so,
and it left the initiative
in the hands of the county
commissioners, who were apt to be
guided in action by financial
considerations more than by edu-
cational needs.39
The legislature in 185040 passed another
act that created
again the office of State
Superintendent, but in a quite different
form. This law was not permissive in
form, but never actually
came into operation as the General
Assembly, which was the
appointing body, allowed it to lapse
through its failure to ap-
point the officers provided for in the
law. In brief, this law
provided for a state board of public
instruction to consist of
five members, appointed by the General
Assembly. The first
members were to be appointed for one,
two, three, four and five
years. After that one member was to be
appointed each year.
Each member, during the last year of his
term, was styled the
State Superintendent of Common Schools,
and carried on the
duties of that office. These duties were
largely limited to the
collection of statistics and reporting
the results to the General
Assembly. The state was to be divided
into four districts by
the board, and each of the other members
to serve as a district
superintendent. In this service they
co-operated with the
county examiners and their signatures
were necessary to give
validity to teachers' certificates. The
State Superintendent was
to prepare questions for all teachers'
examinations. Teachers
were required to pay one dollar on the
receipt of certificates.
The payment of this dollar entitled each
teacher to receive a
state educational paper, and to attend
teachers' institutes. All
fees and subscriptions to the school
paper were to be paid to
the state treasurer and out of the fund
so created the salaries
of the state board were to be paid. The
salaries were one
thousand dollars for each district
superintendent, and twelve
hundred dollars for the State
Superintendent. The law spe-
cifically provided that no money from
any other source should
be used in the payment of these
salaries. This law represented
the efforts of the teachers'
associations and the friends of edu-
39Two counties, Ashtabula and Sandusky,
elected superintendents
under this law. Taylor, page 360.
40O. L., XLVIII, 44.
38 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.
cation throughout the state. They were
successful in getting
the law upon the statute books by
placing the responsibility
for financing it upon the teachers
themselves. The law, how-
ever, as has been said, was never put in
active operation.
Summary.
The district was the unit of school
organization throughout
this period. A state organization was
formed in 1838 with
county and township officers. The
effectiveness of the county
and township organizations was largely
nullified by attaching
the duties of the school officials to
offices primarily created for
other purposes. The greatest possibility
of usefulness in the
system rested in the State
Superintendent, and this office, after a
three years' trial, was abolished, and
its duties transferred to
the office of the Secretary of State,
where it became largely a
clerical function.
METHODS OF COMMON SCHOOL SUPPORT
The subject of the support of common
schools during this
period is an involved one as there are
many sources of revenue
and frequent changes in legislation.
These sources may be
classified as follows:
School rates paid by parents;
The revenue from school lands;
Permanent funds;
Revenue from the United States surplus;
A guaranteed state school fund;
State taxation for school support;
County taxation for school support;
Optional township taxation for school
support;
District taxation for school support;
Revenue from fines, penalties and fees
of various kinds;
District taxation for school buildings;
Voluntary contributions for school
buildings.
Contributions and bequests.
Rates Paid by Parents.
It has already been said that the
earliest schools in Ohio
were subscription or pay schools. The
responsibility for the
Educational Legislation in Ohio From
1803 to 1850. 39
education of the child during the first
twenty-two years of
statehood rested on the parents, not
upon society or the state,
except as the money received from
Section 16 might assist in
maintaining the local school. The
principle of school rates for
at least a portion of the expense was
recognized in the laws of
1821,41 1829,42 1831,43
1834,44 and 1836.45 In the three acts
last cited it was provided that the
parents should pay any addi-
tional amount needed, unless it were
raised by voluntary sub-
scription. Provision was also made for
the exemption of indi-
gent students. School rates, as a source
of revenue, were not
specifically recognized in the code of
1838,46 but reappeared the
following year in an amendment,47 and
remained until 1850 as
a legal source of support.
The practical working of the law and its
amendments is
well shown by another quotation from Mr.
Lewis's first report.53
"As it will be impossible to give a
full history of my observations,
an example of the several classes must
suffice. In one town a free
school is taught three months in the
year, by one teacher, in a district
where more than one hundred children
desire to attend; they rush in
and crowd the school so as to destroy
all hope of usefulness, the wealthy
and those in comfortable circumstances,
seeing this, withdraw their chil-
dren or never send them; the school thus
receives the name of a school
for the poor, and its usefulness is
destroyed. This example is one that
represents nearly all the free schools
in the State, as well in the country
as in the cities and towns.
"Another and much larger number of
the districts, adopt a practice
of which the following is an example:
The district has funds which
would pay a teacher one quarter or less,
but in order to keep up a
school as long as possible, it is
divided between two or more quarters;
the teacher makes his estimate of the
amount, besides public money, that
must be paid by each scholar and gets
his subscription accordingly. Here
none send but those who can pay the
balance; of course the children of
the poor, the very intemperate and
careless, with sometimes the inordinate
lovers of money are left at home.
41 O. L., XIX, 51.
42. L., XXVII, 73.
43O. L., XXIX, 414.
440.
L., XXXII, 25.
450.
L., XXXIV, 19.
46 0. L., XXXVI, 21.
47 O.
L., XXXVII, 61.
Ohio Documents, 36th. G. A., Doc. 17,
pages 8 ff.
40 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.
"This mode though it defeats the
primary object of the law, really
secures a greater aggregate amount of
instruction than the other. An-
other class proceeds on the same plan,
with the exception that the
teacher is bound to take the very poor
free, if they prove their total
inability to pay. This is but little, if
any, better than the last, since the
poor woman must humble herself, and in effect
take the benefit of the
poor law, before she can get her
children into school. * * *
"Another part of this class is,
where the directors agree with the
teacher at so much per month, and, after
expending the school money,
levy, under the statute, a tax on the
scholars for the residue, sometimes
admitting the poor, and sometimes
rejecting all that are unable to pay
the difference.
"In some towns all the teachers
receive a portion of the public
money at the rate of so much per
scholar, which they deduct from the
subscription price. In these cases the
schools are all strictly private,
and no provision whatever is made for
the poor. The officers in one
place where this practice prevails, said
that 'if the schools were free,
they would be so crowded as to be
useless, unless they had more funds,
but by the mode they adopted, every man
who sent to school got a part
of the public money;' if he was not able
to pay the balance he was
punished by losing the whole; which is
certainly a bad feature in the
practice, and a gross violation of law.
Another custom is not to draw
the school money for several years, and
then, say once in two or three
years, they can keep a crowded free
school from three to six months. In
some places public schools have not been
taught this two years.
