Ohio History Journal

THE HISTORY OF EDUCATIONAL LEGISLA-

TION IN OHIO FROM 1851 TO 1925

 

 

BY NELSON L. BOSSING, PH.D.

 

CHAPTER I

INFLUENCES AFFECTING EDUCATIONAL LEGISLATION IN OHIO FROM

1851 TO 1925

The history of education in Ohio from 1851 to 1925

cannot be fully understood without a knowledge of

those economic, social and political factors, both con-

temporary and past, which determined the trend of

educational movements within the state. It is equally

important that the educational progress of the state

prior to 1851 should be thoroughly understood, since

much of the school legislation from 1851 to 1925 found

its originin the educational activity of the preceding

fifty years.

Ohio became a state in 1803 as a result of the open-

ing up of the Northwest Territory for settlement. The

Northwest Territory embraced that vast unsettled por-

tion of the country which lay west of Pennsylvania, be-

tween the Ohio River on the south, the Great Lakes

and the British Possessions on the north, and the

Mississippi River on the west. Virginia, Connecti-

cut, New York and Massachusetts asserted their title

to much of this region by virtue of charters, grants, and

purchases. Congress, in September 1780, took steps

to open the Northwest Territory for settlement. A

month later Congress adopted a resolution which de-

(78)

• 1
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  79

dared that the Territory should be disposed of for the

common benefit of the United States, and should be

divided into sovereign states, of a given area, on the

same footing with the original thirteen.1

At the time of the organization of the Northwest

Territory, colonization companies were formed and

large tracts of land were sold to them for settlement

purposes. A number of these colonization companies

purchased tracts of land in that part of the Northwest

Territory now included in the state of Ohio. The two

most important purchases of this character were the

Symmes Purchase and the Ohio Company Purchase.

The Virginia Military Reserve, the Western Reserve,

and the United States Military Lands represent the

remaining principal land grants in the Ohio region

which were devoted to colonization by special groups

of settlers. Over 12,000,000 acres were included in

these special land grants.² The remaining unclaimed

portions of the state, which amounted to over 14,000,000

acres, were known as Congress Lands and belonged to

the federal government.³

The Land Ordinance of 1785 provided that the land

in the Northwest Territory which belonged to the fed-

eral government should be divided into townships six

miles square. The townships were then subdivided into

 

1 Knight, G. W., "History and Management of Land Grants for Educa-

tion in the Northwest Territory," The American Historical Association,

Papers, Vol. I, No. 3, p. 7.

2 Miller, E. A., "The History of Educational Legislation in Ohio from

1803 to 1850," Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society Publications, Vol.

XXVII, p. 69. Swift places the total acreage in these grants at 11,009,847

acres. Swift, F. H., A History of Public Permanent Common School Funds

in the United States, 1795-1905, p. 370.

3 Miller, E. A., op. cit., p. 72.

• 2
 

80        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

tracts of land one mile square which were called sec-

tions. The sections of each township were numbered

systematically from one to thirty-six. The ordinance

specified that "there shall be reserved from sale, lot No.

16 of every township for the maintenance of public

schools within the said township."4 In accordance with

this provision, Section 16 in each township was set aside

for school purposes in both the Symmes and the Ohio

Company Purchases. The plan was also carried out in

the case of the smaller grants.

Commenting upon the disposition of the school

lands in the remainder of the state, Mr. Miller makes

this succinct statement:

When Ohio was admitted to the Union, the provisions of the

Ordinance of 1785, concerning school lands, were carried out as

fully as possible in the rest of the state. In all of the Congress

Lands, Section 16 in each township was permanently reserved for

the schools of the township. It was not in the power of Congress

to grant Section 16 in such tracts as the Western Reserve, the

Virginia Military Reserve, and the United States Military Lands.

These Lands either did not belong to the federal government or

there were prior claims and unsatisfied land warrants that stood

in the way of any such granting of specific sections. The United

States did not own the land on the Western Reserve, and in the

case of the so-called Military Lands the private ownership of

much of the land, through the taking up of land scrip or bounties

by the soldiers of the Revolution, in the service of the federal

government and Virginia, might conflict in any township.5

For this reason the assigning of school lands in the

Western Reserve, the Virginia Military Reserve, and

the United States Military lands had to take some other

form than that of reserving Section 16 in each town-

ship. Congress had formally committed itself to the

4 Knight, G. W., op. cit., p. 13.

5 Miller, E. A., op. cit., p. 74.

• 3
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  81

policy of setting aside one thirty-sixth part of the land

in the state for the use of the schools. The federal

government, therefore, was obligated to devise another

plan to satisfy the claims of these three districts for

school land. In lieu of Section 16, the Virginia Mili-

tary Reserve was allotted school land outside of the

Reserve in the form of eighteen quarter-townships and

three sections of land. These twenty-one special tracts

were located in Congress Lands. Similar provisions

were made for the Western Reserve and the United

States Military  Reserve from   the unlocated lands

within the boundaries of the United States Military

Lands. The unclaimed lands in the United States Mil-

itary District comprised the remaining portion of the

land which had been set aside by Congress to pay the

bounties awarded to the soldiers of the Revolutionary

war. After all bounty claims had been satisfied, much

of the land which had been set aside by the government

for bounty purposes still remained unclaimed. These

tracts were used to satisfy the school land claims.⁶

The school lands formed the basis of school support

for the first fifty years of school activity in Ohio. It is

probable that the idea of a tax-supported universal

school system was retarded by the undue expectations

of large returns from the sale or rent of the school

lands. During the first half-century the disposition of

school lands occupied the center of attention in school

legislation. Over one-third of the school legislation in

Ohio dealt with this problem.⁷

6 Miller, E. A., op. cit., Chap. III. Here will be found a complete dis-

cussion of the subject.

7 Ibid., p. 54.

Vol. XXXIX--6.

• 4
 

82       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

It was assumed from the first that Section 16 would

be preserved permanently for the use of the township

in which the section was located.   Where the school

lands were located at a distance from the grants to

which they belonged, it was assumed, also, that they

would be managed for the benefit of the local townships

to which the lands were allotted. In accordance with

this understanding, the new state immediately passed

legislation which was designed to control the issuing of

leases for school lands.⁸ From that time forward al-

most a continuous series of legislative measures were

enacted into laws in an endeavor to cope with the situa-

tion. The leasing system did not prove very remunera-

tive, whereupon the General Assembly decided to sell

the land outright and establish a permanent school fund

with the proceeds of the sale. The land policy prior to

1850 was divided into four distinct periods: "the policy

of temporary leasing, 1803 to 1817; the policy of per-

manent leasing, 1817 to 1823; preparation for selling

the lands, with temporary leasing, 1823 to 1827; and

the policy of selling the lands outright, 1827 to 1850."9

The law gave the townships the right to decide whether

they would sell the land or continue the policy of leasing

the property. The management of the land was in the

hands of the township trustees. There was in vogue a

common practice which allowed the holders of perma-

nent leases to surrender their leases, and, by the pay-

ment of the first appraised value of the land, receive a

8 Acts of Ohio, I, 61. Where subsequent references are made to Acts of

Ohio or Ohio Laws, as the session laws of the state were subsequently

called, the abbreviation O. L. will be used. Local Laws will be designated by

the abbreviation O. L. L.

9 Miller, E. A., op. cit., p. 78.

• 5
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  83

deed in fee simple. The wholesale sacrifice of school

land was stopped by legislative action in 1838. In 1845

a general act stipulated that no school land should be

sold below a minimum price of $5.00 per acre.¹⁰ The

law was passed too late to be of much value. A large

part of the land had been sold before 1845, and so much

of it had virtually been given away that the receipts

for the school fund were but a fraction of what they

should have been. The grants comprised a total of

about twelve million acres.11 In 1905, the fund from

the sale of the land amounted to less than five million

dollars, with but a small acreage left for sale.¹² Had

the lease and sale of the land been prudently managed,

the fund would have equalled several times its present

amount.

The early settlers of Ohio came from every section

of the country: New England, New Jersey, Virginia,

Maryland, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and other states

sending their colonists there.13 The immigrants to the

new territory had no common background of political

or educational experience. The early settlers left the

impress of their former training, habits, customs, and

modes of thought upon those sections of the state in

which they lived. Governmental practices were varied

among these local groups; and these variations in prac-

tice later affected the general policies of the state gov-

ernment.14

10 Ibid., p. 89.

11 Miller, E. A., op. cit., p. 69.

12 Swift, F. H., op. cit., p. 368.

13 Atwater, Caleb, A History of the State of Ohio, Natural and Civil,

p. 351.

14 Miller, E. A., op. cit., p. 8.

• 6
 

84       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

There were eight centers of early settlement, each

characterized by the peculiarities of the respective pio-

neer groups. The different settlements followed quite

closely the geographical boundaries of the various

grants.¹⁵

The settlers in the Symmes Purchase made Cincin-

nati the center of their colonization. They came prin-

cipally from New Jersey, and were of Swedish and

Dutch descent. Later their numbers were augmented

by arrivals from Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania,

New York, and the New England states.

The Virginia Military Reserve was first settled by

the old Virginian soldiers who had fought in the Revo-

lutionary war. Chillicothe was the first settlement cen-

ter of these pioneers.  "They were Episcopalians in

faith, anti-federalists in politics, and had a leaning to-

wards slavery."

The Ohio Company's Purchase, with Marietta as

the colonization center, was in the southeastern corner

of the state. The first settlers in this grant were from

Massachusetts.

The tract known as "the Seven Ranges" was located

on the eastern side of the state next to Pennsylvania

and on the northwest border of West Virginia. This

territory was settled principally by colonists from Penn-

sylvania who were of German, Scotch, Irish, and

Scotch-Irish descent.

The United States Military Lands were settled by

a miscellaneous group of settlers from a number of

15 Ibid., p. 9; also Orth, S. P., The Centralization of Administration in

Ohio, p. 164.

• 7
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  85

older states. New York, Pennsylvania, and the middle

states furnished the majority of these immigrants.

The Connecticut immigrants made their settlement

along the south shore of Lake Erie. Cleveland became

the commercial and political center for these people.

This settlement was in the territory of the Western

Reserve.

A number of small grants received settlements of

various kinds. The two principal groups consisted of

the Moravians and the French. A small tract located

on the Tuscarawas River was given to the Moravians.

The French had come to Ohio as a result of a swindle.

They had purchased land from some swindlers who had

gone to Europe and who had represented themselves to

be in possession of a large tract of land adjoining the

Ohio Company Purchase on the west. When the immi-

grants arrived from France, they found their deeds

worthless. The United States government gave the

French immigrants a tract of 24,000 acres of land

known as the French Grant, and sold them additional

property. They settled around Gallipolis and along the

Ohio River.¹⁶

The Congress Lands were settled by heterogeneous

groups of colonists. The Germans made up a goodly

portion of the immigrants to these lands after 1830.17

The wide divergence of social, political, religious

and educational viewpoints of these settlers profoundly

influenced the educational development of the state.

That the environment and conditions of early pioneer

life accentuated rather than lessened the differences be-

16 Atwater, Caleb, op. cit., p. 159.

17 Orth, S. P., op. cit., p. 165.

• 8
 

86        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

tween these groups is clearly reflected in the following

statement:

These centers were completely isolated by the dense forests

that covered the entire territory. Means of communication were

imperfect. Each little group developed along the lines of its

previous training and traditions.  The differences in religion,

early education and ideas of local self-government were great.

There were Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Congrega-

tionalists, Moravians and Roman Catholics, each left alone in

isolated areas.  They fostered two different ideals of public

education,--the parochial school and the free school. Later this

led to considerable opposition in the legislature in behalf of public

education. For a number of years the state catered to the foreign

element, allowing the study of German in the public schools as a

substitute for English; and parochial schools in some of these

areas remained until the middle of the century the only schools

open to the youth.¹⁸

The two principal causes for the general decentral-

ized condition of the school system throughout the first

one hundred years of Ohio's statehood centered in these

differences of ideals, and the unfortunate experience of

the people with an autocratic territorial government.

The experiences of the past prevented the early settlers

from favoring a highly organized government. Vir-

ginia had been organized on the county basis. New

York and Pennsylvania were dominated by the "theory

of township and county amalgamation." The New

England states were almost irrevocably committed to

the practice of township or district autonomy. "This

early independence is shown by the action of the

Western Reserve, which preferred to obey the laws of

Connecticut rather than those of the territorial govern-

ment. It was not until Connecticut renounced all sov-

ereignty over the Reserve, in 1800, that its settlements

18 Ibid., p. 165.

• 9
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  87

voluntarily recognized the territorial acts."¹⁹ Evidence

of this variety of political ideals was further revealed

in the early establishment of academies and colleges in

each of the group centers. These schools reflected the

ideals of their founders.

