Ohio History Journal

HISTORY OF EDUCATIONAL LEGISLATION

IN OHIO, 1851-1925

 

 

BY NELSON L. BOSSING, PH. D.

 

CHAPTER IV

 

HIGHER EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL TRAINING

Higher education held a conspicuous place in Ohio's

early legislation. Approximately one-half of the edu-

cational legislation passed during the first three years

of Ohio's statehood was formulated in the interests of

colleges and universities.¹ From 1803 to 1850 there

was a mass of legislation passed which dealt with va-

rious phases of higher education. During this same

period charters were granted to forty-five colleges, uni-

versities and theological seminaries.² Many of these

institutions were the objects of important legislative

action during the next fifty years. Most of these in-

stitutions were still in existence in 1880; by the year

1925 a number of them ranked foremost in the list of

colleges and universities of their kind, both in the State

and throughout the country.

The development of higher education had followed

the same general course that characterized the history

of elementary education, and more especially that of

the secondary school system. The "laissez faire" pol-

icy was the most characteristic thing about the entire

1 Miller, E. A., op. cit., p. 212.

2 Ibid., 117.

(223)

• 1
 

224      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

educational attitude of the State. The legislature fol-

lowed a very consistent policy of leaving the develop-

ment of the higher educational life of the State to the

initiative and organizing genius of interested and public-

spirited individuals or communities.³ This policy re-

sulted in a loose, unsystematized mass of legislation con-

cerning higher education. The principal evidence of

any uniformity was in the universal requirement that

all institutions should receive their charters through

legislative enactment.⁴ The most serious consequence

of this attitude was a lamentable condition in some of

the colleges and universities which were thus organized

and given authority to confer collegiate degrees.

General Legislation

A large quantity of general legislation concerning

higher education was enacted between 1851 and 1925.

The first legislation of importance was the act of 1852.⁵

By the provisions of this law, any group of persons

numbering not less than five, might become a corporate

organization, with perpetual succession, for the purpose

of establishing a college or university. Upon the peti-

tion of five free-holders of a county wherein an institu-

tion was located, or its location planned, the auditor of

the county was required to appoint a committee of dis-

interested free-holders to evaluate the property of the

proposed corporation. If the property was found to

have a total value of at least $500, the auditor gave the

petitioners a certificate of the fact. The corporation

then elected five or more persons from its membership,

 

3 Orth, S. P., op cit., p. 65.

4 O. L., I, 3, Art. 8, Sec. 27.

5 Ibid., L, 128.

• 2
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  225

as trustees. These trustees, by virtue of their incorpo-

ration rights, could elect a president, faculty and other

agents, and confer all degrees and honors usually con-

ferred by institutions of higher learning anywhere in

the United States. The law provided, further, that col-

leges and universities which were chartered under less

favorable regulations, could avail themselves of the

privileges of this act. The act did not specify an official

place nor person in which or with whom the articles of

incorporation could be recorded. This omission was

corrected the following year when the incorporation

papers were required to be filed in the office of the re-

corder of the county in which the institution was or

would be located.6

In 1856 two laws were passed which affected colleges

and universities. The first was the outgrowth of the

custom of the Legislature to limit the amount of prop-

erty or income that colleges and universities might re-

ceive, which policy had resulted in a very restricted de-

velopment of higher education. The act gave to the col-

leges and universities the right to an annual income not

to exceed $25,000.⁷ At that early date the law had the

effect, practically, of allowing colleges and universities

the unrestricted right of expansion.⁸ The restriction was

removed entirely in 1893, and colleges and universities

could hold property and receive incomes in any amount.

There was only one requirement stipulated, namely, that

6 Ibid., LI, 403.

7 Ibid.. LIII, 170.

8 The State School Commissioner's report for 1900 shows that only

ten out of thirty-six colleges and universities reporting had a total annual

income in excess of $25,000. Only two of the professional schools had an

income in excess of that amount. See report, pp. 287, 292, 294.

Vol. XXXIX--15.