"These examples give the practice
in all the school districts in the
State; the second and third named
prevail the most generally; but it is
not uncommon to find all the examples
adopted in different districts in
the same township."
Revenue from School Lands.
The revenue from Section 16, or land
given in lieu of Sec-
tion 16,48 was by the terms of the grant
to be used for the edu-
cation of the children of the township
or district of country to
which it belonged. The basis of
distribution within the town-
ship finally came to be the number of
white unmarried youth
from four to twenty-one years. The
different bases of distri-
bution used before this were as follows:
18o549--So that all citizens in the
township shall obtain
equal advantages.
480. L., III, 47, Enabling Act, reprinted.
49O. L., III, 230.
Educational Legislation in Ohio From
1803 to 1850. 41
181050 - In proportion to the scholars
and the time taught.
182551- In proportion to the number of
families in each
district.
183152 -In proportion to the unmarried
white youth from
four to twenty-one.
In the Virginia Military District the
basis for distribution
by the act of February 9, 1829,54
was made all children from
the age of four to sixteen, instead of
four to twenty-one. This
was changed to children from the age of
four to twenty-one in
1831,55
and a five hundred dollar penalty assessed
upon county
auditors if they failed to make
triennially a report of the number
of school youth of this age in their
respective counties. In
183656 the proportionate amount of
territory in each county was
used as the basis of apportionment in
this particular district.
Permanent Funds.
School lands.
In 180957 the school lands set
aside for the Virginia Military
District were offered for sale at a
minimum price of two dollars
per acre, and the funds deposited with
the state treasurer,
to be funded and the income used for the
support of schools
within this district.
The policy of selling the school lands
in the rest of the
state was adopted in 182758 and was
followed immediately by
another act59 creating a permanent
school fund. The money
from the sale of school land was to be
paid into the state treasury,
and placed to the credit of the
particular townships to which the
land belonged. This was impossible in
the case of such dis-
tricts as the Western Reserve, the
Virginia Military District,
5O. L., VIII, 100.
51. L., XXIII, 36.
52. L., XXXII, 25.
54. L., XXVII, 51.
55. L., XXIX, 229.
56O. L., XXXIV, 469.
57 0. L., VII, 109.
58 0. L., XXV, 26.
590. L., XXV, 78.
42 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.
and
the United States Military District, as the land had not
been
given to the townships, but to the districts as a whole. In
these
cases the money was set aside for the use of schools in
the
territories named. The amount so paid in constituted an
irreducible
fund upon which the state pledged its faith to pay
an
annual interest of six per cent for the use of schools in
the
township or district.60 The lands were to be sold at the
appraised
value with no minimum price attached. This act also
provided
that the money from the sale of the salt lands, which
had
not been originally given for the use of schools, should be-
come
a permanent fund belonging in common to the people of
the
state for school use. To this fund was to be added any
donations,
bequests, etc., that might be made to the state for
the
use of schools. The moneys from the two last sources were
to be
funded until 1832, and thereafter interest was to be dis-
tributed
to the counties of the state in proportion to the white
male
inhabitants over twenty-one years of age. These funds
were
loaned to the state for the purpose of building canals in
1830,61
and from this time on the principle was followed of using
the
funds for state purposes, and pledging the faith of the state
for
the payment of annual interest on the debt so incurred.
The
amount of funds derived from this source is shown for
the
years 1830, 1836 and 1846, as follows: 62
1830 1836 1846
Virginia
Mil. Sch. Lands..... $ 47,014.31 $117,884.64 $135,033.96
U. S.
Mil. Sch. Lands ........ 27,895.50 101,256.71 119,871.09
Salt
Lands .............. 10,004.20 24,788.22
Sec.
No. 16 ............ 82,626.31 563,578.63 999,963.24
Western
Reserve Sch. Lands 147,027.01 158,659.01
Moravian
Tract Sch. Lands.. 1,049.82
Totals
.................. $167,540.32
$954,535.21 $1,414,577.12
60The
money paid into the treasury from the school lands was used
by the
State in its canal projects, and interest paid upon the debt so in-
curred.
610. L., XXVIII, 55.
62O.
L., XXVIII, Auditor's reports; 0. L., XXXV, Auditors re-
ports; 0. L., XLV, Auditor's reports.
Educational Legislation in Ohio From
1803 to 1850. 43
Surplus Revenue.
In 183763 the surplus revenue received
from the United
States was apportioned among the
counties, the net income from
this source to be used for the support
of common schools. The
method used for deriving an income was
as follows. Each
county was held responsible for the
payment of five per cent
interest annually on the amount
apportioned to it.64 This five
per cent was paid annually to the state
treasurer and redistrib-
uted throughout the state for the use of
schools. Any amount
of revenue that the county had derived
from the fund above
five per cent might be retained by it
and used for internal
improvements, for the support of common
schools or for the
building of academies. The entire fund
apportioned to Ohio
from this source was $2,007,260.34.65 This fund was used in
this way for the support of schools
until 1850, but was finally
pledged by the state for the payment of
debts incurred in the
building of state canals, and passed
from the school finances
subsequent to this date.
State School Fund.
The law of 183866 established for
the first time a guaran-
teed state common school fund of two
hundred thousand dollars.
This was to be derived from the interest
on the Surplus Rev-
enue,67 the interest on the
proceeds of salt lands, and the rev-
enue68 from banks, insurance
and bridge companies. The state
was to supplement from other funds
whatever amount was
needed to bring the total annual revenue
up to two hundred
thousand dollars. The added amount, when necessary, was
raised, in fact, by a state tax. The
amount of this guaranteed
63O . L., XXXV, 97.
64The amount distributed to the Ohio
counties in 1837 was
$1,882,418.92.
65 Ohio Documents. 36th Gen. Assembly.
Doc. 3, page 8.
66O. L., XXXVI, 21.
67 Ohio's share of the surplus
revenue distributed to the several
states by the United States amounted to
$2,007,260.34.
68The revenue from the state tax on
banks, insurance and bridge
companies is reported by the state
treasurer in 1837 as $64,931.53.*
*Ohio Documents. 36th Gen. Assembly.
Doc. 2, page 3.
44 Ohio Arch. and
Hist. Society Publications.
fund was subsequently
in 184269 reduced for one year to one
hundred and fifty
thousand dollars, and in the following year70
the money arising from
licenses on peddlers, from auction duties
or licenses on
auctioneers, and from taxes levied on lawyers and
physicians, was added
to this fund, the effort evidently being to
raise the amount of
the fund without the necessity of taxation.