The traditions of the State had been from the first

against centralization. The first Constitution  was

formed shortly after the bitter political struggle between

Jefferson and Adams. At this time feeling was run-

ning high against the territorial Governor, St. Clair,

who had governed the territory in a most autocratic

manner.²⁰ The first Constitution, therefore, stripped

the executive office of all authority worthy of mention;

and the second Constitution adopted in 1851, reflected

this historic prejudice against centralized executive

power. The Legislature assumed primary authority in

all state affairs, and with extreme caution delegated au-

thority to the several departments and agencies of the

state government. The situation is succinctly stated by

Rufus King: "Briefly stated, it was a government which

had no executive; a half-starved, short-lived judiciary;

and a lop-sided Legislature.^"21

The effect of this short-sighted policy on the part

of the Legislature was obvious in almost every phase

of the educational legislation before and after 1850.

One gains the distinct impression from a study of the

laws of that period that the Legislature was afraid to

delegate any serious administrative authority. More

19 Orth, S. P., op. cit., p. 166.

20 Miller, E. A., op. cit., p. 8.

21 Ohio, in American Commonwealth Series, p. 291. For a more detailed

discussion of the influence determining the formation of the two constitutions,

see Orth, S. P., op. cit., p. 167 ff.

• 10
 

88       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

than one-half of the school legislation between 1851

and 1900 was devoted to the enactment of special acts

which granted authority for the most trivial matters of

school administration. When a school district desired

to make more than the usual school building repairs, a

special act of the Legislature was necessary. When a

school district contemplated a bond issue to build a new

schoolhouse, the district was obliged to get a special

dispensation from the Legislature to proceed. The dis-

trict usually found that the minutest details of the

bond issue had been carefully worked out for them by

the Legislature, even to the size of the bonds, the time

within which these bonds should be paid in full, if not

the exact date of the payment of each bond, the interest

rate, the method of numbering and keeping a record

of them, and the names that should appear on the bonds

on behalf of the district.²² Thousands of dollars were

expended in prolonged sessions of the Legislature for

the purpose of transacting business that could have been

handled more efficiently through properly co-ordinated

executive channels.

Local autonomy in school and other affairs became

a habit in the life of the early pioneer.  He became

jealous of his voice in school matters. Every effort to

systematize school authority and enlarge the units of

school administration was met with determined re-

sistance. For this reason the district remained the unit

of control in fact if not in name, during the greater part

of the nineteenth century. When an attempt was made

in 1853 to unify the schools by making the township the

 

22 Ohio Laws, LXIII, 213; Ohio Local Laws, XCIII, 435.

• 11
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  89

unit of control,²³ the local districts set up a cry of "one

man power," nullified the act, and forced a recasting of

the law in favor of district control.²⁴ The semblance

of an effective county and state system of school control

still remained an unrealized dream of a few leaders of

education in the State, until near the close of the first

quarter of the twentieth century.

The growth in population from 1800 to 1925 was

very rapid. From a scattered group of settlements with

a population of 45,365 people in 1800, Ohio had in-

creased its population to 1,980,329 in 1850, to 4,157,545

in 1900, and to approximately 6,321,000 in 1925.25

This meant a decided breaking up of isolated community

life. The rural districts were very largely transformed

into settled farming communities. For the first fifty

years most of the increase in population was absorbed

into the agricultural regions. Only 151,375 or 7.6 per

cent of the population, had settled in urban centers by

the middle of the century. Almost 88 per cent of this

urban population was found in two cities.²⁶

This development of the agricultural life of Ohio

prior to 1850 made the school problem of that period

essentially a rural one. The legislation between 1803

and 1850 dealt primarily with the district school organi-

zation. The isolated community life, so characteristic

of the formative days of statehood, gradually disin-

tegrated under the impact of the great increase of popu-

lation which crowded in from every side. But the trans-

23 O. L., LI, 429.

24 See Chapter II, pp. 35-45. (This will be a different figure on page-

proof).

25 The World Almanac and Book of Facts, 1926.

26 U.S. Census, 1900.

• 12
 

90       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications formation was a slow process. The rapidity of the transformation was moderated by the influx of foreign- born, and the continued immigration from the older states. These groups tended to keep alive the diversity

of educational ideals and practices of the older inhab- itants. The rural districts felt these influences in a lessening degree from 1851 to 1925. The most marked change in the growth of popula- tion following 1850 was in the direction of urban de-

• 13
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925            91

velopment. The increase in population in the rural dis-

tricts was very slight between 1850 and 1890. There-

after it declined steadily. The static condition of the

rural situation is evidenced by the fact that the farm

acreage showed but a slight increase from 1850 to 1900,

while the loss in farm acreage between 1910 and 1920

alone aggregated 589,820 acres. The number of farms

under cultivation had shown a steady though slight in-

crease from 1850 to 1900. Between 1910 and 1920

a sharp decline of over 15,000 farms was experienced.

A glance at the following table will show the develop-

ment of the urban population in comparison with the

population of the entire state from 1810 to 1920.

 

TABLE I--COMPARATIVE GROWTH OF URBAN AND STATE

POPULATIONS 1810-1920--²7

Subject        1810  1830   1850    1870    1890   1900   1910    1920

Population of

State  .......230,760  937,903  1,980,329  2,665,260  3,672,329  4,157,545  4,767,121  5,759,394

Total urban

population  ....  2,540  42,831  151,375  517,909  1,159,342  1,599,840  2,279,447  3,288,164

Total rural

population  ....228,220  895,072  1,828,954  2,147,351  2,512,987  2,557,705  2,487,674  2,471,230

Percent urban

population  ....  1.1  4.5   7.6    19.4    31.6    38.5   47.8    57.1

Cities with over

8,000 population  ..   1      4      16      29      38     62      64

The increase in the urban over the rural population

from 1850 to 1920 amounted to 1609 per cent. If we

consider the increase in the  number of villages and

towns having a population of 500 to 4,000 during this

 

27 Prior to 1900 the Census Bureau classified as urban as distinguished

from rural that part of the population which resided in cities or towns of

8000 inhabitants or more. This basis of division between urban and rural

communities was used in the Census of 1900 for comparative purposes with

previous census reports. To make the statistical data comparable for the

period 1810-1920 in the above table, the census data for 1910 and 1920 have

been reduced to the basis of division for urban and rural populations used

in the previous census reports. Since 1910 the Census more properly has

designated as urban that portion of the population residing in cities and other

incorporated places having 2,500 inhabitants or more,

• 14
 

92        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

same period, we find the actual farming population in

1900 to have remained almost identical with that in

1850 and to have decreased noticeably by 1925. There

were less than 80 villages and towns with a population

of 500 to 4,000 in 1850, while there were about 370 such

villages and towns in 1900.

The situation is strikingly illustrated from the com-

parative data presented in the Census of 1920. Here

the total rural population for 1910 is placed at 2,101,-

978, of which 452,030 lived in incorporated places of

less than 2,500 inhabitants, leaving a total population in

farming or unincorporated territory of 1,649,948. In

1920 the total rural population is placed at 2,082,258, of

which 472,754 lived in incorporated places of less than

2,500 inhabitants, leaving a total in open or unincor-

porated territory of 1,609,504. This would indicate that

the entire gain in population for the seventy-five year

period from 1850 to 1925 was absorbed into the urban

or semi-urban communities with an actual and accelerat-

ing decrease in the farming and unincorporated village

population of the rural districts as we near the close of

the period. The following table, based upon the classifi-

cation as urban of those incorporated centers of popu-

lation of 2,500 inhabitants or more, will show more

clearly the urban trend of the State's population from

1890 to 1920.

 

TABLE II--COMPARATIVE GROWTH OF URBAN AND STATE

POPULATIONS 1890-1920

Subject                1890                      1900  1910          1920

Population  of  State..............3,672,329      4,157,545  4,767,121  5,759,394

Urban   Population  ...............1,504,390     1,998,382  2,665,143  3,677,136

Rural    Population ................,167,939       2,159,163  2,101,978  2,082,258

Percent Urban     Population........               41.0           48.1           55.9           63.8

Percent  Rural      Population ........              59,0           51.9           44.1           36.2

• 15
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  93

A brief survey of the industrial life of Ohio from

1850 to 1920 reveals a unique situation in the state.

Ohio, in 1920, held fourth place as to population in the

family of states; fourth in rank in the importance of its

agricultural products; and fourth in rank in its manu-

factured products. Ohio was conspicuously an agricul-

tural state prior to 1850, ranking first in the production

of cereals. Agriculture gradually receded after that

date from its position of first importance until in 1920

it shared with the manufacturing industry fourth rank

among the states. In 1810 the value of the manufac-

tured products for the state was a trifle more than

$2,000,000. In 1840 manufacturing was assuming a

position of importance, with a production value of ap-

proximately $31,500,000. In 1900 the value of manu-

factured materials had risen to $832,000,000 and in

1920 to $5,100,308,728. This was within a few million

of the value of the manufactured products of Illinois

which state ranked third in this industry.

A comparative valuation of the products of agricul-

ture and manufacture for Ohio in 1920 shows the manu-

facturing industry predominating. The value of agri-

cultural products was given at $607,037,562, while the

value of manufactured goods was given at many times

that amount, as indicated above.

It is not surprising, therefore, to discover that after

1850 the center of interest shifted from the rural to the

urban and city problems. The country or rural portion

of the state was undergoing changes, but these changes

were very slow, oftentimes almost imperceptible. The

urban development was very rapid and wholly new in

the experience of the people after 1850. Widely varying

• 16
 

94       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

conditions of life with their natural degree of isolation

and independence, made the solution of rural problems

seem less imperative. The new conditions in the more

crowded, interdependent and artificial village and city

mode of life, and a solution of the problems incident

thereto, not only needed attention but imperatively de-

manded it. Health, sanitation, transportation, and not

least of these, education, demanded immediate and

special attention. The General Assembly was looked

upon as the agency for the solution of all these difficul-

ties. A mass of legislation ensued which attempted to

grapple with a highly complex problem. The larger

cities presented special problems in themselves.  The

same seemed to be true in lesser degree of the smaller

cities and towns.

The framers of the Constitution, foreseeing the pos-

sibilities of an endless and hopelessly involved system

of special municipal charters, provided that cities should

be chartered by general laws.

Article XIII, Sec. 6, of the Constitution of 1851

reads: "The General Assembly shall provide for the

organization of cities, and incorporated villages, by gen-

eral laws, and restrict their power of taxation, assess-

ment, borrowing money, contracting debts and loaning

their credit, so as to prevent the abuse of such power."

Sec. I, of the same article states: "The General Assem-

bly shall pass no special act conferring corporate pow-

ers." Article II, Sec. 26, required a uniform application

of all general laws.

To avoid this evident intent of the law, special legis-

lation was enacted under cover of general laws which

• 17
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925            95

stated the limits of population within which the law ap-

plied. These limits were so fixed as to include only the

locality in whose behalf the law was framed. The en-

abling act of the following law²⁸ gives the general proce-

dure in such cases: "An act to provide for the election

of the board of education in cities of the second class

and fourth grade, having a population at the federal

census of 1890 of not less than 7,130 and not exceeding

7,160."

Hundreds of laws of this kind were passed from

1851 to 1900, although shortly thereafter some adverse

court decisions put a stop to the practice. To further aid

in such circumlocution of the Constitution, a highly

classified system of municipal corporations was created.

 

CITIES

Class I

Grade 1 .........   .........Over 200,000 inhabitants.

Grade 2 ......................From  90,000 to 200,000 inhabitants.

Grade 3 .....................From 31,500 to 90,000 inhabitants.

Grade 4 ......................Those promoted from Class II.

Class II

Grade 1 ......................From 30,500 to 31,500 inhabitants

Grade 2 ..................... From 20,000 to 30,500 inhabitants.

Grade 3......................From 10,000 to 20,000 inhabitants.

Grade 3a.....................From 28,000 to 33,000 inhabitants.

Grade 3b.....................From 16,000 to 18,000 inhabitants.

Grade 3c .....................From 15,000 to 17,000 inhabitants.

Grade 4 ......................From                                                  5,000 to 10,000 inhabitants.

Grade 4a.....................From                                                  8,000 to  9,500 inhabitants.

INCORPORATED VILLAGES

Class I   From 3,000 to 5,000 inhabitants.

Class II From 2,000 to 3,000 inhabitants.

HAMLETS

All villages under 2,000 inhabitants.29

This unusual attention given to the cities and towns

reflected the central interest which the General Assem-

 

28 O. L. L., XCI, 511; also O. L., LXXXI, 92.

29 Orth, S. P., op. cit., p. 16.

• 18
 

96       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

bly held in the legislation of the time. This effort to

meet individual situations was abundantly evidenced in

the school legislation. The educational problems were

entirely new in the state. Each local school situation

seemed to the Legislature to require special laws. The

magnitude and importance of the urban situation, as

reflected in the development of its population and in-

dustries, was expressed in the mass of school legisla-

tion enacted at this time which almost frantically at-

tempted to meet the needs of these groups of concen-

trated populations. The villages with a population of

500 or over, and especially those which had reached the

1,000 mark, found their educational needs and prob-

lems more closely associated with the city than with

the rural districts.  The outstanding educational ad-

vance from 1851 to 1925 was made in village and city

school legislation.