• 3
 

226      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

when these institutions wished to increase the amount

of their endowment or annual income, the board of trus-

tees should file a statement of its action, setting forth

the purpose for which such additional income or prop-

erty acquisition was desired.⁹ The second act gave to

seminaries the right to incorporate as colleges and to

confer collegiate degrees. The report of the reorgan-

ization of the institution had to be filed with the Secre-

tary of State.10 This is the first intimation of a transfer

of the authority of incorporation from the county office

to the office of the Secretary of State.

The transfer of the authority to incorporate colleges

and universities, from the county to a central state office

was gradual. The law of 186911 gave to trustees of col-

leges which had been incorporated by special act for a

limited time, and whose capital stock was divided into

shares, the right to incorporate with perpetual succes-

sion. The incorporation papers were required to be filed

in the office of the Secretary of State. This law was

amended in 1872, making the provision that colleges

whose capital stock was not divided into shares could be

incorporated by filing the necessary papers with the Sec-

retary of State.¹² The Revised Statutes of Ohio for

1880 were very inclusive on this question. They gave

the right to incorporate to any college or university

whose property value was $5,000 and whose trustees

had filed a schedule in the office of the Secretary of

State, outlining the kind of value of the property held.13

9 O. L., XC, 71.

10 Ibid., LIII, 116.

11 Ibid., LXVI, 347.

12 Ibid., LXIX, 63.

13 O. R. S., I, 947.

• 4
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  227 Much of the general legislation of this period dealt with the organization and the duties of the boards of trustees. In 1865 the number of trustees that might be elected was increased to twenty-four.14 This was re- affirmed in 1873.15 During the same year a law was

passed which made the length of term of office of trus tees dependent upon the wishes of the corporate mem- bers.16 Ten years later the optional choice of the length 14 O. L., LXII, 184. 15 Ibid., LXX, 4. 16 Ibid., LXX, 125.

• 5
 

228      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

of term of trustees was limited, so that the term of office

of a trustee could not exceed the number of trustees on

the board. This did not prevent the reelection of mem-

bers of the board at the pleasure of the corporation.¹⁷

The board could be organized into four classes, with the

period of service of each class set at four years.¹⁸ Later

the number of classes was changed to six, each class

serving for six years.¹⁹

Institutions of higher learning that came under the

domination of religious or ecclesiastical bodies, received

considerable attention between the years of 1870 and

1900. Colleges and universities controlled or supported

by religious organizations had the power to divide the

trustees into as many classes as there were Conferences

that supported them. The classes were then assigned

to the conferences, and each Conference was thereafter

required to fill all vacancies that might occur in its class

of trustees. The number of classes, however, was not

to exceed six.²⁰ Later, the alumni of these institutions

were permitted to elect the members of the class.²¹ In

order that the schools which received the support of re-

ligious bodies might be given close supervision by the

organizations, provision was made for the appointment

of two visitors by each Conference. These visitors, to-

gether with the trustees, constituted a board with full

power to appoint or remove any member of the faculty

or officer of the school.²² Subsequent legislation gave the

17 Ibid., LXXX, 79.

18 Ibid., LXXXVI, 341.

19 Ibid., LXXXVII, 187.

20 Ibid., LXV, 188.

21 Ibid., LXIX, 71.

22 Ibid., LXXIII, 163.

• 6
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  229

same privilege of electing visitors to the alumni of the

school.²³ Much of the legislation prior to 1900, which

dealt with the denominationally. controlled colleges, was

concerned almost wholly with the problem of proper rep-

resentation of these bodies upon the college board of

trustees. In many respects this legislation duplicated the

class divisions which were provided for the non-denomi-

national college.²⁴ The law enacted in 1900 virtually gave

to ecclesiastical bodies the power to incorporate colleges

and universities with full rights of control and appoint-

ment of the trustees. Corporations for the promotion

of education might be formed by religious organizations

by setting forth in their articles of incorporation the

name of the religious body or denomination with which

they proposed to be connected. The corporation was

further empowered to grant to religious bodies the

right of appointment of all or part of the trustees and

officers of the institution, and in its incorporation papers

to set forth any additional rights and powers of control

and administration conferred upon such bodies.²⁵

No further legislation occurred prior to 1914. In

that year minor changes were made in the law affecting

the organization of trustees.  Better uniformity and

representation on the boards of trustees were made pos-

sible but not mandatory upon the denominational col-

leges. The spirit of freedom in the regulation of col-

leges was maintained in keeping with past policy.²⁶ The

Legislature of 1925 made a minor change in the law

 

²³ Ibid., LXXVI, 87; LXXXI, 174.