The basis for
distribution of this fund to the counties was
made the number of
white youth between the ages of four and
twenty years, resident
in the county.
Taxation.
The principle of
taxation for the support of schools first
appeared in the
general school act of 1825,71 by which the
county commissioners
in each county were directed to levy a
tax of 1/2 mill on the taxable property of the county for the
use of schools. This
principle continued from this date, and
was later supplemented
by a state tax and an optional town-
ship or district
tax. The provisions of the laws
concerning
taxation up to and
including the general law of 1838 are sum-
marized in the
following statement. (This includes
only taxa-
tion for school
support. The provisions for taxation for school
building purposes are
given separately.)
Year Amount.
County tax required72
1825 1/2 mill.
County tax required73
1829 3/4 mill.
County tax required74
1831 3/4 mill. County commissioners may as-
sess 1/4 mill additional.
County tax required75
1834 1 mill. County commissioners
may as-
sess 1/2 mill
additional.
County tax required76
1836 l1/2 mills. County commissioners may as-
sess 1/2 mill additional.
690 . L., XL, 59.
70O. L., XLII, 38.
71 0. L., XXIII, 36.
72O. L., XXIII, 36.
730. L., XXVII, 73.
74O. L., XXIX, 414.
75O. L., XXXII, 25.
76 O. L., XXXIV, 19.
Educational
Legislation in Ohio From 1803 to 1850. 45
Year Amount.
County tax required77
1838 2 mills. (If the
county commissioners
failed to levy the
additional
Tp. tax ............76
1836 optional. 1/2 mill tax, the township
might vote to raise an
addi-
tional 11/2 mill tax.
Tp. tax
........... 1838 optional. The township might vote an
added amount necessary
to
maintain schools six
months.78
Not to exceed two
mills ad-
ditional.
State tax
........... 1839 variable. An amount necessary added to
the revenue from the
perma-
nent fund to produce
$200,-
00079 annually.80 1/2 mill levied
by the state in 1838.
In 183981 the law was
amended to allow the county com-
missioner to reduce
the county tax to any sum not less
than
one mill, instead of
maintaining a flat rate of two mills through-
out the state as the
act of 1838 had done, and in 1847,82 the
sentiment against
taxation for school support was so strong
in the General
Assembly that the county commissioners were
forbidden to levy more
than 2/5 of a mill for the use of schools.
This was the lowest
point reached in taxation for school support
after the law of 1825.
The following year,
1848, the privilege of levying a local
tax for the support of
schools was extended from the town-
ship to the district.84 The district clerks were directed to
make
an estimate of the
amount needed in addition to the funds pro-
vided under the laws
in force to keep a school in session for
six months. The district meeting was then allowed to
decide
by vote whether an
additional tax should be levied for this
77 O.
L., XXXVI, 21.
78O. L., XXXVII, 61.
79Reduced in 1842 to
$150,000."
80 O. L., XXXVI, 85.
81 O. L. XXXVII, 61.
820. L., XLV, 60.
830. L., XL, 59.
84 0. L., XLVI,, 83.
46 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications.
purpose. In no case could this
added district tax exceed one
mill. The same year the county
commissioners were authorized
to raise the tax from 2/5 of a mill to 1
mill,85 but they were not
directed to do so.
The status of taxation for the support
of schools at the
close of the period was as follows:
The state guaranteed a fixed school fund
derived from
various sources. When other sources
failed to make up this
sum, a state tax was levied to do so.
(The fund had been re-
duced from two hundred thousand dollars
in 1838 to one hun-
dred and fifty thousand dollars in 1842.)
The county commissioners were directed
to levy a tax in
each county. This had been two mills in
1838, but was reduced
to 2/5 of a mill in
1847, and was left optional, but not over one
mill in 1848.
Each township might vote to raise an
added two mill tax
for the support of schools in the
township.
Each district might vote to raise an
added one mill tax for
the support of schools in the district.
The progress that had been made by the
law of 1838 with
its state-wide county tax of two mills
and state tax amounting
to 1/2 mill had been largely lost by allowing the county com-
missioners to reduce the amount of the
county tax and by the
reduction of the guaranteed school fund
to one hundred and
fifty thousand dollars.
Taxation for School Buildings.
The law of 182186 authorized the
householders in any school
district by a two-thirds vote to levy a
tax to build a school-
house, and to pay for the schooling of
indigent pupils, and
stipulated the tax should not exceed
one-half the amount that
might be levied for state and county
taxes the same year. The
next law, that of 1825,87 simply said
that the district meet-
ing should provide means for building a
school-house, and for
furnishing fuel, but gave no further
directions as to how money
83 0. L., XLVI, 28.
860.
L., XIX, 51.
870. L., XXIII, 36.
Educational Legislation in Ohio From 1803 to 1850. 47
was to be raised. In 182788 a maximum of
three hundred dollars
for a school-house was established and
the district meeting might,
by a three-fifths vote, decide whether
the district should be taxed
for building purposes or not. If it was
decided to raise the
money by a tax and the amount falling on
any householder was
less than one dollar, a minimum sum of
one dollar was charged
against him. The tax might be commuted
by labor on the
school-house or furnishing material for
it. This last law evi-
dently aroused opposition on the part of
non-resident tax-
payers, and in 183089 an amendment to
the school law provided
that not more than fifty dollars might
be levied in any one
year for building purposes, unless
one-third of the property in
the district was owned by residents. If
one-third to one-half of
the property was so owned, the amount
raised might be one
hundred dollars. If one-third to two-thirds of the property
was owned by residents, the sum was
increased to two hundred
dollars. This method of raising the
money for buildings re-
mained with but slight changes until
1838. The minimum tax
for a resident taxpayer was reduced from
one dollar to fifty
cents in 1830,90 and to twenty-five
cents in 1836.91 In 183892
the decision as to a building tax for a
school-house was for
the first time left to a majority vote
of the district meeting, and
the partial exemption for non-resident
taxpayers and the min-
imum tax features disappeared.
Fines, Penalties, Licenses, Fees,
Etc.
In 182793 the principle of using fines for
the support of
schools, assessed for various offences
first appears. By the pro-
visions of this act all fines imposed
and collected by justices of
the peace for offences committed were to
be used for the sup-
port of schools in the district in which
the offences were com-
mitted. This was repeated in 1829,94 and then
disappeared from
880. L., XXVII, 65.
890. L., XXVIII, 57.
900. L., XXVIII, 57.
91 O. L, XXXIV, 19.
92O. L., XXXVI, 21.