 

CHAPTER II

 

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

School District Organization

Prior to 1851, legislation concerning school districts

was limited in scope and fragmentary in character. The

principal legislation of this period centered about the

organization and finance of the local district. The first

general school act of Ohio, passed in 1821,1 provided for

the laying off of school districts in townships and for

the support of schools in those districts. The next act

of importance was passed in 1825.2 This law made very

 

1 O. L., XIX, 51.

2 Ibid., XXIII, 36.

• 19
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  97

little change in the district organization. It did attempt

to insure the districting of each incorporated township

by withholding from recalcitrant or negligent townships

their portion of the revenues which were collected from

school lands and by taxation. The Legislature nullified

the true force of this law by subsequent local legislation

which extended the time within which the districting of

the township had to be accomplished, and exempted

various townships from the operation of the law. The

most significant result of the legislation of 18383 was

the creation of a nominal state system of school organi-

zation. The township clerk was made the superintend-

ent of schools for the township, the county auditor had

the duties of the county superintendent attached to his

office, and the state superintendent stood at the head of

the entire system for the state. The duties of the town-

ship clerk and the county auditor consisted largely in

providing the channels through which the state super-

intendent was enabled to secure school data from the

districts and in turn distribute circulars and other infor-

mation from his office to the local schools. Theoretically,

the schools were provided with a system of organized

supervision; in practice, the plan was so ineffective that

beyond a half-hearted response to the requests of the

state superintendent for school data, there was little su-

pervision attempted. The last important legislation of

this period occurred in 1847, with the passage of a spe-

cial act which provided for the organization of schools

in the city of Akron.⁴ This law, known as the "Akron

Act" was made general the following year and applied

3 Ibid., XXXVI, 21.

4 O. L. L., XLV, 187.

Vol. XXXIX--7.

• 20
 

98       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications to all incorporated towns. Organization under the act re- mained optional with the towns eligible under its pro- visions. At the close of the first fifty years of school history in Ohio, we have found the organization of the school

system to have been loosely held together and to have been concerned almost wholly with the district. Even the district organizations were not identical in form, for a large per cent of the districts were special in character. The situation at the close of 1850 has been described as follows:

• 21
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925   99

 

Up to this date, then, there existed three varieties of districts.

First, the special act districts, depending upon special legislation.

These comprised about one-third of the districts of the State.

Their forms of administration were as various as their number.

Second, the School Board districts, organized under the Akron

Law. These comprised about one-half of the incorporated towns

and a few unincorporated ones, for in 1849 the act was extended

to all villages of two hundred inhabitants or more. Third, town-

ship or director districts. These included mostly the rural dis-

tricts, as well as many towns that had failed to take advantage

of the "Akron Law" and were not organized as special districts.

The "original surveyed" townships may be included in this group.⁵

The Secretary of State, in his annual report to the

Legislature in 1851,6 declared that a revision of the

school laws was imperative. In the revision that fol-

lowed, some changes in the district organization were

made.⁷ Trustees of incorporated townships, after due

notice, were to meet and divide the township into dis-

tricts where this had not been done already. Further,

upon the written request of five free-holders, the town-

ship trustees were empowered to change or abolish dis-

trict boundaries. This law was made to apply to dis-

tricts composed of two or more townships. Where the

change or abolition of joint township districts was in-

volved, the trustees of the townships concerned met and

settled the issues in question. The district officers con-

sisted of a clerk, treasurer, and board of directors. The

directors, three in number for each district, were elected

at the annual meeting of the district and held office for

three years. The directors of these districts were given

 

5 Orth, S. P., The Centralization of Administration in Ohio, p. 37.

6 King, Henry W., Annual Report of the Secretary of State, on the Con-

dition of the Common Schools, to the Fiftieth General Assembly of the State

of Ohio, for the Year 1851, p. 20.

7 O. L., XLIX, 27.

• 22
 

100      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

corporate powers and general supervision of the schools

and school property. They were constituted "A body

politic and corporate, in law, with power to contract and

be contracted with, sue and be sued, plead and be im-

pleaded in any court of law or equity in the State." The

district directors had the power to subdivide districts;

repair school buildings; provide supplies for the schools;

cause to be assessed and collected all taxes voted by the

Annual Meetings; appropriate and spend all moneys of

the district for school purposes; employ, pay and dis-

miss all teachers; select sites and erect school buildings;

establish rules governing the schools of the district not

inconsistent with those provided by law; and perform

all other necessary duties in connection with the schools

which were not specifically delegated to some other au-

thority. Since very little of the control of the schools

was delegated to others, the local district became almost

autonomous and the power of the local officers almost

complete.

An attempt was made in 1853 to unify the schools

of the township by creating a single township district

under a township Board of Education,⁸ with sub-dis-

tricts under the management of local directors. The

township board did not have jurisdiction over cities or

incorporated villages within the township. The town-

ship clerk, ex-officio the clerk of the Board, with the

power to vote only in the case of a tie, and the clerk of

each sub-district in the township composed the person-

nel of the Board of Education. Where there were only

two sub-districts in a given township, the directors of

 

8 O. L., LI, 429.

• 23
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  101

the two sub-districts together with the township clerk

comprised the Board of Education. The sub-districts

remained under the control of a board of directors who

were elected as provided in the law of 1851.

In the effort to unify the schools under the township

unit of control, the powers lodged with the local di-

rectors were almost completely transferred to the town-

ship Board of Education. So drastic was the legisla-

tion in this respect that the local directors became sim-

ply figure-heads from the standpoint of authority. It is

difficult, from a survey of the laws of this period to

determine just what authority the local directors did

possess other than that delegated to them by the town-

ship board. The township board had control of all

school property, paid out all school moneys through the

township treasurer, possessed the powers of a corporate

body, and exercised full power of control over education

in the township. This board employed the teachers, de-

termined their salaries, made the rules governing the

schools, dictated the curriculum to be taught, the text-

books to be used, and changed the sub-district bound-

aries at will. They were under one restriction here,

namely, they could not form a sub-district with less

than sixty pupils, although this limitation was nullified

by permitting exceptions when in the judgment of the

board such exceptions were desirable. To render this

control more complete the township board was given

the power to "appoint one of their number the acting

manager of the schools, for the board may prescribe in

relation to the management and supervision of the dif-

ferent schools, and the educational interests of the town-

• 24
 

102      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

ship, and may allow him a reasonable compensation for

his services."⁹

This same act provided for the management and con-

trol of all central high schools in the townships by the

township boards. It had been hoped that through this

provision many townships would avail themselves of

the opportunity to provide secondary education for their

children in the community. This phase of the law proved

to be a disappointment; very few high schools were or-

ganized under this act.

The hope of the effectiveness of this legislation, the

objective of which was the unification of the schools of

the township, was destined to disappointment. It was

more than could be expected that bodies of local di-

rectors would passively consent to holding figure-head

positions where such important matters as public edu-

cation in the community were involved. The school

system in effect had two boards to conduct the same

business. The State School Commissioner reported to

the Legislature that "the constant conflict of authority

between the members of the Board of Local Directors

and the Township Boards was a constant annoyance and

hindrance to effective work in the schools."¹⁰ Inasmuch

as the township board was composed of some of the

local directors and the township clerk ex-officio, it was

not long before the local directors began to assume more

and more authority. By tacit agreement, if not other-

wise, the local directors of each district found it pos-

sible to govern their own affairs with almost complete

 

^{9 I}bid., 429. The language of the law was "They may appoint one of

their number." This optional feature seems to have been little used.

10 Orth, S. P., op. cit., p. 38.

• 25
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  103

freedom, using the township organization as a perfunc-

tory body to give legal sanction to their activities.

The legislation concerning the township and sub-

districts for approximately the next forty years cen-

tered about the authority vested in the officers of these

two boards. A hint of the necessity of further defini-

tion of authority may be observed in the powers granted

to the township board in 1858,11 and reaffirmed in 186712

and 1868.13 When in the judgment of the township

board, any of the local districts or sub-districts had not

borne their proportionate share of the taxes for school

purposes, the board was granted power by the above

laws to make an estimate of the cost of school sites or

buildings and to assess taxes to cover the same against

the offending sub-districts. From 1853 to 1880 there

was little legislation of importance on the subject. Most

of the early opposition to the law had apparently sub-

sided.¹⁴

It must not be assumed, however, that after the first

few years of opposition to the system, everyone became

reconciled to a law that inherently contained elements

calculated to cause friction. We have indications in this

period of a state of unrest and continual bickering be-

tween the two boards. W. D. Henkle, in his report for

1869, gives special attention to this difficulty:

To our present system of township boards and local directors,

there are grave objections. A large proportion of the legal ques-

tions arising in the operation of the school law, grow out of the

11 O. L., LV, 155.

12 Ibid., LXIV, 22.

13 Ibid., LXV, 34.

14 State Commissioner of Common Schools, Fourth Annual Report,

p. 11.

• 26
 

104        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

conflict of local directors with township boards. There is scarcely

a day that the State Commissioner is not called upon to decide

such questions. The sub-districts often array themselves against

each other, instead of moving along in harmony and taking pride

in the success of all the schools in the township. It is believed

that the present mongrel system should give place to the purely

township system, in which all the schools of a township should be

under the exclusive control of a board of education, chosen by

the electors of the township.¹⁵

This attitude is given expression in varying degrees

by every State School Commissioner from 1869 to the

beginning of reform legislation in 1883. Charles S.

Smart comments upon this situation in his annual report

for 1875:

The 31,299 local directors are frequently at war with the

1,337 members of the township boards of education, making con-

fusion and bad work generally.16*

Further on in his discussion of the question, Mr.

Smart advocates the abolition of the sub-districts and

joint sub-districts, and making the township the unit of

control under a township board:

The 32,000 local directors and 13,000 members of township

district boards, almost constantly in some conflict as to authority

or duty, would give place to 8,000 members of township boards

of education, whose duties could be as well-defined and as free

from complication as are the duties of the city or village district

board of education.¹⁷*

15 Ibid., Sixteenth Annual Report, p. 5.

16 Ibid., Twenty-second Annual Report, p. 14.

¹⁷ Ibid., p. 16.

* These figures are correctly quoted but some of them are inconsistent

and incorrect, two of them almost ridiculously so. The number of sub-

district members 31,299 is evidently correct. The number of members of

township district boards is incorrect in both instances. The figures should be

10,433. In some way the number of township clerks in the state, 1337,

has been substituted for the number of members of the township district

boards in one instance. ED.

• 27
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  105

Beginning with 1883, there were indications of an

awakening interest in the subject of the powers of town-

ship boards. In the law of 188318 the school boards

were declared to be bodies politic and corporate with all

powers belonging thereto. This law was reaffirmed in

1888.19 The right to build and repair schoolhouses,

rent, and make all necessary provisions for schools, was

given to the sub-district directors when these functions

were exercised under the direction of the township

boards. The township boards were made responsible

for all contracts entered into by the sub-district directors

when the authority to make contracts had been so dele-

gated by the township boards to the sub-district di-

rectors.²⁰ The powers that could be exercised by the

sub-district directors under this law were further de-

fined at the next session of the Legislature.²¹ These at-

tempts to clarify the relationships between various

groups of school officials became increasingly important

as the need of a clearer definition of powers and duties

became more apparent. The situation is clearly set

forth by the State Commissioner of Schools in his report

of 1885:

With the exception of the comparatively few township dis-

tricts in which superintendents or principals are employed, the

condition of the schools in these districts is in most cases far from

being satisfactory  . . . The meager progress of the coun-

try schools of the State is not chargeable to school officers, teach-

ers, or pupils, but to the lamentable deficiencies of that part of the

Ohio school system which relates to schools in township districts.

Under the present law no township board of education has suffi-

 

18 O. L., LXXX, 36.

19 Ibid., LXXXV, 133.

20 Ibid., LXXXII, 86.

21 Ibid., LXXXIII, 84.

• 28
 

106       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications cient authority to enforce the rules and regulations for the govern- ment of the schools under their control, which they have sworn to prescribe. . . . The law should be so modified and im- proved as to define clearly the relations existing among teachers, directors in sub-districts, and township boards of education. Re- sponsibility in school management should be fixed somewhere.22

ANSON SMYTH State Commisioner of Common Schools, 1857-1863 Matters quickly came to a climax during the years 1890 and 1892. In the legislative session of 1890 a law was passed which definitely committed the control of the schools of the district to the township boards of ed- 22 State Commissioner of Common Schools, Thirty-second Annual Re- port, p. 3.