²⁴ Ibid., LXXXIX, 119; LXXXV, 140.

²⁵ Ibid., XCIV, 331.

26 Ibid., CIV, 171; CVII, 636.

• 7
 

230      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

limiting the term of trustees of denominational colleges

from five years to four years.²⁷

A number of miscellaneous laws were passed during

this period, some of which were quite important. Dur-

ing the first seventy-five years of university and college

activity, these institutions were formally set in motion

by the State and then permitted to go their own way as

long as they did not exceed the few limitations placed

upon them. Not enough interest was shown in these

schools to demand a report. It was not until 1876 that

the demand became sufficiently strong to secure legisla-

tion that required annual statistical reports from insti-

tutions of higher learning.²⁸ A severe blow was struck

at the financially weak and struggling independent or

denominational college, when the law was enacted that

made all institutions with leaseholds and those operated

upon a tuition basis subject to taxation. Institutions

open for free public education were not subject to tax-

ation.²⁹ This gave a decided advantage to the state-

supported schools where tuition was free. A drastic

piece of legislation for this early period gave incorpo-

rated villages within the State, which had a college or

university within their corporate limits, authority to

exercise complete control over the liquor question

therein.30 The subject of hazing was dealt with in some-

thing of the same uncompromising spirit.³¹

The general legislation for the first one hundred years

did not reveal a serious change in attitude towards the

27 Ibid., CXI, Sec. 9936-1.

28 Ibid., LXXV, 436.

29 Ibid., LXXV, 436.

30 Ibid., LXXIX, 59.

31 Ibid., XC, 35.

• 8
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  231

systematizing of college and university activity. Almost

of necessity, legislation was demanded and passed which

tended in the direction of more uniformity in university

administration. The State always revealed an attitude of

interest in higher education. Indeed, we shall see con-

crete evidence of that interest in the discussion of the

State institutions later. But apparently that interest was

fettered by the domination of the "laissez faire" theory

over the law-making body. The backward state of ad-

ministrative control over the higher education in Ohio

was evidenced by the meager requirements for incorpo-

ration of a college or university that existed in 1900.

The incorporation laws imposed only two conditions

upon those who desired to organize a college or uni-

versity. The first requirement stipulated that the cor-

poration should possess real or personal property to the

value of at least $5,000. The second regulation de-

manded that the incorporation papers should be filed

with the Secretary of State. Having met these two con-

ditions, any group of persons which desired to establish

a college or university in the year 1900, was legally au-

thorized to elect a president and appoint a faculty. The

corporation was authorized further to confer any col-

legiate degree then conferred by institutions of similar

name anywhere in the United States.³²

The weakness of this law soon became apparent. Mr.

Edmund A. Jones, State Commissioner of Common

Schools, in his annual report for 1906, calls attention to

the incongruity of this situation among degree confer-

ring institutions:

 

32 O. R. S. S. & C., 266, 270.

• 9
 

232       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

It would seem as if all that is really needed in order that a

so-called college may have the legal right to confer all the degrees

usually conferred by collegiate institutions is that it shall have a

board of trustees and real estate or personal property to the value

of $5,000, a schedule of which shall have been filed with the sec-

retary of state. My attention was called to this matter some time

ago when I received inquiries from the superintendent of public

instruction in another state in reference to the standing of an Ohio

college whose degree of Ph. D. had been presented for recogni-

tion. I had never heard of the institution and no report from it

had been received. Very few schoolmen of the state knew of its

existence, but I found upon inquiry at the office of the secretary

of state that it had complied with the statute to which reference

has been made.³³

At the next session of the Legislature, 1908,34 the

amount of personal or real property necessary for the

establishment of a college or university was raised from

$5,000 to $25,000. The interests of collegiate institu-

tions were further safeguarded in 191435 by legislation

which placed the power of approval of degree-confer-

ring colleges and universities in the hands of the Super-

intendent of Public Instruction.