930. L., XXV, 65.
940. L., XXVII, 73.
48 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society
Publications.
the school law, but the principle reappeared in a
series of acts
concerning various offences and remained as a definite
method
of school support to the end of the period. These offences
and fines are so numerous that they are given here only
in tabu-
lated form.
Area to which
Date of Penalty fines were
law.
Offence. Min. Max. distributed
distributed.
182993 Selling
liquor without license .....$10.00 $50.00 County
1829 Liquor
seller permitting rioting,
drunkenness or gambling ........ 10.00 50.00 County
183096 Killing muskrat out of season..... 1.00
each Township
183197 Sabbath
breaking ................. 1.00 5.00
Township
183197 Selling
liquor on Sunday
"to
others than travelers" .......... 5.00
Township
183197 Disturbing
religious meetings..... 20.00
Township
183197 Profanity
........................ .25 1.00
Township
183197 Exciting
disturbance in a tavern,
etc
............................
.50 5.00 Township
183197 Playing
bullets, running horses or Township
shooting guns in town.......... .50
5.00 Township
183197 Liquor
dealer keeping 9 pin alley.. 10.00 100.00 Township
183197 Exhibiting
a puppet show, jug-
gling, etc. ...................... 10.00
Township
183197 Tearing
down public notices ....... 10.00
Township
183197 Selling
liquor within 1 mile of a
religious gathering ............. 20.00
Township
183197 Bull
baiting, bear baiting, etc ...... 100.00
Township
183197 Cock
fighting .................... 100.00
Township
183197 Horse
racing on a public road.... 5.00
Township
183197 Justice
of Peace failing to pay over
fine
collected ................... Double
the
amount col-
lected
Township
183198 Selling
at auction without license 100.00
State, for lit-
183198 Failure
to render account of auc- erary pur-
tion sales ...................... 1000.00 poses
183199
Peddling without license........... 20.00 100.00 District
95O. L., XXVII, 11.
96O. L., XXIX, 469.
97 0. L., XXIX, 161.
98O. L., XXIX, 304.
99 0. L., XXIX, 313.
Educational Legislation in Ohio From 1803 to 1850. 49
Area to which
Date of Penalty fines were
law.
Offence. Min.
Max. distributed.
distributed.
1831100 Exhibiting
circus without permit.. $100.00
County
1831101 Neglecting
to have fish inspected.. 5.00
County
1831101 Failure to
bury offal.............. $5.00 50.00
County
1831101 Inspector demanding more than
legal amount, or purchasing ar-
ticles condemned ............... 50.00 County
1834102 Selling salt without inspection.... 1.00 per
bbl. County
1834103 Medical
malpractice of various
kinds
..........................100.00
500.00 County
1834104 Obstructing
navigation in Mus-
kingum River .................. 50.00 County
1838105 Officer
or corporation disregarding
court orders in quo warranto pro-
cedure ......................... 10,000.00
County
1840106 Keeping
breachy or unruly animals .25 1.00 District
1840107 Harboring
intoxicated Indians..... 5.00 25.00
District
1841108 Selling
liquor within two miles of
any religious society gathered in
a field or woodland............. 5.00 50.00 Township
1844109
Allowing Canada Thistles to ma-
ture ........................... 10.00 Township
Knowingly selling seed which con-
tains Canada Thistle seed ........ 20.00
Township
1845110 Firing cannon on the public street 5.00 50.00
Township
1846111 Gambling
or keeping a gambling
house .......................... 500.00 County
1000. L., XXIX, 446.
101 0. L., XXIX, 477.
102 O. L., XXXII, 47.
103 0. L., XXXII, 20.
104 O. L., XXXII, 38.
105O. L.,
XXXVI, 68.
106O. L., XXXVIII, 4.
107 0. L., XXXVIII, 57.
108 O. L.,
XXXIX, 34.
109 O. L., XLII, 37.
110 O. L., XLIII, 17.
111 O. L, XLIV, 10.
Vol. XXVII- 4.
50 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications.
In addition to the fines listed, the
fees received from licenses
for liquor selling, 112 for peddlingl13
and auctioneering114 were
applied for the use of schools. There
were also a number of
local acts of this character applying to
particular towns or
counties.115
116 In 1830 in the act incorporating the town of Steuben-
ville, it is provided that for every
license granted to "all gro-
ceries, porter, ale, and other houses of
entertainment" there
shall be paid into the county treasury
"the sum of five dollars
for the use of the common schools of the
county." A similar
provision is found in the act
incorporating the city of Chilli-
cothe,ll7 in 1838, except
that the money is to be paid to the
district of the city. Acts of the same
general nature occur,
applying to Medina, Huron, and Erie
Counties,1l8 and to the
towns of Chagrin Falls,l19 Fulton,l20
and Akron,l21 and in 1845
an act was passed authorizing the towns
of Painesville and
Norwalkl22 to levy an annual
tax "on all dogs six months old
and upwards" for the use of common
schools.
CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF SCHOOLS
Ohio was especially weak in developing
any plan of control
or supervision. The law of 1825123 and
succeeding laws said
that the county examiners might visit
and inspect schools, but
there was no compulsion placed upon
them, no pay for the
duty if performed, and no authority
given to them in case they
decided to make such inspection. In
1838124 the establishment
1120.
L., XXVII, 11.
1130. L., XXIX,
313; 0. L., XLVI, 36.
114O. L., XXIX, 304
115 0. L., XXVIII, 165; 0. L., XLV, 131.
116 0. L., XXVIII, 165.
117 O. L., XXXVI, 274.
118 0. L., XLV, 131.
119 O.
L., XLVI, 269.
1200. L., XXXII, 116.
121O. L., XXXIV, 433.
122O. L., XLIII, 379.
1230. L., XXIII, 36.
124 O. L., XXXVI, 21.
Educational Legislation in Ohio From
1803 to 1850. 51
of the office of state, county and
township superintendents
would seem, at first view, to give the
machinery for efficient
control and supervision, but an
inspection of the law will show
that the actual control exercised was
weak and ineffective. The
only man in the entire system who was
primarily engaged in
school work was the State Superintendent
and at the end of
three years the office was abolished,125
and the work transferred
to the Secretary of State, who was
allowed four hundred dol-
lars a year for the extra clerical work
thus placed upon him.