• 29
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  107

ucation, subject only to the provisions of section 4018 of

the school laws, which specified that contracts with

teachers shall not be entered into for a certain period

after the term of office of the members of the board ex-

pires.²³ This was followed by another law in 1892 abol-

ishing the sub-district directors' organization and plac-

ing complete power in the hands of the township

boards.²⁴  The law  provided that each sub-district

should elect one of its qualified electors as a director on

the second Monday of April, 1893. These directors

were to be divided into three equal classes, by lot, hold-

ing office for one, two, and three years respectively.

Upon subsequent elections the directors were to hold of-

fice for three years. Under this plan each sub-district

was represented by one director who was a member of

the township board which had the sole jurisdiction of

the schools in the sub-districts of the township. Under

the new law the board had the power to appoint a super-

intendent and assistant superintendent of schools, to

employ the teacher, and to provide for all the other

employees of the school.²⁵

The Workman Law, as the revised law of 1892 con-

cerning township boards was called, proved very suc-

cessful for several years. It received much favorable

comment and certainly did eliminate the confusion of

dual control through the abolition of the sub-district

board of directors. Nevertheless, the law removed from

the immediate control of the sub-district electorate some

of their cherished powers. From every quarter arose

23 O. L., LXXXVII, 372.

24 Ibid., LXXXIX, 93.

25 Ibid., XCI, 113.

• 30
 

108       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

the cry of "one man power" and "the rights of the

people." The Commissioner of Schools, in his report for

1895, found it necessary to undertake a defense of the

law, so prevalent seemed the criticism against it.²⁶

No surprise is experienced, therefore, when we find

the Legislature providing that in the April school elec-

tions of 1898, a modified reversion to the sub-district

director organization should be consummated.²⁷ Under

this law, the township board organization stood as it did

under the Workman Law of 1892. The modification

of the law is expressed in the provision for the election

of two additional sub-district representatives known as

sub-directors. These sub-directors could never become

directors by virtue of their office. To them was given

the authority to pass upon the curriculum, text-books,

and in general, the election of the teachers.²⁸

The township board was required under this law to

organize three standing committees: one on text-books

and teachers; another on buildings and grounds; and a

third on supplies. The power of these committees was

limited to making recommendations, and their recom-

mendations became binding only upon the approval of

the Board of Education. The township school organi-

zation had, to a considerable extent, gone back to a dual

system of board control.

 

26 State Commissioner of Common Schools, Forty-second Annual Report,

p. 6 ff.

27 O. L., XCIII, 45.

28 Bonebrake, Lewis D., Commissioner of Schools, gives his opinion on

the legal rights of the sub-directors to elect the teachers, thus--"Section 4017

places the final election and employment of teachers in the hands of the

township board of education." Ohio School Law in Force, April 16, 1900,

p. 54.

• 31
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  109

The next session of the Legislature provided for cen-

tralized township schools.²⁹ This law defined "centrali-

zation" in this connection as "a system of schools in a

township providing for the abolishment of all sub-dis-

tricts and the conveyance of pupils to one or more cen-

tral schools." The board of education consisted of five

members who were elected from the township at large

and who held their office for three years, with the town-

ship clerk and township treasurer as ex-officio members.

The old township board was supplanted by this board

and the laws relative to villages were made to apply

to the government of these centralized township schools.

The law provided that the pupils should be conveyed to

these centralized schools at public expense. A graded

course of instruction was required, and a two-year high

school was authorized as a minimum.

In 1904 the township districts which had not sup-

ported centralized schools were definitely centralized in

control. The boards of education in such townships

were made to consist of five members elected at large.

The sub-districts thenceforth elected one director who

became simply "the organ of communication between

the inhabitants and the township board of education"

and the local overseer of the sub-district school under

the explicit direction of the township board.30

An extensive reorganization of school districts took

place during the years 1914-1915. The change in

191431 of the township district to a rural school district

with limited duties, the establishment of the county dis-

29 O. L., XCIV, 317.

30 Ibid., XCVII, 344.

31 Ibid., CIV, 133.

• 32
 

110      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

trict with extensive authority, and in 191532 the prac-

tical elimination of the sub-district as a factor in de-

termining school policy, brought to a close the long

struggle to retain local control of the schools.

Joint sub-districts were the cause of much trouble

during the latter part of the nineteenth century. The

School Commissioners' reports for that period reveal a

constant friction between joint sub-districts and the

townships of which they formed a part. Matters of

control, taxation, where to make reports, etc., caused a

never-ending source of trouble, which is reflected in the

legislation that attempted to clarify the duties and pow-

ers both of the joint sub-district directors and the town-

ship officials immediately concerned. There was no im-

portant legislation concerning the joint sub-districts

prior to 1900. In 1904,³³ with the existence of the gen-

eral tendency to larger unit control, the joint sub-district

was abolished and the territory of these districts re-

stored to their proper townships.

In contrast with the township or rural school district

is the special school district, one of the unique features

of the Ohio school system. These districts owed their

existence to special legislation which created them as in-

dependent districts. During the period from 1851 to

1900 there was a mass of legislation passed which cre-

ated special school districts in the State. Prior to 1850

there seem to have been but few such districts. The

State School Commissioner, in his report for 1854, gives

the following estimate of the number of special school

districts in Ohio:

³² Ibid., CVI, 396.

33 O. L., XCVII, 334.

• 33
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  111

There are 1,514 Boards of Education in the State, of which

104 may be termed special districts, consisting of cities, towns

and villages, with a population exceeding three hundred.³⁴

These special districts were independent of the town-

ship or other regularly classified types of district. They

were responsible to the State School Commissioner

alone, as the supervisory officer of the entire state school

system.³⁵ They were, however, subject to certain penal-

ties that could be imposed upon these districts by the

county auditor. The county treasurer could not pay out

school moneys to the special school districts until the

county auditor had certified that the local officers had

complied with the law which provided for the return

of school statistics to the state commissioners' officer.

Usually there were some distinct provisions govern-

ing each special district created. Beyond these special

provisions, each district was governed by the general

laws applicable to the type of district organization which

the special district might choose to adopt. The chief ad-

vantage of the special district lay in its power to or-

ganize around a chosen unit of interest. Where terri-

tory was sparsely settled, it became an advantage to

certain groups to organize a school unit around a settled

community or small village rather than to organize on a

mechanical geographical or political unitary basis. No

doubt, under the conditions that existed in the Ohio

school system of this period, the comment of LeRoy D.

Brown concerning special school districts gives the most

potent factors in the popularity of this type of organiza-

tion:

34 State Commissioner of Common Schools, Annual Report, 1854, p. 4.

35 O. L., LI, 429, Sec. 67. Also Ohio School Laws, 1865, p. 83.

• 34
 

112       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

Special school districts have usually been created either to

avoid the payment of school tax to be expended in part by ad-

jacent schools, or to secure better school accommodations and

privileges than are possible under the double-headed or no-headed,

sub-district-director-township-board system.³⁶

Special school districts, prior to 1873, remained very

indefinite as to their nature, organization and powers.

This fact is made very clear by a canvass of the legisla-

tion on the subject. Most of the acts creating special

districts seem primarily concerned with boundaries. In

the Fourth Edition of the Schools Laws of Ohio, 1865,

the Commissioner in his "Opinions" tries to define the

terms "separate" and "special" as applied to districts.

His remarks add light on the school practice of the time

both in legislation and administration:

By Section 32, a city or incorporated village organized as a

school district under the general school law, is called a "Separate

School District"; and by Section 67, a school district organized

under any special law is called a "Special School District." This

distinction is not, however, preserved in other sections and acts,

the terms "separate" and "special" being used indiscriminately to

denote any school district other than a township, whether organ-

ized under a general or special law.³⁷

This explanation clarifies the current practice, in

school reports of the time, of dividing the schools into

two classes, namely, township schools and separate

schools.

A re-definition and classification of the school dis-

tricts was undertaken in 1873.38 The principal benefit

of this law was to define "special school districts" by a

careful definition of the other types of districts which

36 State Commissioner of Common Schools, Thirty-second Annual Re-

port, p. 3.

37 Ohio School Laws, Fourth Edition, 1865, p. 6.

38 O. L., LXX, 195.

• 35
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  113

were created under the new law, and to provide a dis-

tinct body of laws governing these districts. The actual

meaning of a "special district" is not clear, as is evident

from the law. Section 3891 under this law reads:

Any school district now existing, other than those mentioned

in sections  .  .  . which has been established by a vote of the

people in accordance with any act of the general assembly, or

which has been established by a general or local act of the general

assembly, shall constitute a school district to be styled a special

district; and such districts may be established as provided in

chapter five of this title.

Three things, however, stand out clearly as a result

of this legislation. The "special district" is made to

include everything not specifically brought within the

definition of the other five classes of school districts

mentioned.³⁹    Further, there    is provided    a  definite

method by which to proceed in establishing special dis-

tricts. Finally, for the first time these districts were

given a definite code of laws by which to govern them-

selves, in addition to those laws which belonged to them

by virtue of the special acts of the General Assembly

creating these special school districts.

The law of 1873, which provided for the government

of special districts, underwent no important change for

over a quarter of a century. The law was closely mod-

eled after the legislation governing the city districts of

the second class, and village districts; frequent option

being given to adopt the provisions that governed these

in respect to certain sections of the law. The board of

 

39 The School Commissioner, giving his opinion on this section defining

the "special district" concluded, "the terms 'separate district,' 'independent

district,' 'union school district' are here shown to be obsolete." Ohio School

Laws, 1880, p. 7.

Vol. XXXIX--8.

• 36
 

114      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications education was elected for a period of three years and consisted of three members. Except where six members were desired, provision was made for their election in the same manner as in the city districts of the second

class, and village districts. The board of education was vested with complete authority within the district, sub- ject to the general statutes which governed education in the State, and not conflicting with the special privi- leges that had been conferred upon the district by legis- lative act.

• 37
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  115

The special school district proved to be a very popu-

lar form of school organization. In 1872, the year be-

fore the above law went into effect, there were 549 sep-

arate school districts.⁴⁰ The large amount of special

legislation on the subject did not become noticeable until

after 1890. In 1881 the number had increased to 693

city, village, and special districts.⁴¹ Certain abuses of

the law were becoming noticeable at this time and pro-

voked considerable attention.      State School Commis-

sioner, D. F. DeWolf, commenting upon the loose inde-

pendent school organization, declared:

These difficulties are also aiding to promote another serious

evil, the growing desire for carving special districts out of the

more populous and wealthy parts of the townships, thus leaving

the sub-districts disconnected, often poor, and for all time incapa-

ble of any common interest. In some cases townships are cut

across, or even diagonally, in this way. Cases have even occurred

where all but a single poor sub-district were absorbed in special

districts. The law now renders this disintegration easy, and the

evil is becoming so serious as to demand careful consideration.⁴²

This abuse of the law resulted in a Supreme Court

decision which declared that the law providing for the

creation of special districts was in violation of Section

26, Article II of the Constitution, and thus unconstitu-

tional.⁴³ Following this decision few new districts were

organized, but most of the old districts disregarded the

decision.⁴⁴

In February, 1889, the Supreme Court reversed its

40 State Commissioner of Common Schools, Nineteenth Annual Report,

p. 7.

^{41 I}bid., Twenty-eighth Annual Report, p. 11.

42 Ibid., 39.

43 38 O. S., 54.

44 State Commissioner of Common Schools, Thirty-second Annual Re-

port, p. 3.

• 38
 

116       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

decision and declared special school districts were not in

violation of the Constitution.⁴⁵ The result was a mass of

special acts during the nineties which created special

districts.  There were 1,067 such school districts re-

ported in 1900, of which number 62 were designated

city districts.⁴⁶ However, the special school district

continued to be looked upon with disfavor. In 1906

the Court of Common Pleas and the Circuit Court de-

clared in an action which involved special districts that

they were unconstitutional.⁴⁸ The Supreme Court also

declared that a special school district created by "a

special act" was unconstitutional.⁴⁹ When the reclassi-

fication of school districts occurred in 1914 the special

school district as such was abolished. It thenceforth

became a rural school district under the reorganized

school district system. The new law read as follows:

"The present existing township and special school dis-

tricts shall constitute rural school districts until changed

by the county board of education."⁵⁰

The legislation of 1914-15 which reorganized the

basic unit of district control stands out as the most sig-

nificant and far-reaching of the period on this subject.

The law of 1914 reclassified the school districts;

"styled, respectively, city school districts, village school

districts, rural school districts and county school dis-

tricts."⁵¹ The two types of districts met with for the

45 46 O. S., 275.

46 State Commissioner of Common Schools, Forty-seventh Annual Re-

port, p. 42.