State-Supported Universities

When we speak of institutions of higher learning that

received financial support from the State during the

early part of this period, we do not mean that they were

accepted as institutions of the State.     The history of

those schools revealed a very close relationship to the

State during their existence; but it was not until late in

the nineteenth century that they came to be accepted by

the Legislature as the definite responsibility of the State.

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

p. 22-23.

34 O. L., XCIX, 262.

35 Ibid., CIV, 225.

• 10
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  233

In fact it was not until the year 190636 that the Legisla-

ture definitely committed the State to tax support as a

stated and accepted principle of State policy toward

higher education.

Ohio University.--One of the first acts of the new

Territory of Ohio was the passage of legislation which

looked toward the founding of a university.³⁷ This uni-

versity was reincorporated in 1804 under the name of

"Ohio University."³⁸ Its history has shown the same

checkered career to be expected of such institutions dur-

ing their pioneer days, when men's thoughts and atten-

tions were devoted to the immediate pressing problems

of establishing homes and cultivating the soil. There

were those who saw the need of colleges and were ready

to put forth an effort to encourage their development.

During these trying days, Ohio University found men

of this character to support her in and out of the Legis-

lature. But the same general attitude prevailed here

that was manifest in the case of the secondary school.

The State was unwilling to assume higher education as

a part of its responsibility. Some special help was given

to the institution prior to 1850, through land grants and

legislative appropriation.39

With the beginning of 1851, Ohio University could

not be said to be a State institution in the sense of being

a university supported and controlled by the State. It

received the appointment of its trustees by legislative

action and was in a few other respects under the juris-

 

36 Ibid., XCVIII, 309.

37 Miller, E. A., op. cit., p. 107.

38 O. L., II, 193.

39 Miller, E. A., op. cit., p. 109 ff.

• 11
 

234      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

diction of the Legislature, but it did not receive regular

support therefrom nor was its administration in any

true sense supervised.⁴⁰

The principal legislation in behalf of the University

for the next fifty years was financial in character. One

of the first acts of this period was a resolution suspend-

ing payment by the University of the balance due on a

$5,000 loan made to the institution by the State, as long

as the institution agreed to permit one student from each

county to attend without tuition charge.⁴¹ In 1875 the

Legislature stipulated that all money in the State treas-

ury, from the sale of lands which belonged to the Ohio

University should be transferred thereafter to the treas-

ury of the school. The auditor of each county there-

after was required to draw an order, annually, for such

tax money as belonged to the University.⁴² This act

was repealed in 1885.⁴³ The legislative appropriations

for 1880 carried an item of $49,311 for the Ohio Uni-

versity, as interest on school lands of the institution.⁴⁴

In 1883, provision was made for the sale of lands

under the control of the University.⁴⁵ Lands held under

lease from the University were to be sold to the lessee

upon the payment of a sum, which when put out at six

per cent interest, would yield the amount of rent re-

served in the original lease.  The lessee under this

agreement was to bear all the expenses incidental to the

sale of the land. When full payment for the property

 

40 Ibid., 110.

41 O. L., LIII, 254.

42 Ibid., LXXII, 84.

43 Ibid., LXXXII, 115.

44 Ibid., LXXVII, 175.

45 Ibid., LXXX, 193.

• 12
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  235

had been made, the owner of the land was entitled to re-

ceive from the University a deed of conveyance in fee

simple. The proceeds of the sale of the land, sold under

the terms of the act, were to be deposited in the State

treasury and were to become an irreducible trust fund,

with interest paid semi-annually to the treasurer of the

University.

The first approach to a state policy of tax support

for colleges and universities, came with the law which

levied a tax upon all lands donated to the University,

which levy was equal in amount to the state tax rate

upon other property. The proceeds from this tax were

required to be paid into the treasury of the University.

This tax was in lieu of rents upon these lands.⁴⁶

No further legislation concerning Ohio University

was passed for a period of more than ten years. In

1896 the logical step was made from a partial tax for

university support to a universal tax for this purpose.

At this time Ohio University became a state tax-sup-

ported institution in fact. The law provided that "for

the purpose of affording adequate support to the Ohio

University" a tax should be levied annually upon the

grand list of the taxable property of the State, and col-

lected as other taxes. The rate of levy was to be fixed

every two years by the Legislature. If for any reason

the latter body failed to specify the tax levy, the rate

was fixed at three one-hundredths of one mill on the

dollar of all taxable property for both Miami and Ohio

Universities. The tax was to be divided so that seven-

twelfths would go to the support of Ohio University.