Samuel Lewis 126 in the three
years he served as State Su-
perintendent accomplished much, but it
was through arousing
sentiment in favor of common schools and
in collecting and
presenting educational facts to the
General Assembly and to
the state at large, and not through the
working of the system,
except as it aided him in the collection
of the desired facts, and
as he educated school officers in their
duties through manuals,
reports and other educational material.127
With the transfer of the office to the
Secretary of State
it became, naturally, largely clerical
in character, as the Secre-
tary of State was devoted primarily to
other duties. Similarly,
the office of county superintendent was
simply added to the
duties of the county auditor, and that
of the township superin-
tendent to the duties of the township
clerk. These men, too,
were primarily chosen for work of a
different nature, and the
school duties were in many instances an
unwelcome addition.
It is true that the law gave the
township superintendent
certain control over the district,
vesting him with powers to
appoint directors if the district failed
to elect them, or to per-
form in person the duties of the
directors if those he appointed
failed to serve. There was no machinery,
however, to compel
the township superintendent to act in
the matter. He was also
required by law to visit the schools in
each district once in each
year, but in 1839128 it was made
optional with the township trus-
tees to excuse him from this duty, and
his total pay for super-
125 0. L., XXXVIII, 131.
126 Taylor, page 335.
127O. L., XXXVI, local, 402, 410.
128O. L., XXXVII, 61.
52 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications.
vision in any one school was fixed at a
maximum of one dollar
for the year. On the whole the township
clerks seem to have
accepted the responsibility and to have
acted for the best inter-
ests of the schools.
Mr. Lewis in his second report speaks of
the working of
the law at this point as follows:129
"Elections have very generally been
held in the districts in Septem-
ber, 1838, and where they have been
omitted the township clerks have,
in most cases, made proper appointments,
so that there are now school
officers in nearly all the school
districts and they are making the ar-
rangements for schools. * * * The power
of township clerks, to ap-
point district officers, is sometimes
complained of, but without this pro-
vision or some other effecting the same
object, organization could not
take place.
"There will be this winter at least
one thousand schools that but
for this provision would not have
existed. Township clerks only act,
where the district has forgotten or
neglected to act, and it would be un-
pardonable to suffer fifty thousand
youth to go without instruction for
want of officers to regulate the
schools. * * * I am satisfied that
most of the township clerks desire most
heartily to promote the interest
of the schools, pay or no pay, but they
are generally poor and cannot
afford to spend much time without
compensation. Letters every day
coming to my hands, satisfy me that no
money will be better laid out
than that which secures the services of
patriotic and public spirited
township superintendents."
While these quotations show the general
attitude of these
newly appointed officers as favorable to
the schools, there were
many individual instances where, through
laxity or ignorance,
the work was not done. One of the county
auditors writing to
Mr. Lewis says: "Great difficulties
are found in school matters
by the negligence of school district
officers and township clerks,
not that they are opposed to the common
school system, but
they complain of having so much to do
without compensation,
consequently they will not bother
themselves with the matter."130
Another says: "I can assign no
reason for the neglect of
the township clerks in this matter * * *
but from want
of attention merely." * * *
"The township clerks have not
129 Ohio Document. 38th. G. A. Doc. 17, page 51.
130 Ohio Document. 37th. G. A.
Doc. 32, page 67.
Educational Legislation in Ohio From
1803 to 1850. 53
generally made accurate
returns."131 "The carelesness of dis-
trict officers has given township clerks
an excuse, and my re-
port is very deficient," are among
other comments from audi-
tor's letters cited by Mr. Lewis.
The only effective measures to compel
the districts to
establish schools were through the
retention of the district's
share of money from the school fund, and
the moneys collected
by taxation, in case of failure to keep
school. The law of
1825132 said that no
district might receive its share of the money
so collected except for the wages of a
teacher duly employed
and certified. There was no
specification as to the length of
time the teacher must be employed. If
the district failed for
a period of three years to hire a
teacher and keep a school, the
money due it was to be appropriated to
the districts that did so.
In 1829133 the provisions were repeated,
and a minimum term of
three months was established as a
condition of receiving the
district's proportion of school tax due.
There was a fine of two dollars assessed
on any person
elected as a director or clerk and
refusing to serve,134 and also
fines on the district officers responsible
for making returns of
the enumeration of school youth135 in
case of failure to report.
It was found necessary in 1848136 to
pass a special act for the
purpose of securing school statistics
from the districts and town-
ships. This forbade the township
treasurers to pay any teacher
a salary unless there was presented with
the order an abstract
of the teacher's record of attendance.
The township treasurer
was fined ten dollars unless he settled
annually with the auditor
of the county, and the possession of
these abstracts was a nec-
essary preliminary to the settlement.
Other than this the state
devised no means for controlling the
educational procedure of
the district.
131Ibid. Page 70.
132.
L., XXIII, 36.
1330. L., XXVII, 73.
134O. L., XXVIII, 57.
135O. L., XXXIV, 19.
1360. L., XLVI, 28.
54 Ohio Arch. and
Hist. Society Publications.
CERTIFICATION OF TEACHERS
In 1821137 the district school committee was
authorized to
employ competent teachers, and no
mention was made of certifi-
cation. In 1825138 the principle of
county certification appeared
and with the exception of a two-year
period, 1836 to 1838, re-
mained until 1850. The law of 1825
provided for the appoint-
ment of three examiners of common
schools in each county by
the Court of Common Pleas, who should
examine and certifi-
cate teachers, and, as previously noted,
might visit and examine
schools. No teacher could legally
recover any part of the pay
due from public funds unless a
certificate had been granted to
such teacher.
In 1827139 the Court of Common Pleas was
allowed to ap-
point such number of examiners as they
might deem expedient,
not to exceed one for each organized
township in the county.
It was the evident intent of this law to
allow single examiners,
for the sake of convenience, to examine
within the township.
In 1829140 the Court of Common Pleas was
directed to
appoint not less than five examiners nor
more than the number
of organized townships in the county,
and any two examiners
might grant certificates.
In 1831141 the examiners were directed
to give the certifi-
cate in the branches in which the
teacher was found qualified
to teach, and no certificate was to be
granted unless the candi-
date was qualified to teach reading,
writing and arithmetic.
The examiners might require the
examination to be public
and could determine upon uniform forms
of certification.
This law was evidently deemed a little
too rigorous and
was amended at the following session in
December, 1831,142
to permit a district that wished to do
so to employ a female
teacher to teach reading, writing and
spelling only, and the
1370. L., XIX, 51.
138 0. L., XXIII, 36.
139 0. L., XXV,
65.