48 State Commissioner of Common Schools, Fifty-third Annual Report,

p. 9.

49 73 O. S., 54.

50 O. L., CIV, 138.

51 Ibid., CIV., 133.

• 39
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  117

first time are the rural school district and the county

school district. As has been suggested previously, when

the special school district with its unusual privileges

was abolished it became a rural school district with the

same status as the former township school district which

by the same law changed its name to that of rural school

district.

However, the rural school districts ceased to retain

autonomous control of the schools within their borders.

The important unit of school control brought into being

by the legislation of 1914 was the county school dis-

trict. At last the advocates of a larger unit of school

control had won.   By the provisions of this act all

school territory, excepting city school districts and vil-

lage school districts with a population of three thousand

or more which by vote had indicated a desire to remain

without the jurisdiction of the county district, were to

be included in a county school district. The county

school district was placed under the control of a county

board of education composed of five members, elected

by the presidents of the various village and rural boards

of education in the county school districts. At least one

member of the county board of education was required

to be a resident of a village school district when such

comprised a part of the county district unit and at least

three of the board were required to represent the rural

districts. All school districts, other than city or village,

within a civil township were entitled jointly to one vote

in the election of the county board of education.⁵² The

method of election was changed in 1921.⁵³ Thereafter,

52 Ibid., CIV, 136.

53 Ibid., CIX, 242.

• 40
 

118      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications nominations were made by petitions signed by at least one per cent of the qualified electors of the county dis- trict. The election took place at the same time and in the same manner as the regular election of other boards of education.

The powers conferred upon the county board of edu- cation were extensive. These powers made possible ef- fective control of education within the county unit. The board was given unqualified authority and was com- manded by law to survey existing school conditions; "ar-

• 41
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  119

range the schools according to topography and popula-

tion in order that they may be most easily accessible to

pupils"; disregard township lines when the reorganiza-

tion best served the purpose of school efficiency; and

made this possible simply "by resolution at any regular

or special meeting to change school district lines and

transfer territory from one rural or village school dis-

trict to another."⁵⁴ The arbitrary power to change dis-

trict boundaries without regard to the sentiment of the

districts concerned was modified by the Legislature the

following year.⁵⁵ The county boards, thereafter, were

required to file notice with the local district boards con-

cerned, of such proposed change. Unless the local dis-

tricts filed a written remonstrance signed by a majority

of the qualified electors within thirty days of the notice

given, the action of the county board became effective.

To insure larger rural districts and guarantee proper fi-

nancial support for the schools, the county board was re-

quired to see that all districts created contained not less

than fifteen square miles, and as far as possible to pro-

vide that all districts were equal in property valuation.

Further, the county board was authorized to prescribe

a minimum course of study for the village and rural

schools with the advice of the county superintendent.56

Educationally, the two most significant aspects of

the county district system were, first, the provision for

a county superintendent, and second, the creation of

district superintendencies within the county district.

The county superintendent, appointed by the county

 

54 Ibid., CIV, 138.

55 Ibid., CVI, 396.

56 Ibid., CIV, 140.

• 42
 

120       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

board of education, was made the executive officer of

the county board, charged with the general oversight

of the county school district,⁵⁷ and authorized to recom-

mend nominations of district superintendents for

election by the supervisory districts of the county.⁵⁸ He

was further required to meet regularly with the district

superintendents to counsel and advise them, visit and

inspect schools, assume direct supervision of the train-

ing of teachers in the county, spend part of his time in

actual teaching in teacher training schools,59 and issue

eighth grade certificates.60 The qualifications for the

office of county superintendent were reasonably high

when the extent of this centralizing movement is taken

into consideration. High standards of experience and

training were insisted upon with the emphasis directed

toward college and professional training.⁶¹ During the

next decade no change of moment occurred in the office

of county superintendent.

The division of the county into supervisory districts

with district superintendents resulted in a very superior

grade of educational work in the schools of Ohio. As

previously suggested, the county boards were required

to divide the county districts into supervisory districts

of about equal proportions when such factors had been

taken into consideration as topography, road conditions,

number of teachers employed, as well as the amount of

 

57 Ibid., CIV, 142.

58 Ibid., CIV, 140-141. By a majority vote of the village and rural dis-

trict representatives, as provided by law, district superintendents might be

elected without nomination by the county superintendent.

59 Ibid., CIV, 144.

60 Ibid., CIV, 126.

61 Ibid., CIV, 143.

• 43
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  121

consolidation and centralization present in any part of

the districts concerned. The proposed supervisory dis-

trict had to include not less than twenty teachers, nor

more than sixty. The election of the district super-

intendent was effected by joint vote of the representa-

tives of the several rural or village districts included in

the supervisory district, from the nominees suggested

by the county superintendent.⁶² The district superin-

tendent became the executive officer of the several boards

of education which comprised his supervisory district;

made the nominations of teachers to the district boards

for election; was required to devote three-fourths of his

time in actual classroom supervision; to classify and

control the promotion of pupils; to assemble the teach-

ers of his district together for conference and instruc-

tion; to assist in matters of discipline and school man-

agement; to suggest to the boards suitable texts and

courses of study; and in general to discharge the duties

necessary to the welfare of the schools under his charge.

He was in general chargeable to the county superintend-

ent. As in the case of the county superintendent the

qualifications of district superintendents were reason-

ably high. Considerable emphasis was placed upon ad-

ministrative experience and training.63

The tendency toward a more complete county unit

of school control was evidenced by the legislation of

1921.   The district superintendency plan underwent

drastic modification. The purposes and duties of these

 

62 Ibid., CIV, 140. By a majority vote of the representatives of the

rural and village districts, a district superintendent might be elected though

not nominated by the county superintendent.

⁶³ Ibid., CIV, 143.

• 44
 

122      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

supervisory superintendents seems to have remained

much the same, but these officials were placed directly

under the control of the county superintendents, and

their scope of activities made more flexible. The name

was changed from district superintendents to assistant

county superintendents. These assistants were elected

by the county board of education upon the nomination

of the county superintendent. As appointees they were

placed under the direct supervision of the county su-

perintendent and could be assigned to any type of work

required of the county office at the discretion of the su-

perintendent.⁶⁴ By this change jurisdiction of the local

schools passed from the control of the rural districts to

the county district, and in a large measure to the county

superintendent. Thus the dream of many Ohio school

leaders of a county unit of organization and control in

education became a reality. Closely allied with the dis-

cussion of the special district should be the consideration

of the more general laws concerning incorporated vil-

lages and cities. Much of the special legislation between

1850 and 1925 concerned the city units of school organ-

ization. There is so much of the legislation so distinctly

applicable to the cities alone that it has seemed the better

plan to consider the village and city legislation as a unit.

Much of the more general legislation applicable to all

districts has been considered already. There remains for

our consideration at this point, then, a brief survey of

the legislation of this period which provided for a more

detailed classification of school districts.

There were three types of school districts in Ohio at

 

64 Ibid., CIV, 243.

• 45
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  123

the close of the first fifty years of the State's school his-

tory.   As a matter of policy, school districts were

treated, during this period, as consisting of only two

types, namely, special districts and township district

organizations.64a This is further evidenced by the con-

sistent policy of school commissioners to make only two

classifications in their annual reports. With the legisla-

tion of 1873,65 the state began a policy of school-district

classification that bordered upon the absurd before its

complete development was checked. The legislation of

1873 divided the schools of Ohio into the following dis-

tricts:

1 -- City districts of the first class, population 10,000

or more.

2 -- City districts of the second class, population

under 10,000.

3 -- Village districts.

4 -- Township districts.

5 -- Special districts.

With the rapid growth of population in the State,

and the development of villages and cities, this classifi-

cation served a very useful purpose. Another classifi-

cation of school districts was made in the legislation of

1887. By the classification of this date, the five districts

enumerated in the law of 1873 remained unchanged.

City growth during this period had been phenomenal.

The need was felt of superimposing upon the classifica-

64a Ohio School Laws, Fourth Edition, 1865, p. 5. The State School Com-

missioner in his Opinions and Instructions makes only two classifications of

school districts. He includes city, village and special districts, technically so

considered, within one group.

65 Ibid., LXX, 195.

• 46
 

124        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

tion of 1873 two additional classes of districts to pro-

vide for the rapidly expanding cities whose population

and school system had outgrown the provisions of

previous district legislation. The additional districts

were styled:

(1)   City districts of the first grade of the first

class, having a population of 250,000 or more.

(2)   City districts of the second grade of the first

class, having a population of 150,000 or more, but less

than 250,000.66 The high water mark in school district

classification was reached eleven years later. The Leg-

islature in 189867 made the classification of school dis-

tricts as follows:

City Districts

First class, first grade, cities with population of

250,000 or more.

First class, second grade, cities with population of

150,000 to 250,000.

First class, third grade, cities with population of

100,000 to 150,000.

First class, cities with population of 10,000 to

100,000.

Second class, cities with population under 10,000.

Village Districts.

Special Districts.

Township Districts.⁶⁸

 

66 Ibid., LXXXIV, 184.

67 Ibid., XCIII, 165.

68 Sub-districts and joint sub-districts are sometimes erroneously classi-

fied as districts in giving a list of different school districts in Ohio. School

Commissioner's Opinion, Ohio School Laws, 1900, p. 17. "A sub-district or

joint sub-district is not a school district within the meaning of the law."

• 47
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  125

With the rapid increase in city populations, this in-

tricate and meaningless policy of classification on a

population basis became hopeless. A simplification in

the methods of classification became imperative. The

classification of school districts as it affected the cities

particularly, was reorganized by the law of 1904.69 By

this law, school districts were classified on a much sim-

pler basis. A comparison of the following table which

gives the classification for 1904, with that of 1898 will

show this drastic change:

1 -- City School Districts.

2 -- Village School Districts.

3 -- Township School Districts.

4 -- Special School Districts.

This less complicated type of district classification

was still in vogue in 1925. In that year the following

five-fold classification of school districts was used:

1 -- City School Districts.

2 -- Exempted Village School Districts.

3 -- Village School Districts.

4 -- Rural School Districts.

5 -- County School Districts.

Some slight modifications of this classification

were recognized to care for the needs of certain cities

under 50,000 population, between 50,000 and 150,000,

and for cities in excess of 150,000 population.

 

SUMMARY

The school district organization underwent a radi-

cal change during the last seventy-five years of the

69 Ohio School Laws, 1904, p. 14. See also O. L., CIX, 552.

• 48
 

126     Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

State's history. The middle of the nineteenth century

found the school districts of the state organized about

the rural schools, with independent district control, and

with the township or portion of the township forming

the district unit. The law of 1853 attempted to make

the township the unit of control, with the sub-district

subsidiary. After shifting back and forth for almost

a half a century between the township and sub-district

as the major unit of administration, the township was

made the basis of administration for the rural schools

in 1900, and the county became the dominant adminis-

trative unit after 1914. The radical change in the city

school district organization occurred during the years

from 1870 to 1905. This change was occasioned by the

rapidly developing city and village life in the State. In

1850 Ohio had very few cities and a small urban popu-

lation. In 1925 the State had a large number of mu-

nicipalities, with almost two-thirds of her population

urban in character. To provide adequate school ad-

ministration for this situation, the Legislature, about

1870, began to develop new types of district organiza-

tion. A number of new district organizations were

created to meet the needs of the city. The peak of this

movement was reached in 1898 with the development of

five new types of school district organizations, unknown

prior to 1873. In 1904 a simpler type of city school

district classification was adopted.

School Officers

The school officers in 1850 consisted of three direc-

tors for the local district, one of whom was chosen as

clerk and treasurer. The board of district officers was

• 49
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925   127

changed in 185170 to consist of three directors, a clerk,

and a treasurer. These officers constituted the usual

district organization prior to 1900, with some changes

to meet the township and sub-district modifications.*

The law of 1838 created the offices of township and

county superintendents. These offices were ex-officio

and the duties of the holders were attached to those of

the township clerk and the county auditor respectively.⁷¹

In 1848 the office of county superintendent of schools

became optionally a separate and elective office where

the electorate chose to have the same a separate office.⁷²

Few counties chose to have an active superintendent.

Permanency and authority were given the office of

county superintendent in 1914.⁷³ The office was made

compulsory. Also, associates, styled district superin-

tendents, and later called assistant county superintend-

ents, were added to the county organization at this time.

The Secretary of State, in 1850, performed the du-

ties of a state superintendent. The act of 185374 re-

stored the office of State School Commissioner which

had been abolished in 1840. This office since its restora-

tion has steadily developed more power and influence

over educational policies in the State.

 

70 Ibid., XLIX, 27.

* Details of these changes have been quite fully discussed in the treatment

of the district. A duplication of that discussion will not be undertaken.

Our interest at this point is primarily to give some indication of outstand-

ing changes that affect the school system at large. The organization of the

city, while more elaborate, follows a fundamental principle which character-

ized all district officers in Ohio School Districts.