In return for this aid from the State, the University was

46 Ibid., LXXXII, 115.

• 13
 

236      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

required to "admit free of tuition all residents of this

State who shall conform to the standards of admis-

sion."⁴⁷ In the same session of the Legislature, this idea

was carried a step further by giving the University per-

mission to issue certificates of indebtedness to the

amount of $60,000 for the erection of new buildings,

payable at the rate of $10,000 annually from the tax

levy set aside for the institution.⁴⁸ A similar issue of

certificates of indebtedness was authorized in 1900.49

Ohio University found itself in rather an anomalous

and difficult situation. Brought into existence by state

aid and largely dependent upon the State, Ohio Univer-

sity still remained unaccepted as the creature of the

State by any clear-cut statement of legislative policy.

The trend toward such a policy was assured with the

state aid legislation of 1896.  In 1906 the Legislature

realized that a statement of policy could be withheld no

longer with regard to the several institutions of higher

learning supported wholly or in part by the State. The

law of ¹⁹⁰⁶⁵⁰ limited Ohio University to a college of

liberal arts, definitely restrained from offering techni-

cal or graduate instruction, except that the usual degree

of Master of Arts might be conferred. This act, there-

fore, became, possibly, the most important legislative

act passed in the history of higher education in Ohio.

It definitely determined the character and direction of

not only Ohio University but of the other state insti-

tutions of higher learning as well.

 

⁴⁷ Ibid., XCII, 40.

48 Ibid., XCII, 285.

⁴⁹ Ibid., XCIV, 94

50 Ibid., XCVIII, 309.

• 14
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  237

Three sources of financial support for Ohio Uni-

versity were provided in the legislation of 1906. These

served to insure financial stability and in part determine

the character of the institution. The law provided that

there should be levied an annual tax on the taxable

property of the State, collected as other taxes, and placed

in a fund known as the "Ohio University fund." This

levy amounted to two and one-half one-hundredths of a

mill. In addition, the Legislature was given the right

to make additional appropriations for buildings and

equipment.   The second source of revenue came

through a second tax levy of one and one-half one-

hundredths of one mill for the support of the state nor-

mal school or college in connection with Ohio Univer-

sity. This at once made the University an important

teacher-training institution for the State.  The third

source of financial aid came through the privilege

granted Ohio University to charge tuition of non-resi-

dent students.

No subsequent legislation of importance was

enacted.  Two laws were later passed, of but minor

importance.  The first provided for the reorganization

of the board of trustees.⁵¹ The second, passed two years

later, 1923, made mandatory upon Ohio University and

similar state-supported institutions the admission with-

out examination of all students holding diplomas from

first-grade high schools of the State.

Miami University.--Miami University was incorpo-

rated a few years later than the Ohio University.⁵² It

shared much of the same experiences of the latter Uni-

51 Ibid., CIX, 131.

52 Ibid., VII, 184.

• 15
 

238      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

versity. Miami University received its trustees by ap-

pointment of the Legislature.  Prior to 1850 no such

financial aid had been extended to this university as had

been given to Ohio University.⁵³

Miami University received very little legislative at-

tention from 1850 to 1925. Two minor laws concerning

leases⁵⁴ and the qualifications of trustees for the Uni-

versity⁵⁵ were passed in 1862 and 1863. An important

act was passed in 186956 which enlarged the board of

trustees to twenty-seven in number, divided into three

groups, one group to be elected every nine years.  The

law also arranged for the examination of the University

by a committee from the Legislature.

Some years elapsed before the Legislature again took

any action in behalf of Miami University. These were

not uneventful years for the institution, however.