140 0. L., XXVII, 73.
141 O.
L., XXX, 4.
142O. L., XXX, 4.
Educational Legislation in Ohio From 1803 to 1850. 55
examiners were authorized, on the
presentation of a written re-
quest from the directors, to grant a
certificate in these subjects.
In 1834143 the court was directed to
appoint five examin-
ers, and the examination was to be given
publicly each month
at the county seat, with the provision
that the examiners might
appoint one examiner in each township to
examine female
teachers only. Reading, writing and
arithmetic were required
for all certificates.
In 1836144 the township
became the unit for certification,
and the method of choosing examiners
changed. Each township
was to elect annually three examiners,
but with the code of
1838,145 the county became definitely
the unit for certification,
and the mode of appointment was again by
the selection of the
Court of Common Pleas. The number of
examiners was fixed
at three. Examinations were to be held
quarterly by the Board.
Each teacher must be qualified to teach
reading, writing and
arithmetic, and the certificate stated
what other branches the
teacher was qualified to teach. No
teacher in any common school
was allowed to teach a study not named
in the certificate. In
1849146
English and geography were added to the
requirements
for certification.
SCHOOL STUDIES
No mention was made of the subjects to
be taught in the
common schools until 1834,147 when
reading, writing and arith-
metic and "other necessary
branches" were specified. The state
insisted on nothing more than these
subjects, but in 1838148 al-
lowed other studies to be taught at the
option of the directors,
and allowed any other language beside
English to be taught, but
the three r's must be taught in English.
This was amended in
1839149 as a concession to
German settlers150 to allow each school
143O.
L., XXXII, 25.
1440.
L., XXXIV, 19.
145 0. L., XXXVI, 21.
146 0. L., XLVII, 43.
147 0. L., XXXII, 25.
148O . L., XXXVI, 21.
149O. L., XXXVII, 61.
150Taylor, page 170.
56 Ohio Arch. and
Hist. Society Publications.
district to have its school taught in
whatever language it might
prefer.
In 1849151 on application of three householders the
directors were instructed to add English
and geography to the
subjects taught.
LENGTH OF SCHOOL YEAR
The minimum length of the school year
was first fixed at
three months in 1829152 for any school
receiving an appropria-
tion of the money raised by taxation,
and as much longer than
three months as the appropriation paid
the wages of the teacher.
Nothing was done to extend the time
until 1838153 when the
township superintendent was directed to
estimate for the town-
ship the amount it would be necessary to
raise by taxation in
addition to the funds already provided
to furnish six months
good schooling to all the white youth of
the township. The de-
cision as to raising the amount needed
to maintain the schools
six months was decided by the voters at
the township election,
who voted "school tax" or
"no school tax". A six months' school
remained the ideal held up by the law
for district schools until
1850.
That this modest ideal of a six month's
school was not
commonly reached is shown in Mr. Lewis's
first report in which
he gave the total number of children of
school age in the
State at 468,812; the number attending
more than two months
and less than four as 84,296, and those
attending over four
months as 62,144.154 These figures show
that 322,372 children
of school age either attended school
less than two months in
the year or that they did not attend at
all. In his last report,
three years later, for 1839, he gives
the total number of schools
(public) as 13,049-partly estimated-and
the average length
of the term as four months; the total
number of pupils in attend-
ance as 455,427, an increase of over
300,000.155 These figures
are a significant indication of the
changed attitude toward pub-
1510. L., XLVII, 33.
152 0. L., XXVII,
73.
153 O. L., XXXVI, 21.
154 Ohio Doc. 36th. G. A. Doc. 17, page
44.
155Ohio Doc. 38th G. A. Doc. 17, page
44.
Educational Legislation in Ohio From
1803 to 1850. 57
lic schools that the law of 1838 had
wrought under the leader-
ship of a capable and devoted State
Superinendent.
SCHOOL OFFICERS
The township trustees were throughout
the period given
the power of establishing districts.
District officers were as fol-
lows:
In 1814- three district trustees ;156
In 1821 -three district trustees
and a collector;157
In 1825 - three directors ;158
In 1827 - three directors and a
treasurer to be appointed
by the directors ;159
In 1829-three directors, a clerk, and a
treasurer;160
In 1838--three directors, the directors
appointing one of
their own number as clerk and treasurer ;161
The law of 1838 also created the offices
of
state, county and township
superintendents, the
two latter being ex officio, attached to
the offices
of county auditor and township clerk.
In 1840-the office of State
Superintendent was abolished,
and its clerical functions transferred
to the of-
fice of the Secretary of State.
In 1848 - counties were given the right
on their own initia-
tive to elect county superintendents of
schools.162
SCHOOLS FOR COLORED CHILDREN
The first provision found in the general
laws for the educa-
tion of colored children occurs in
1848,163 when a department
of common schools for black and mulatto
children was created.
Prior to this time the property of
colored people had been ex-
1560 . L., XIV, 295.
157O L., XIX, 51.
158 0. L., XXIII, 36.
159 O. L., XXV, 65.
160. L., XXVII, 73.
161 0. L., XXXVI, 21.
1620.
L., XLVI, 86.
1630. L., XLVI, 81.
58 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications.
empt from taxation for school purposes.
This law provided that
their property should be taxed the same
as property of white
people, and the money used to support
colored schools wherever
they were established, but added to the
common school funds
in those districts in which colored
children were allowed to at-
tend the common schools.
Any city, town, village or township
containing twenty
colored children was created a district
for the purpose of estab-
lishing a colored school, and the
colored citizens given authority
to organize by the election of
directors, in accord with the gen-
eral school law. If there were less than
twenty colored children
in the areas enumerated, they were
allowed to attend the com-
mon schools unless there was a written
protest filed by some
one having a child in the school. In the
latter case they were
not allowed to attend and the property
of colored people was
not taxed. At the next session of the
legislature in 1849,164 the
law was changed and the authorities in
towns, cities, villages and
townships were required to create one or
more districts for
colored children if they were not
admitted to common schools.
The colored citizens then organized with
their own officers and
supported the schools by taxation upon
their own property.
CITY AND VILLAGE SCHOOLS
Ohio's growth in population in the early
decades of the
nineteenth century was a phenomenal one.