71 O. L., XXXVI, 21.

72 Ibid., XLVI, 86.

73 Ibid., CIV, 133.

⁷⁴ Ibid., LI, 429.

• 50
 

128      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications School Property School property was the cause of much legislation in this period, especially following the Civil War, as the State became more thoroughly populated. In the expansion of the school system, one of the natural prob-

lems which confronted school boards was the selection of proper school sites for buildings and grounds. This problem arose early in Ohio's school expansion. The law of 186075 took cognizance of this fact by authorizing 75 Ibid., LVII, 9.

• 51
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  129

boards of education forcibly to acquire for school pur-

poses property of private owners when the owners

would not "listen to reasonable terms." The law pro-

vided that this might be done by an appeal to the probate

judge for condemnation proceedings. The provision

for the appropriation of property for school purposes

was carried further in the legislation of 1894.76 Through

this law municipalities and villages were enabled to ap-

propriate property for colleges and universities upon

the recommendation of the boards of directors of these

institutions. But this privilege could be exercised only

when the boards of directors were the appointees of the

villages or municipalities desiring to make such prop-

erty appropriation. This privilege was also conceded

to various corporations in relation to school property,

as in the case of railroads condemning school property

for right of way purposes.⁷⁷ The right of corporations

to appropriate property, however, was carefully limited

in favor of the schools. The law exempting school

property to the amount of four acres from sale or ex-

ecution was of this general tenor.⁷⁸ If there were more

than four acres in the school property, then the school

board was given the right to specify what portion of

the property comprising four acres should be exempted.

School property used for school purposes was uni-

formly exempt from taxation. The law of 185179 speci-

fied that school buildings, grounds, furniture, etc., were

exempted from taxation. This law provided that the

 

76 Ibid., XCI, 213.

77 Ibid., LI, 487; LXIX, 88.

⁷⁸ Ibid., LI, 429.

79 Ibid., XLIX, 58.

Vol. XXXIX--9.

• 52
 

130      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

property of colleges and other educational organizations

which were devoted exclusively to educational purposes

should be exempted from taxation when the charter

provisions of these institutions so specified, or when

the value of the property did not exceed $10,000. The

next year this law was modified to exclude from tax

exemption leasehold estates and real property held un-

der the title of any university or college of the state.⁸⁰

In 186481 tax exemption was extended to cover lease-

hold and other property when used by a municipality,

village or school district for the exclusive purpose of

furthering free education. This law paved the way for

exemption of endowments of state-supported institu-

tions. There was a mass of legislation from 1850 to

1925 reaffirming the freedom from taxation of property

used exclusively for school purposes. This did not al-

low exemption from taxation, of school and ministerial

lands, nor other property held under lease by scientific

or benevolent societies for periods exceeding fourteen

years which was not subject to revaluation.⁸² School

property could not be assessed for public improvements

such as sidewalks, street paving, etc.⁸³

There were some general laws passed during this

period to further facilitate the sale, leasing and trans-

fer of school property. These laws generally provided

that this authority should be exercised by the boards of

education. They could sell school property,⁸⁴ exchange

84 O. L., LIII, 185.

80 O. L. L, 135.

⁸¹ Ibid., LXI, 39.

82 Ibid., LXXVIII, 32.

83 Case of Board of Education vs. City of Toledo, 48 O. S., 83. Ohio

School Laws, 1900, p. 86.

• 53
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  131

lots when the interests of the school demanded,⁸⁵ trans-

fer school territory from one district to another by mu-

tual consent,⁸⁶ or lease school buildings and property

when in their judgment such procedure was for the best

interests of the schools. Judging from the mass of

special acts passed relating to these questions, very few

school boards felt at liberty to act in these transactions

without special legislative permission. The legislative

documents prior to 1900 are literally cluttered with these

special acts granting individual authority to boards of

education to lease school property,⁸⁷ build or repair

buildings and borrow money.⁸⁸

The same care of school property appearing in the

legislation cited above has also been exhibited in the

protection of school property against damage. For the

destruction of school property a fine of $100 or a jail

sentence not to exceed ninety days, was imposed.⁸⁹ Six

years later, 1866, the law was amended to provide for a

fine of $100 and a jail-sentence until the fine was paid,

for injuring or defacing buildings, books, or fixtures

belonging to the schools.⁹⁰ Evidently this legislation

was not deemed drastic enough, for in 1877, the fine

was increased to $300 plus a term of sixty days im-

prisonment.⁹¹ The law was amended later to make the

entering of a school building by day or night, with in-

 

85 Ibid., LXX, 193.

86 Ibid., LXXXIX, 68.

87 O. L. L., LXXXVI, 423.

88 O L. L., LXXX, 349.

89 O. L., LVII, 86.

90 O. L., LXIII, 175.

91 Ibid., LXXIV, 240.

• 54
 

132      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

tent to commit a felony, punishable by imprisonment in

the penitentiary.⁹²

While the State was careful to protect the schools

from damage, it did not recognize the practice of using

school buildings for other than school purposes until

late in the 'eighties. This is true from a purely legal

standpoint. The law gave the school boards almost

complete authority over the schools, but did not specify

their use for other than routine purposes. The school

commissioners, however, do recognize the use of school

buildings for other than school purposes.    In the

Opinions given with the Ohio School Laws, Fourth

Edition, 1865, p. 18, the Commissioner ruled that school

boards might permit the use of buildings for "any ob-

ject of social or moral improvement which the local

directors of the inhabitants may sanction and desire."

He indicated some of the desirable objects for which

the school buildings might with profit be used, as--re-

ligious meetings, Sabbath-schools, lectures or other lit-

erary endeavors. This Opinion is sustained by the

Commissioner in the Ohio School Laws, 1880, p. 53;

except that he ruled that if one elector objected, the

building could not be used for religious purposes.

A local act in 188693 granted the right to the school

boards of Wheelersburg Special School District and of

Porter Township, Scioto County, to rent their school-

houses for the use of Teachers' Institutes and Select

Schools. This was followed by a general act in 1889

giving school boards the right to allow the use of school

buildings for any purpose which in their judgment

92 Ibid., LXXVIII, 28, C, 5.

93 O. L. L., LXXXIII, 384,

• 55
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  133

would be of benefit to the children, so long as such a

privilege did not interfere with the regular work of

the school.⁹⁴ A number of minor changes were made in

this law at every session of the Legislature for the next

five years. In 1894 an important amendment to this

law was passed, which gave the boards of education

full authority to permit the use of the school buildings

for the ordinary purposes previously cited in the several

laws on the subject, and "for any other lawful pur-

poses."⁹⁵ This law received numerous additions and

modifications between 1894 and 1925, but the spirit of

the act of 1894 has been maintained throughout.⁹⁶

Education, Free and Universal

The germ of free and universal education was pres-

ent in the first Constitution adopted by the State of

Ohio.⁹⁷ There was no definite provision made for edu-

cation in this State charter. A somewhat general decla-

ration in Article Eight of the Constitution recognized

the principle of universal educational suffrage. Indeed,

it was not until some years later that Ohio enacted a

law which attempted to make an expressed principle of

the Constitution concrete and effective in the life of the

people.⁹⁸ The general tendency of the legislation for

the first half-century of Ohio's history seems to have

been that of providing the machinery for universal edu-

cation and then depending upon the local initiative of

 

94 O. L., LXXXVI, 11.

95 Ibid., XCI, 44.

96 Ibid., CVI, 552; CVII, 449, 607.

97 Ohio Constitution, Art. 8, Sections 3, 25, 27.

98 O. L., XIX, 51.

• 56
 

134       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

the several communities to make this machinery effec-

tive.99

Ohio's second Constitution, adopted in 1851, indi-

cated a long step forward in educational thought from

the Constitution of 1803. In the Bill of Rights, it is

declared that:

Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential

to good government, it shall be the duty of the General Assembly

to pass suitable laws, . . . and to encourage schools and the

means of instruction.¹⁰⁰

Then, instead of stopping with this lofty declara-

tion, the Constitution provided that "the General As-

sembly shall make such provisions, by taxation, or

otherwise, as . . . will secure a thorough and

efficient system  of common schools throughout the

State."¹⁰¹

The law of 1849 was amended in 1870, making the

constitutional provisions for free education more spe-

cific. This amendment specified that children, wards,

and apprentices of actual residents of Ohio were enti-

tled to free admission into the common schools of the

State.¹⁰² Three years later the principle of universal

education was further emphasized by the passage of a

law which declared that the schools of each district

should be free to all youths between the ages of six and

twenty-one who were children, wards, or apprentices of

residents of the State. Some option was given to the

school boards regarding admittance of those of the

 

99 Miller, E. A., op. cit., p. 8.

100 Ohio Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 7.

101 Ibid., Art. VI, Sec. 2.

102 O. L., LXVII, 101.

• 57
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925           135

 

above group or those under six years of age, on a tuition

basis. Children residing in another district could be

admitted to the schools of any district in which part of

the property of the parent or guardian was located.¹⁰3

A number of laws followed which strengthened these

general provisions for free and universal education.

The idea reached its fullest expression in the law of

1900.104  This law declared that:

For the purpose of affording the advantages of a free educa-

tion to all the youth of the state, there shall be levied annually a

tax on the grand list of the taxable property of the state, which

shall be collected in the same manner as other state taxes, and the

proceeds of which shall constitute "the common school fund";

and for the purpose of higher, agricultural, and industrial educa-

tion, including manual training, there shall be levied and collected

in the same manner, a tax on the grand list of taxable property of

the state, which shall constitute "the Ohio State University Fund."

Compulsory School Attendance

Compulsory school attendance legislation marked

one of the most important forward steps in Ohio's

school history. It was inevitable that this step should

be taken sooner or later. The declaration of the Con-

stitution, pronouncing free and universal education as

an ideal particularly when combined with public taxa-

tion to make this ideal possible, in time suggested the

problem. For some time compulsory education had

been a fact in Europe, especially in parts of Germany.¹⁰⁵

Massachusetts had adopted a compulsory attendance law

in 1852.106

103 Ibid., LXX, 195.

104 Ibid., XCIV, 81.

105 State Commissioner of Common Schools, Fourth Annual Report,

p. 20.

106 Deffenbaugh, W. S. "Compulsory School Attendance." U. S. Bureau

of Education, Bulletin, 1914, No. 2, whole No. 573, p. 10.

• 58
 

136      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications The subject had received attention in many other quarters. Added to this was the school situation in Ohio, where a large number of the children were not receiving an education. In 1857, the Commissioner of Schools reported that the enumeration returns indicated

THOMAS W. HARVEY State Commissioner the enumeration returns indicated a total school population in the State, of 838,037, while the number of children enrolled in the schools was but 603,347, leaving over 234,000 children who had not at- tended any school during the year. These figures did not indicate the worst phase of it, however. The Com- missioner held the opinion that a considerable number

• 59
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  137

had been counted twice, both for the summer and win-

ter schools. The average daily attendance was reported

as slightly above 350,000, which left an average of over

487,000 children who apparently had attended no

school.¹⁰⁷ This was a serious situation and might well

have led the more thoughtful to question the success of

a free and universal tax-supported school system that

did not benefit the majority of the youth of the State.

Under these circumstances, it is not surprising to

find a serious discussion of the value of compulsory at-

tendance legislation set forth in the annual report of

Mr. Smyth, Commissioner of Schools, for 1857.108 In

this report Mr. Smyth came out boldly in advocacy of

compulsory school laws. The school situation was can-

vassed very thoroughly, and the experience of other

countries as well as that of the State of Massachusetts

was made the basis of his argument for similar legisla-

tion in Ohio. Agitation was not absent in other quar-

ters on behalf of compulsory legislation. In the session

of the Legislature for 1857, Mr. Brazee had introduced

a resolution providing for the appointment of a com-

mittee to consider the advisability of compelling public

school attendance for a specified period each year.¹⁰⁹ The

resolution was not adopted. It did serve to call atten-

tion to a grave evil in the school system, and indicated

a recognition of the need of remedial legislation by

others than school officials.

A clarion call was not sounded again on the subject

 

107 State Commissioner of Common Schools, Fourth Annual Report, 1857,

p. 20.

108 Ibid., 19 ff.

109 Ibid., 22.

• 60
 

138      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

by school commissioners for more than two decades.