Miami University had been the center of unfortunate

politics and faulty administration.  There had been in-

ternal dissension over the question of slavery, which

alienated some of its adherents and caused a fight to be

waged upon two presidents.⁵⁷ When the school was at

a low ebb in 1854, Dr. John W. Hall was elected to the

presidency.  During his administration the school be-

gan to revive.    When he took the presidency, the

finances of the school were in bad condition.  At the

time of his resignation from the presidency in 1866, the

college had overcome its worst financial troubles and

53 Miller, E. A., op. cit., p. 111 ff.

54 O. L., LIX, 125.

55 Ibid., LX, 122.

56 Ibid., LXVI, 73.

57 McMaken, J. J., "Historical Sketch of Miami University," State Com-

missioner of Common Schools, Thirty-third Annual Report, D. 347.

• 16
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  239

had a balance of $10,000 to its credit. This condition

did not continue very long.  Under the administration

of the two immediate successors, the school began a

steady decline, until in 1872 a deficit of $10,000 had ac-

cumulated, and the student body had dwindled to almost

one-half the number enrolled in 1866.58  In 1873 the

trustees decided to suspend the school.  The University

remained closed until 1885. During that time the funds

accruing to the University enabled the trustees to pay

all debts and place about $40,000 of the surplus income

into interest-bearing investments.  During this time

of suspended activities as a university, the buildings of

Miami University were leased for use as a private

academy.⁵⁹

The financial condition of Miami University was a

matter of considerable concern to its trustees until the

institution became a state-supported university in 1896.60

At that time Miami shared the good fortune of Ohio

University in the legislation which provided for an an-

nual tax levy on the taxable property of the State for

their support.  The total levy of three one-hundredths

of a mill on the dollar, when the Legislature had not

specified the levy to be otherwise, was divided so that

Miami University received five-twelfths.  In return for

this "state aid," the Legislature required the University

to open her doors to the students of the State without

tuition charge.  From this time forward, Miami Uni-

versity received its principal support from the tax levies

of the State.

⁵⁸ Ibid., 348; Nineteenth Annual Report, p. 140.

59 Orth, S. P.. op. cit., p. 67.

60 O. L., XCII. 40.

• 17
 

240      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

Miami University, since 1896, has shared in the gen-

eral prosperity enjoyed by Ohio University, as pre-

viously described. The years 1896 and 1906 are epochal

years in the historical development of the institution.

The first gave the University approximate standing with

Ohio University, and the second insured the institution

a character and a consistent financial policy with respect

to the State.⁶¹ Henceforth, Miami University was to be

essentially a liberal arts college similar to Ohio Uni-

versity with a normal school or college in connection

therewith.  No important legislation affecting the in-

stitution, not also affecting Ohio University, was enacted

for the next twenty years.

Wilberforce University. -- Wilberforce University,

founded in 1856 at Wilberforce, Ohio,⁶² was established

for the education of the negro race.  It was first men-

tioned in the legislation of Ohio in 1870, through an

effort made by the Legislature to secure appropriations

from the United States Government "for the education

of negro teachers."63

Seventeen years later the Legislature authorized the

establishment and maintenance of a "combined normal

and industrial department" at Wilberforce University.⁶⁴

This department was supported and controlled by the

State.  The law provided for a board of trustees to be

appointed jointly by the Governor and the Trustees of

the University.  The board consisted of six members.

Later the number was changed to nine, of which the

61 Ibid., XCVIII, 310.

62 State Commissioner of Common Schools, Forty-ninth Annual Report,

p. 306.

63 O. L., LXVII, 169.

64 Ibid., LXXXIV, 127.

• 18
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  241 Governor appointed five members for a term of five years.65 According to the acts of 188766 and 189267 the trustees elected by the University held office for three years.  The relation of the State to this department of

the University was not left in any possible doubt.  The law declared that it was the duty of the board of trus- tees "under this act to take, keep and maintain exclusive authority, direction, supervision and control over the 65 Ibid., XCII, 275. 66 Ibid., LXXXIV, 127. 67 Ibid., LXXXIX, 368. Vol. XXXIX--16.

• 19
 

242      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

operations and conduct of said normal and industrial de-

partment."