In 1800, three years
before statehood, her rank in population
was eighteenth. In 1820
she stood fifth in the sisterhood of
states, and in the next ten
years the numbers within her borders
again almost doubled,
jumping from 581,434 in 1820 to 937,903
in 1830.165
This growth in the early years was
almost wholly a rural
one. In 1820 there were only two towns
in the state with a pop-
ulation of 1,000 or over; Cincinnati
with 9,640, and Dayton,
estimated to have 1,000. Ten years later
Cincinnati had grown
to a city of 24,830, Dayton and Columbus
were approaching
3,000 each,- 2,950 and 2,435
respectively - while three other
164 O. L., XLVII, 17.
165 Statistical Abstract of U. S.,
1911, page 34.
Educational Legislation in Ohio From
1803 to 1850. 59
towns, Cleveland, Springfield and
Canton, had just passed the
1,000 mark.
In the years from 1830 to 1850 the growth of
towns and
cities was a rapid one. Cincinnati had
increased to 46,340; Day-
ton, Columbus, and Cleveland had each
passed 6,000, and there
were eight other towns in the state with
a population of over
2,000
each according to the census reports of
1840; while by 1850
Cincinnati was a thriving metropolis of
115,435, Columbus and
Cleveland were vigorous young cities of
17,000 each, Dayton had
something over 10,000 inhabitants, and
Zanesville and Chilli-
cothe were rapidly approaching this
number, while fifteen other
centers had attained a population of
3,000 to 6,000 each.166
The school legislation of the first
thirty years of Ohio's
statehood recognized only the district
school in the general school
laws that were passed. This was partly a
reflection of the rural
character of the state in these early
years, and partly a result of
the decentralizing tendency in school
affairs that the early set-
tlers had brought with them. It was not
until the law of 1838
was passed that any recognition was
given to the fact that the
educational needs of cities and towns
were not the same as those
of the country districts.
Samuel Lewis speaking to the legislature
at this period said:
"In towns and large villages the
common schools are poorer than
in the country. In the latter,
neighborhoods depend more upon
them, and, of course, take a deeper
interest in their control, while
in the former there is too frequently
but little attention paid to
these schools by persons able to provide
other means of instruc-
tion." 167
A few cities and towns had early felt
the inadequacy of the
general laws in providing any suitable
system of schools, and
had asked and received special charters
from the state. By
1840 a number of municipalities had
organized their schools
under special charters, and in the years
from 1840 to 1850 there
was a general awakening in the urban
communities to the need
of better provision for public schools.
166 U. S. Census Reports, 1830, 1840,
1850.
167Ohio Documents. 36th. G. A. Doc. 17,
page 10.
60 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications.
This aroused interest was shown in the
school charters of
Cincinnati, Toledo, Cleveland,
Portsmouth, Zanesville, Dayton,
Columbus, Mt. Vernon, and, finally
Akron, and the generaliza-
tion of the "Akron Act" in
such form that all municipalities in
the state- of 200 or more - could make use of it.
There was much that was progressive and
enlightened for
the period, in the legislation for
Ohio's cities and towns from
about 1830 to 1850. The one great
lack- found in all Ohio's
School legislation prior to 1850, and for a half
century after
that-was the lack of any form of
compulsion. The general
applications of the laws for
municipalities were wholly per-
missive in character. They simply pointed
out ways in which
the schools could be legally established
and organized but how-
ever excellent and needed these ways
might be, no municipality
was under the slightest compulsion to
follow them.
The earliest special legislation for
towns is found in the case
of Marietta.l68 The
Legislature in 1825 granted her the right
to vote in town meeting a sum for the
support of schools. There
was no further legislation for Marietta
until 1841,169 when an
act was passed dividing the town, which
had been united into one
district by the law of 1838, into
separate districts again, with
three directors for each, and the
ordinary rural district system.
Cincinnati.
Cincinnati was the leader in all the
early efforts for better
educational conditions. In 1829170 she set an
example to the
rest of the state by securing a school
charter that gave the city
an organized, tax supported, free system
of common schools.
This charter divided the city into ten
districts, two for each
ward, and provided for the building in
each district of a two-
story building of brick or stone.
The city council was required to provide
at the expense of
the city for the support of common schools,
and to levy a tax
of one mill on all the property of
the city as long as needed to
168 O. L., XXIII, 65.
169O. L., XXXIX, 22.
1700 . L., XXVII, 33.
Educational Legislation in Ohio From
1803 to 1850. 61
defray the expense of acquiring sites
and erecting buildings, and
an additional tax of one mill for the
support of schools.
The voters in each ward elected annually
a trustee and
visitor of common schools. The persons
so elected constituted
the Board of Trustees and Visitors of
Common Schools, and had
general supervision of school affairs.
They were authorized to
employ teachers and to visit schools as
often as once a month.
They also were to appoint six examiners
and inspectors, whose
duty it was to examine and certify
teachers, and to visit and in-
spect schools. Once a year a public
examination of the schools
was to be given under the direction of
the mayor, the Board of
Trustees and Visitors, and the Board of
Examiners. The schools
were to be open at least six months of
each year, and to be free
to all white children. Black and mulatto
children are specifically
excluded. Reading, writing, spelling and
arithmetic made up
the curriculum.
While numerous amendments occur, there
are few significant
changes before 1850. In 1840171 German
schools were estab-
lished, and evening schools provided for
"such male youth over
twelve years of age as are prevented by
their daily avocation
from attending day schools." The
latter schools were to be open
in the months of November, December,
January and February.
In 1845172 the trustees were authorized to
divide the city
into suitable districts without
reference to ward boundaries, and
in 1846173 they were given power
to establish such other grade
of schools as might seem necessary and
have such other studies
taught therein as they might prescribe.
In 1850174 provision was
made for the annual election by the
qualified voters of a
"Superintendent of Common Schools,
whose duty it shall be to
visit and superintend all the common
schools in said city, to es-
tablish courses of study, and perform
such other duties as the
Board may prescribe."
171 0. L., XXXVIII, local, 157.
1720.
L., XLIII, local, 413.
173 O. L., XLIV, local, 91.
174O.
L., XLVIII, local, 662.
62 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications.
City of Ohio and Toledo.
In 1836175 and 1837176 the city councils
in these two cities
were given general superintendence over
the common schools,
with power to divide the city into
districts, to erect school build-
ings, and to make provision for the
government and instruction
of children therein. It was left wholly
optional to the city council
as to what should be done.
Cleveland.
Provision for the government of the
Cleveland schools was
included in the city charter, adopted in
1836.177 The provisions
were quite similar to the Cincinnati
plan. The council appointed
one person from each ward instead of the
voters electing as in
Cincinnati. The people so appointed
constituted the Board of
Managers of Common Schools.