Nevertheless, the subject apparently had been receiving

serious consideration during the intervening years

from 1857. In the Senate Journal for 1874 we find

this interesting bit of light on the attitude of the General

Assembly towards enforced school attendance. The

Senate had before it House Bill No. 418, sponsored by

one Mr. Richards, entitled, "To secure to children the

benefits of an elementary education,"--a bill which pro-

vided for compulsory school attendance. This bill had

been passed by the House and sent to the President of

the Senate with the request that it be passed by that

that body.¹¹⁰ After considerable discussion the Senate

finally voted against the measure by a close vote of

eighteen to thirteen.¹¹¹

The first legislation brought before the legislative

bodies failed of passage by a very close vote. Under

these circumstances, it was a little surprising to find that

the State School Commissioner, in the report he made

a few months later, proceeded very cautiously as he

broached the question of legislation on this subject. He

argued very carefully concerning the theoretical prin-

ciples involved and drew the conclusion that enforced

school attendance was clearly justified in principle. He

was not so sure that the people were ready to give un-

questioned obedience to such a law if it were placed

upon the statutes.¹¹²

The following year Mr. Smart assumed much the

 

110 O. S. J., 1874, p. 357.

111 Ibid., p. 589.

112 State Commissioner of Common Schools, Twenty-first Annual Re-

port, p. 47 ff.

• 61
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925        139

same cautious approach to the subject. According to

his report, there were in 1875 a total of 985,947 youth

of school age in the State. Of this number, approxi-

mately 712,000 were attending the public schools and

10,000 were enrolled in private schools. The average

monthly attendance in the public schools was a trifle

above 532,000, while the average daily attendance was

approximately 435,000. The per cent of daily attend-

ance, on the basis of this enumeration, reached the low

mark of 45.68.113

On the basis of these figures, Mr. Smart recognized

that something approaching compulsory school attend-

ance was necessary:

However much the condition of the schools may be improved by com-

pelling the attendance of all youth between the ages of, say, seven and

fourteen; whatever right the people in their collective capacity may have

to compel such attendance; whatever necessity of the State for its preser-

vation, or of society, for its welfare, may seem to demand coercion in this

matter of education, a law compelling school attendance may not be wise;

that is, the State may not do wisely to compel school attendance for any

term of years of all youth of school age; but the wisdom of some suitable,

proper education as a preventative to vicious education or idleness, and as

a preparation for honorable usefulness, is apparent, and the State should

not only provide for this, but enforce it.114

In spite of the labyrinths of doubts in which these

school leaders found themselves, the legislators appar-

ently did not share their general confusion. Out of the

grist-mill of legislation in 1877, came Ohio's first com-

pulsory school-attendance law.115 Ohio thus became

the sixteenth state of the Union to adopt such a law.116

This law provided that any person having charge or

 

113 Ibid., Twenty-second Annual Report, p. 25 ff.

114 State Commissioner of Common Schools, Twenty-second Annual Re-

port, p. 66 ff.

115 O. L., LXXIV, 57.

116 U. S. Bureau of Education, Bulletin, op. cit., p. 10.

• 62
 

140      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

control of children between the ages of eight and four-

teen years, should send such children to a common

school for a term of at least twelve weeks in each school

year, six weeks of which should be consecutive. There

were a number of exceptions incorporated in this law

which tended to lessen its value. If the child had al-

ready acquired branches of learning ordinarily taught

in the schools; or if he were deemed physically and

mentally incapacitated for school work; or, if the neces-

sities of indigent parents, brothers or sisters required

that the child should labor, then the school board was

permitted to excuse him from attending school; or, if

the child resided a distance of over two miles from the

school of the district in which he lived, then he auto-

matically was excused from the operation of the law.

The law also provided that employers should not employ

children of school age during school hours, unless the

children were lawfully excused for the reasons set forth

in the law. Adequate penalties were framed to make

the obedience of the provisions of the law reasonably

sure. Evidently the law did not draw forth much re-

sponse. One would expect to turn to the School Com-

missioner's annual report for the next year and find

some discussion of the law, but this did not appear. For

the next dozen years these reports were conspicuously

silent regarding a law that should have provoked in-

tense interest and debate. The obvious conclusion is

that this law remained for the most part inoperative.

Especially does this seem evident in the light of the in-

terest created by subsequent legislation on the question.

Ohio popularly dates the beginning of compulsory

education in the State with the passage of the compul-

• 63
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  141

sory school attendance law in 1889.117 Mr. Hancock,

in his annual report the following year, revealed some-

thing of this general impression when he enthusiasti-

cally declared:

The most striking advanced step in school legislation, made in Ohio

within the last quarter of a century, was the enactment last winter of the

Compulsory Education Law . . . That a bill so wise and beneficent

in all its features should have passed both branches of the Assembly by a

unanimous vote is a matter for congratulation; and that it is receiving a

vigorous support from the people speaks well for thir intelligence.118

Of this there can be no doubt,--Ohio took her Com-

pulsory School Law seriously from this date onward,

for scarcely a commissioner's report thereafter failed to

devote considerable space to the consideration of the

law. Scarcely a session of the Legislature from 1889

to and including the session of 1925 failed to pay at-

tention to some phase of the question, providing either

changes or additional sections to the Compulsory School

Law.

The legislation of 1889 on this subject was much

more extensive than that of 1877. The act involved

fourteen sections covering a comprehensive scheme for

compelling school attendance. The law was changed

slightly in 1890,119 by amendments to sections 1, 3, 4, 6,

7, 8, 11 and 13. These amendments were more in the

nature of minor corrections of the law. It is the law,

as thus amended, that we will discuss. The act specified

that all persons having charge of children must instruct

them, "or cause them to be instructed, in reading, spell-

ing, writing, English grammar, geography, and arith-

117 O. L., LXXXVI, 333.

118 State Commissioner of Common Schools, Thirty-sixth Annual Report,

p. 2.

119 O. L., LXXXVII, 142.

• 64
 

142      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

metic." When these children were between the ages of

eight and fourteen years, those responsible for them

were required to see that they attended a public or

private school in city districts for a period of at least

twenty weeks out of the year, ten weeks of which were

to be consecutive and to begin within the first four

weeks of the term. In other districts the attendance

requirement was placed at sixteen weeks, with eight

weeks' consecutive school work demanded. The only

exceptions allowed to these provisions were in case of

physical or mental disability or when the child was re-

ceiving home instruction by one whose competence was

recognized by the school authorities. The law further

provided that children between the ages of eight and

sixteen, not regularly employed, should attend school

for the full period of the school term. Heavy penalties

were provided for the parents or guardians as well as

for the children who failed to comply with the provi-

sions of this act. In the case of minors over fourteen

and under sixteen years of age, who could not read and

write, the law specified that they should attend school

one-half of each day or attend night schools, where

such schools were organized in the district. The law

was made more effective by forbidding employers to

employ children of school age during the school term

unless the children could produce proof, which the em-

ployer must keep on file, that they had completed the

course of instruction offered in the primary and gram-

mar grades of some public or private school. For

minors over fourteen it was necessary to demand proof

that they could read and write simple English sentences

before the employer could engage their services. Fur-

• 65
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  143 ther safeguards to make this law effective were provided in the form of special school officers designed "truant officers." Both in the cities, special, village and town- ship districts, one or more truant officers were ap- pointed with police powers, with the right to enter

places of business and demand the facts concerning the minors employed there. In cities these officers were re- quired to make daily reports to the superintendent of public schools, and in the other districts to the clerk of the board of education. It was the business of these officers to examine all cases of school absences with full

• 66
 

144      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

authority to compel obedience to the school law. These

were the essential elements of the compulsory attend-

ance law. The unusual degree to which this law had

been minutely worked out, is attested by the subsequent

legislation on the subject. No basic changes were made

in the law for a quarter of a century. When the law

was subjected to the acid test of application, minor

weaknesses of enforcement became apparent. To rem-

edy these and to make the application of the law more

effective, became the burden of subsequent legislation on

this question.

The effectiveness of the compulsory attendance law

may be judged by the attitude of the people towards it.

A year after the compulsory law had gone into effect,

the Commissioner of Schools, Mr. Hancock, sent out a

circular to school superintendents asking five questions

bearing on the operation of the law. Three of these

questions are of interest in this connection.

1 -- What have been the results of the enforcement

of the law in your own field of labor?

2 -- What is the feeling of the community towards

the law?

3 -- If any opposition has manifested itself against

the law, what is the source of that opposition?

There were 94 answers to this general circular sent

out to superintendents. In 13 out of the 96 commu-

nities represented in the reports, no action had been

taken to render the law operative. From the 83 locali-

ties where the boards of education had appointed truant

officers, 57 reported.that the enforcement of the law was

satisfactory; two answered entirely in the negative con-

• 67
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  145

cerning the operation of the law; seven reported the

youth of their communities all attending school and

the law quite superfluous in their present circumstances;

while the remainder made no reply to the question. The

second question was answered by 75, who declared the

law had been favorably accepted in their communities;

one reported that it had been received with disfavor;

while seven were non-committal on the subject. The

third question revealed that 32 communities had re-

ported no opposition to the enforcement of the law.

There was opposition of one kind or another in a num-

ber of places. Some reported opposition from the more

reactionary element in the community, others found the

factories and other industrial agencies opposed to the

law because it robbed them of child labor.¹²⁰

If these superintendents properly represented the

consensus of opinion in their localities, then indeed the

enacting of this legislation marked the most advanced

educational step in Ohio's school history for more than

a quarter of a century. Mr. Corson, in 1895, reported

that "the compulsory law is bringing into the schools

each year hundreds of boys and girls who would other-

wise receive no education at all."121

The struggle during the nineties to make compul-

sory education effective slowly overcame the opposition

naturally awakened by such a drastic innovation in edu-

cational practice. The next quarter of a century saw

advances in compulsory attendance legislation un-

dreamed of by the most ardent educational leaders of

the pioneer period.

120 State Commissioner of Common Schools, Thirty-seventh Annual Re-

port, p. 8 ff.

121 Ibid., Forty-second Annual Report, p. 10.

Vol. XXXIX--10.

• 68
 

146      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

The changes in the compulsory law that took place

in the earlier part of the next twenty-five-year period

represent a cautious advance. In 1900 the age limit

for the employment of children in the mines was raised

from fourteen to fifteen.¹²² The law of 1902 required

children between the ages of eight and sixteen, not reg-

ularly employed, to be in attendance upon some school.¹²³

Those children between the ages of fourteen and six-

teen "who cannot read and write the English language

shall be required to attend school."¹²⁴ In the case of in-

digent children, the legislation of 1908 and 1909 (Re-

vised Statutes, Sec. 4022-9) provided that financial aid

should be given them from the contingent fund of the

local school district. Acceptance of such aid and at-

tendance upon the regular session of the school was

made mandatory. The next significant advance was

heralded in the law of 1910.125 By this law those who

desired exemption from compulsory school attendance

must be able to pass an educational test equivalent to

that required for completion of the fifth grade. This,

of course, applied only to those who felt the necessity

of employment. Previous to this the only requirement

was ability to pass certain tests in reading, writing, spell-

ing, grammar, geography and arithmetic. No stand-

ards were fixed; the rigidity of the tests imposed was

left to each local school officer to determine. This edu-

cational attainment was again raised in 1913 to the

sixth grade standard.¹²6

^{122 O}. L., XCIV, 180.

123 Ibid., XCV, 615.

124 Ibid., XCV, 617.

125 G. C., 1910, Sec. 7766.

126 O. L., CIII, 864.

• 69
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  147

In the legislation of 1913 three additional advances

were made. One raised the age requirement for school

attendance from fourteen to fifteen.127 This law was

modified in 1914 so that the compulsory attendance age

for girls was raised to sixteen.¹²⁸ The second raised the

employment age to sixteen for boys and eighteen for

girls.¹²⁹ The third made it mandatory upon all em-

ployed minors who had not completed the eighth grade

"to attend school not to exceed eight hours per week

between the hours of 8 A. M. and 5 P. M. during the

school term," whenever boards of education in such

districts established part-time day schools for employed

youth.130

The crowning achievement in drastic compulsory

attendance legislation was attained in Ohio in 1921

with the passage of the now famous Bing Act.131 This

law at one stroke raised the compulsory attendance age

to eighteen for both sexes and thereby virtually required

high school graduation of the average child. A brief

synopsis of the Bing Law was given by the Attorney

General the year following the passage of the law,

which, because of the unusual significance of the Act,

will be quoted in some detail:

The ages for compulsory school attendance are six to eight-

een years, but a local board of education may by resolution change

this to seven to eighteen years. A child who is six years of age

(or seven in case the board sets the age at seven), after the be-

ginning of a semester, may not be required to attend until the be-

ginning of the following semester--A child may be released from

127 Ibid., CIII, 864.

128 Ibid., CIV, 225.

129 Ibid., CIII, 864.

130 Ibid., CIII, 864.

131 Ibid., CIX, 379.

• 70
 

148       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

school on an age and schooling certificate after reaching the age

of sixteen, unless he has failed to complete the seventh grade by

that age. It is only during employment, however, that the child

is excused from school (Section 7766), but a graduate of a first

grade high school need not attend school further (Section 7764-2).