Two years later an appropriation of $2,000 was

made from the general revenue fund of the State for

the department.⁶⁸ In compliance with the provisions of

the act of 1887, the trustees of the department were re-

quired to estimate, annually, the amount needed for the

work of the Normal and Industrial Department of Wil-

berforce University, and report the same to the office of

the Governor. An amendment to the act of 1887 was

passed in 1896, which required the Legislature at inter-

vals of two years to designate a general tax levy on all

the taxable property of the State, for the support of the

Normal and Industrial Department of Wilberforce Uni-

versity. In the event the Legislature should fail at any

time to specify the amount of this levy, the law provided

that for that period the annual levy should be one one-

hundredth of a mill on the dollar of all taxable proper-

ty.69 The appropriations for 1896 and 1898 were fixed at

$19,000 annually.⁷⁰ In return for the benefits of state

aid, the University was required to admit without tuition

charge one or more youth from the districts of each

Senator or Representative, when so appointed by these

men.⁷1 Rather than specify the amount of an appropria-

tion to be made each year from the general income of the

State, the Legislature in 1900 provided for a special tax

levy of "one-hundredth of one mill upon each dollar

valuation of such taxable property" for the support of

the University. This placed Wilberforce University on

68 Ibid., LXXXVI, 392.

69 Ibid., XCII, 156.

⁷⁰ Ibid., XCII, 289; XCIII, 27.

71 Ibid., XCII, 275.

• 20
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  243

an equality in the matter of tax support with the other

state institutions of higher learning.⁷² The amount of

the tax was modified from time to time to meet the in-

creasing needs of the University and to conform to the

changing values of the taxable property of the State.⁷³

The legislation of 191974 further protected the financial

interests of the University by an enactment which made

it necessary to return to the institution all tuitions and

other funds collected in its behalf.

Ohio State University.--The youngest of the three

universities properly designated as state supported and

controlled institutions was the Ohio State University.

It was organized in 1870 as "The Ohio Agricultural and

Mechanical College." It was established in response to

the act of Congress approved July 2, 1862, which pro-

vided for a grant of 30,000 acres of public land, for each

Senator and Representative to which the State was en-

titled by the census of 1860.⁷⁵ There were several con-

ditions attached to the grant which in substance were as

follows:

1 -- The proceeds from the sale of the land, or from

the issue of scrip which was provided in lieu of land,

were to be invested in United States stocks or other safe

stocks yielding not less than five per cent on the par

value of the stock.

2 -- The money so invested was to constitute a per-

petual fund, never to be diminished; and should there

occur a loss at any time in the capital fund, the amount

of that loss was to be replaced by the State.

72 Ibid., XCIV, 598.

73 Ibid., CII, 266; CIX, 360.

⁷⁴ Ibid., CVIII, Pt. II, 1109.

75 Ibid., LXI, 7-9.

• 21
 

244      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

3 -- The money so invested was to become the en-

dowment of at least one college, whose object was "to

teach such branches of learning as are related to agri-

culture and the mechanic arts," not excluding other

scientific and classical studies, including military tactics.

4 -- All expenses for the management and sale of

said land and scrip were to be borne by the State, which

accepted this offer, in order that the total receipts from

such sales might be applied without any diminution

whatever to the purpose of the grant.

5 -- No portion of the fund or interest thereon was

to be used directly or indirectly for buildings or repairs.

6 -- A formal acceptance of this gift was required

from the State within two years after the approval of

the act by the President of the United States.

7 -- The college provided for, under the act, was to

be established within five years from the date of accept-

ance of the gift by the State, or the lands and all money

received from the sale of any portion thereof were to be

returned to the federal government.

The State of Ohio formally accepted these conditions

for the establishment of such a college February 9, 1864.

The amount of land apportioned to Ohio under this

agreement was 630,000 acres.