In 1848178 the Board of Managers was
made five for the
entire city instead of one from each
ward, and the council was
authorized to establish a high school,
for which purpose the city
was to constitute one high school
district.
Portsmouth and Zanesville.
In 1838179 the city charter of
Portsmouth was amended to
include most of the provisions of the
Cincinnati plan, and in the
following year180 the city of
Zanesville secured a charter for the
support of schools that had many similar
features. The Zanes-
ville charter provided for the election
of six directors to be known
as the Board of Education. The schools
were to be kept in
constant operation except for
"reasonable vacations," and any
deficiency in funds to keep the schools
in constant operation
was raised by a levy upon the parents.
The Board was allowed
to exempt indigent students from payment
of school fees.
1750. L., XXXIV, local 226.
1760. L., XXXV, local, 32.
1770. L., XXXIV, local, 271.
1780. L., XLVI, local, 150.
1790. L., XXXVI, local, 339.
180 0. L., XXXVII, 194.
Educational Legislation in Ohio From 1803 to 1850. 63
General Law for Cities and Towns
Before the Akron Act.
The general law of 1838181 made
each incorporated city,
town or borough, not specially regulated
by charter, a separate
school district. The voters in such a
district elected three di-
rectors, who were given corporate
authority and power to in-
crease the number of directors so that
there might be one for
each sub-district. They were authorized
to divide the territory
for which they were responsible and to
establish schools of dif-
ferent grades therein. The question of
an additional tax to
furnish a school at least six months
each year was to be decided
by the vote of the community. The
general law, as is so usual
in Ohio legislation, merely pointed the
way, but did not attempt
to enforce the organization of city and
town schools. The one
compulsory feature that appears occurred
the next year, 1839,182
and stated that in towns, cities and
boroughs it was the duty of
the directors to provide a sufficient
number of night schools for
the male youth over twelve years of age
whose "daily avoca-
tion" kept them from attending day
schools. While this law
was compulsory in form, there was no
machinery devised for
its enforcement.
Dayton, Columbus, and Mt. Vernon.
In 1841183 and 1845184 the cities of
Dayton, Columbus and
Mt. Vernon were granted special charters
for the government
of their schools. Dayton and Columbus
each continued the
principle of school rates in addition to
taxation. The schools
were to be kept in constant operation
except for vacations, and
any deficiency made up by a levy on the
parents. The general
features of control were similar to the
Cincinnati plan.
The Mt. Vernon charter retained the
district system, and
made each council member a special
school director for his ward.
Building taxes were to be collected from
the sub-districts in
which the buildings were erected, and
were not assessed on the
property of the city in general.
181O. L., XXXVI, 21.
182O. L., XXXVII, 61.
1830. L., XXXIX, local, 145.
184O. L., XLIII, local, 57; 0. L.,
XLIII, local, 160.
64 Ohio Arch. and
Hist. Society Publications.
Akron.
In 1837185 Akron secured school
legislation that was espe-
cially significant, as the legislature
the following yearl86 allowed
cities, towns and villages to adopt the
provisions of the act and
its amendments, on petition of
two-thirds of the voters, and in
1849187 enacted most of its provisions
into a general law. By
this means the Akron law became the plan
usually followed in
the establishment of graded schools in
Ohio. This legislation is
of sufficient importance to merit a
brief description of the steps
that were taken in securing it, and the
school conditions in Akron
preceding its enactment. The
description, with some omissions,
is the one given by Judge Bryan in An
Historical Sketch of the
Akron Public Schools.188.
"In 1846 there were within the
incorporated limits of the village
of Akron six hundred and ninety children
between the ages of four and
sixteen. Of this number there was an
average attendance at the public
and other schools the year through of
not more than three hundred and
seventy-five. During the summer of 1846
one of the district schools
was taught in the back-room of a
dwelling house. Another was taught
in an uncouth, inconvenient and
uncomfortable building gratuitously
furnished by Captain Howe for the use of
the district. There were
private schools, but these were taught
in rooms temporarily hired and
unsuited for the purpose in many
respects. * * * It was, in view of
this state of things, that Reverend I.
Jennings, then a young man and
pastor of the Congregational Church of
Akron, self-moved, set himself
to reorganize the common schools of
Akron. There were many friends
of a better education in the place who
co-operated with Mr. Jennings,
and on the 16th day of May, 1846, at a
public meeting of the citizens, a
committee was appointed of which he was
chairman 'to take into con-
sideration our present educational
provisions and the improvement, if any,
which may be made therein.'"
As a result of this interest, a
committee of three was ap-
pointed to draw up plans and secure
necessary legislation. The
plan of the committee was as follows:
1. Let the whole village be incorporated
into one school
district.
185O. L., XLV, local, 187.
186 O. L., XLVI, 48.
187 0. L., XLVII, 22.
188 Historical Sketches, Ohio Public
Schools, Akron.
Educational Legislation in Ohio From 1803 to 1850. 65
2. Let
there be established six primary schools in different
parts of the village so as best to
accommodate the whole.
3. Let there be one Grammar School
centrally located
where instruction may be given in the
various studies and parts
of studies not provided for in the
Primary Schools and yet re-
quisite to a respectable English
education.
4. Let there be gratuitous admission to
each school in the
system for the children of residents,
with the following restric-
tions, viz.: No pupil shall be admitted
to the Grammar Schools
who fails to sustain a thorough
examination in the Primary
School, and the teachers shall have
power with the advice of
the superintendents to exclude for
misconduct in extreme cases,
and to classify the pupils as the best
good of the schools may
seem to require.
5. The expense of establishing and
sustaining this system
of schools shall be provided for:
First, By appropriating all the school
money the inhabitants
of the village are entitled to, and
whatever funds or property
may be at the disposal of the Board for
this purpose;
Second, a tax to be levied by the Common
Council upon the
taxable property of this village for the
balance.
6. Let six superintendents be chosen by
the Common Coun-
cil, who shall be charged with
perfecting the system thus gen-
erally defined, the bringing of it into
operation, and the con-
trol of it when brought into operation.
Let the six superin-
tendents be so chosen that the term of
office of two of them shall
expire each year.
The essential provisions of the plan
adopted by this com-
mittee were incorporated in the law
enacted February 8th,
1847.189 The more important features of
this law may be sum-
marized as follows:
1. The election of a Board of Education of six members,
which should have full control of school
property and school
funds.
2. The
incorporation of the city into one school district.
3. Provision for six or more primary
schools and one
189 0. L., XLV, local, 187.
Vol. XXVII -5.