Children whose bodily condition does not enable them to attend

school may be excused by the superintendent, but the disability

must be fully proved and when able the child must enter or re-

turn to school. A child can be excused on the ground of physical

or mental disability only by the superintendent of public schools

(or person designated by him) (Section 7763).  However, all

children who are blind, deaf or crippled, or who are of defective

mentality, should be sent to schools suited to them (Section

7763-5). Children may be assigned by the juvenile court to suit-

able institutions (Sections 7780 and 7781). In case a child is

supposed to be of seriously defective mentality, the services of

the State Bureau of Juvenile Research should be asked that ad-

vice as to his education and care may be secured. Children need

not be admitted at five, though the school census includes children

from five to eighteen years of age (Section 7794). This con-

templates kindergartens for those five years of age. However,

the schools are required by law to be free only to those from six

to twenty-one years of age (Section 7681). Children must at-

tend the entire year, for the law provides that a child must enter

within the first week of the school term or within one week from

the date of his moving to the district. The attendance must be

for the full time the school attended is in session (Section 7763)

. . . . The board of education may aid an indigent child (Sec.

tion 7777), the intent being that no child should be deprived of

education because of poverty. The obligation that a child shall

attend school rests primarily on the parents of the child and prose-

cution for failure of a child to attend school is primarily instituted

against the parents (Sections 7762, 7763, and 7773), but if a child,

contrary to the directions of his parents, fail to attend school, he

may be prosecuted as a delinquent child (Sections 7762-6 and

7774) . . . . The completion of the grades does not excuse the

child from further school attendance for he may be assigned by

the superintendent to further study in the elementary school or

to a high school. If there is no high school in a given rural dis-

trict, the child may be assigned to a high school within four miles

in another district, and the board of education must pay his tui-

tion. The same is true if the high school is in another district

and more than four miles distant from his residence, except that

the child may not be required to attend the high school in that

case unless his transportation or board in lieu thereof is provided

• 71
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  149

 

(See Sections 7764, 7749-1 and 7749-2). If high school training

is not thus provided any child, the board in his district must pro-

vide work in high school branches in connection with some ele-

mentary school, or otherwise within four miles of the child's resi-

dence (Section 7764-1).132

No changes of importance in the compulsory at-

tendance law occurred in the subsequent years which

bring to a close the first quarter of the twentieth cen-

tury. In 1925, Section 7762-7 was added to the law

which gave the department of education of the State

the right to prescribe proper standards and psychologi-

cal tests by which the mental ability of the child should

be determined as a basis for excuse from the require-

ments of the compulsory attendance law. Previous to

this, excuses for mental incapacity were left to the

direction of the local school superintendent.

The Bing Law represented one of the most drastic

pieces of attendance legislation since the introduction

of the compulsory attendance idea in 1889. Neverthe-

less, so thoroughly had the idea of compulsory school

attendance come to be accepted by the people that com-

pliance with the law   was all but taken for granted.

Some minor opposition133 was manifested against the

law and in the 1927 session of the Legislature an effort

was made to modify the law but without success.

Length of School Year

The legal requirement of six months as the length

of the school year was theoretically in force at the be-

ginning of 1851. The law which made the school year

 

132 Attorney General, Opinion of, No. 2949, March 28, 1922.

133 See reference to the scathing denunciation of the Bing Law in a

pamphlet entitled "Sanctified Squander" quoted in the Elementary School

Journal, Vol. XXVIII, December, 1927, 249-252.

• 72
 

150      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

six months in length was passed in 1838,134 and re-

mained unchanged at the close of the year 1850.135 The

revised State Constitution, and the new code of school

laws adopted in 1851, still held up as an ideal a school

term of not less than six months. The township clerk

was required, upon demand, to estimate the amount of

money needed to continue the operation of schools for

a period of six months, over and above "the several

school funds furnished by law."¹³⁶ The length of the

school year was more ideal than actual at this time. The

annual reports of the School Commissioner's office prior

to 1854 make it rather difficult to determine just what

the average length of the school year was at the time.

The school statistics suggested that many districts had

considerably shorter sessions than six months. The

Commissioner's report for 1854 stated that the winter

schools were taught for an average of 3 36/100 months,

and the summer schools were taught for an average of

262/100 months. He gave the total average for the

year at 5 98/100 months. It is difficult to see how these

figures were obtained. Nowhere in the published statis-

tics did he give the figures by which he arrived at these

results. There was an evident assumption that the win-

ter and summer schools were one and the same schools,

with different sessions. This assumption is open to

serious question as is the indirect inference that the

same pupils attended the two sessions.137

If the inference was meant as suggested above, the

 

134 O. L., XXXVI, 21.

135 Miller, E. A., op. cit., p. 43.

136 Ibid.

137 State Commissioner of Common Schools, Annual Report, 1854, p. 4.

• 73
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  151

tables he presented later in his report did not support

him, for in some instances schools were taught in the

winter but not in the summer.138 It seems perfectly ob-

vious that the six months' term of school was largely a

dream indulged in by a large percentage of the small

district schools, at least. Under a different classifica-

tion, the Commissioner's report for the following year

shows the average school term for common schools to

have been 6.1 month.139

The law underwent a revision in 1861.140  By this

change the length of the school year was fixed at thirty

weeks for the minimum period and forty-four weeks for

the maximum term. This apparently did not prove feasi-

ble, for four years later the minimum school term was

again set at twenty-four weeks as a basis for participat-

ing in state school funds by school districts.¹⁴¹ That a

thirty-week term should have been proposed for the

schools just at a time when war shadows were impend-

ing, is a little surprising. The failure to secure a longer

school term, in practice, at such an unfavorable moment,

was to be expected. In 1904, the minimum length of the

school year was placed at thirty-two weeks and the

maximum term at forty weeks.¹⁴² No further attempt

to lengthen the school year was made during the period.

Most of the legislation between 1865 and 1925 which

dealt with the school year, was directed toward enforc-

ing the law. Even as early as 1864 the school month

 

138 Ibid., 75.

139 Ibid., Third Annual Report, p. 4.

140 O. L., LVIII, 26.

141 Ibid., LXII, 62.

142 Ohio School Laws, 1904, p. 94.

• 74
 

152      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

was defined as consisting of four weeks.143 The legisla-

tion of 1873144 and 1875145 reaffirmed the school month

as consisting of four weeks. The school week was de-

fined as consisting of five days. These definitions re-

mained without change throughout the period. The law

of 1868 was framed with the purpose of making a re-

ality of the long-expressed ideal of a six months' school

term.146 This law provided that where boards of edu-

cation failed to provide suitable means of sustaining a

school for a term of at least six months, the County

Commissioners were authorized and instructed to do so

for them.   Financial difficulties prevented many dis-

tricts from continuing their schools for the required six

months. As early as 1853 this problem was recognized

and legislation introduced to equalize the school funds

between the weak and strong districts.147 A portion of

the township tax was set apart for the continuation of

schools and was used to supply school funds for those

districts whose sources of revenue were not sufficient to

maintain the schools for the same length of time as the

others. In 1873 it was provided that this fund should

be set aside out of the contingent fund of the town-

ship.¹⁴⁸ It was in the rural districts, for the most part,

that such funds were necessary. Nevertheless, with all

these legislative supports to make possible an ideal, we

find that ideal far from attainment within but a decade

 

143 O. L., LXI, 31.

Ibid., LXX, 215.

145 Ibid., LXXII, 181.

146 Ibid., LXV, 148.

147 Ibid., LI, 429.

148 Ibid., LXX, 195.

• 75
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  153

of the close of the century. The Commissioner of

Schools, Mr. Hancock, reports in 1889 as follows:

In the year 1887-88 there were 31 counties, having 81 de-

linquent townships, which contained altogether 177 sub-districts

in which the schools were continued less than twenty-four weeks.

In 1888-89 there were 30 counties, having 80 delinquent town-

ships, with 170 delinquent sub-districts.¹⁴⁹

The difficulty, he pointed out, was not primarily one

of insufficient financial resources, because in 1887-88,

out of the 81 delinquent townships, only 11 had reached

the limit of their tax levy; and of the 80 townships de-

faulting the next year in reaching the law requirement,

only 11 had reached their taxation limit for school pur-

poses. As late as 1905 the Commissioner of Schools

in his annual report advocated the establishment of a

special school fund by the State to make possible the

continuance of all public schools for the minimum period

of thirty-two weeks as required by law. The unequal

distribution of wealth in the various school districts

made it necessary for some districts to exceed the legal

tax levy for school support if they complied with the

legal school year. How extensive was the difficulty he

did not indicate.¹50

Private Elementary Schools

Private elementary schools never held a very influ-

ential place in Ohio's educational system. Their num-

ber was always small and their enrollment was never

large. The majority of the private elementary schools

were under religious control. The legislation in refer-

149 State Commissioner of Common Schools, Thirty-sixth Annual Re-

port, p. 15.

150 Ibid., Fifty-second Annual Report, p. 11.

• 76
 

154      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

ence to this type of school was wrapped up almost en-

tirely in the fortunes of the legal rights and limitations

governing private secondary schools and institutions of

higher education, which will be considered in the next

chapter. They were required to make annual reports to

the office of the State School Commissioner.151 After

the advent of compulsory education, more supervision

was exercised over the children of these institutions, es-

pecially regarding attendance.

The statistics concerning private schools during the

early part of this period are very meager. In 1870 there

were 10,500 pupils in private schools.152 This report

also shows a total of 238 teachers for these schools. The

average length of the school term for townships was

given as eighteen weeks, and twenty-six weeks for sep-

arate districts. The annual report of the School Com-

missioner for 1900 reveals an enrollment in private ele-

mentary schools of approximately 15,000, with a teach-

ing staff of 355, and a total graduation list during the

history of the schools of a little more than 2,000. There

were 80 private schools, 78 of which were under the

influence of religious bodies, representing five denomi-

nations. One noticeable change in the private schools

from the conditions reported in 1870 was the longer

school term enjoyed. Only two schools reported a term

of less than 32 weeks, while more than 50%   indicated

a school term of 40 weeks or more. Most of the private

schools were confined to the larger cities and towns.¹⁵³

 

151 O. L., LI, 429; LXXIII, 225.

152 State Commissioner of Common Schools, Seventeenth Annual Report,

p. 22.

153 Ibid., Forty-seventh Annual Report, p. 296.

• 77
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  155

No data were given by the State Superintendent of

Schools for 1925 relative to the number of pupils in

private elementary schools in Ohio.

Evening Schools

Evening schools were practically unknown in Ohio

for the first fifty years of her statehood. During those

years her people were largely engaged in the pioneer

business of cultivating the land and settling unoccupied

regions. It was not until an urban population began to

develop that a widespread need of evening schools came

to be felt. Near the beginning of the second fifty years

of Ohio's history, her urban population began to in-

crease rapidly. It was at this time that the first legisla-

tion appeared which made provision for those who were

unable to attend the regular day schools. The Akron

Act was amended in 1839154 requiring towns, cities and

boroughs to provide evening schools for the male youth

over twelve years of age who could not attend the day

schools. The law of 1853 gave the boards of education

authority, at their own discretion, to provide evening

schools for those over twelve years of age who were

prevented, by work, from attending day schools.¹⁵⁵ No

change was made in the law for twenty years. Then

additional legislation was enacted in 1875 which placed

a limitation on the money that might be appropriated

for evening schools. The appropriations that could be

made by school boards were limited as follows: cities

of the first class were limited to an appropriation of

$300; cities of the second class to $150; and all other

154 O. L., XXXVII, 61.

155 Ibid., LI, 429.

• 78
 

156      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

districts to $75.156 This law remained without change

until 1893. The new law set no limitation upon the

amount that might be appropriated for the support of

evening schools. It did give more power to the electorate

to initiate action, and to force the school board to es-

tablish such schools. Parents or guardians were given

the right to petition boards of education to establish

evening schools. The petition was required to contain

the names of at least twenty-five youths who would at-

tend the school, who for sufficient reasons were pre-

vented from attending day school. In case the number

of pupils fell below a monthly average of twelve, the

board of education was privileged to close the school.

Persons above twenty-one years of age were given the

opportunity to attend evening school upon the payment

of tuition.¹⁵⁷ The law of 1893 was amended in 1914,158

and again in 1921159 to make it technically applicable to

the various district reorganizations which had taken

place but the essential features of the law remained un-

changed. It is impossible to gauge the popularity of

this law. The chief sources of our information of a sta-

tistical character concerning the schools are the annual

reports of the State School Commissioner. The Commis-

sioners were almost uniformly silent upon both the need

and operation of the law. That evening schools became

an ever-increasing factor of importance in the cities is

quite evident from the attention given to them in the

compulsory school attendance legislation. Where chil-

 

156 Ibid., LXXII, 29.

157 Ibid., XC, 116.

158 Ibid., CIV, 230.

159 Ibid., CIX, 553.

• 79