The new college was not to become a fact for sev-

eral years. Some knotty problems confronted the Legis-

lature before the college could become an actuality. One

of the first things that seems to have occupied the atten-

tion of the Legislators was the matter of disposing of

the land and scrip. In the spring of 1865, an act was

passed which authorized the Auditor, Treasurer, and

Secretary of State to advertise the sale of this land. No

• 22
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  245

bids were to be accepted for less than one hundred and

sixty acres of land. The price was fixed at eighty cents

per acre as a minimum.⁷⁶ The officers forming the com-

mittee reported the following December that they had

sold 11,360 acres only, and insisted that the price was

too high to insure a ready sale of the land.⁷⁷ The

following year the committee was authorized to sell the

land scrip "at the best price they can obtain for the

same."⁷⁸ With more freedom of action in making land

sales, the committee was able, within a short time, to

report the disposal of most of the scrip at fifty-three

cents per acre. From the sale of this land the State

realized $342,450.80, which was deposited with the state

treasury, bearing six per cent per annum.⁷⁹

After selling the land, the next step was to fix upon

a location for the University. This did not prove to be

an easy task. The Legislature authorized the appoint-

ment of a committee of five, in addition to the Governor

as a member ex officio, and the President of the Ohio

State Board of Agriculture, to receive proposals and re-

port back to the next session of the General Assembly

the proposals received and the judgment of the commit-

tee as to the best location for such an institution.⁸⁰ The

committee was styled a board of trustees for the purpose

of receiving the proposals as well as donations of land

and money for the location of a college in accordance

with the act of Congress of 1862.

76 Ibid., LXII, 189.

77 Clark, P. H., "The Ohio State University," State Commissioner of

Common Schools, Thirty-third Annual Report, p. 358.

78 O. L., LXIII, 139.

79 Cope, Alexis, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. I, 1870-

1910, p. 12.

80 O. L., LXIII, 102.

• 23
 

246      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

Two reports were made by the trustees. The ma-

jority report recommended that half of the fund be

applied to Miami University, to reorganize its courses of

study to conform to the requirements of the Congres-

sional land grant. The other half was to be set aside

for the endowment of another college in the northern

part of the State. The minority report suggested that

the location of the university be at the seat of "Farmers'

College" in Hamilton county. Neither of these recom-

mendations was acceptable.⁸¹

Months of wrangling and debate ensued. Some

wanted all of this fund to become the endowment of one

centrally located college. Many of the school leaders of

the state favored this plan. Others suggested that a

Department or Chair of Agriculture be established in

each of the well-organized colleges. This suggestion was

based upon the prevalent idea that the institution was

to be principally an agricultural school.

Finally, on March 30, 1868, with the five-year time

limit for determining the location of the school rapidly

drawing to a close, the Legislature appointed another

Committee which consisted of four senators and eight

representatives, with power to receive proposals for col-

lege sites, donations for buildings, etc.⁸² Liberal over-

tures were received from Worthington, Wooster, Ox-

ford, Urbana, London, and Newark. This committee

also brought in majority and minority reports, both of

which proved unacceptable.⁸³

After eight years of discussion with no apparent

 

81 Clark, P. H., op. cit., p. 360.

82 O. L. L., LXV, 292.

83 Clark, P. H., op. cit., p. 361.

• 24
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  247

progress, the Legislature, in 1870, enacted three laws

which settled some of the questions in dispute and took

a long step in the direction of establishing a university

in conformity with the Congressional act. The first law

instructed the Auditor of the State to compute the inter-

est in the endowment fund and set the fund aside as the

endowment of the college, fund and interest to be in-

vested in State bonds.⁸⁴

The second act concerning the college was entitled:

"An act to establish and maintain an Agricultural and

Mechanical College in Ohio."⁸⁵ This act declared "that

a college to be styled the Ohio Agricultural and Mechan-

ical College, is hereby established in this State, in ac-

cordance with the provisions of an act of Congress of

the United States, passed July 2nd, 1862." The object

of this college was "to teach such branches of learning

as are related to agricultural and mechanic arts," with-

out "excluding other scientific and classical studies, and

including military tactics." The control of this institu-

tion was to be in the hands of a board of trustees ap-

pointed by the Governor with the advice of the Senate.

One trustee was appointed from each congressional dis-

trict, with the President of the State Board of Agri-

culture serving as a member ex officio. Complete con-

trol over the conduct of the institution was lodged with

the trustees.  They were empowered to appoint the

faculty and officers, fix salaries, and adopt all rules and

regulations necessary for the conduct of the college. The

trustees were authorized to locate the college perma-

 

84 O. L., LXVII, 15.

85 Ibid., LXVII, 20.

• 25
 

248      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

nently, but not upon a site of less than one hundred

acres.

The third law of importance gave to the several coun-

ties the power to vote levies to the extent of two mills,

and to raise money with which to bid for the location of

the new school.⁸⁶ Many counties at once took advantage

of this opportunity. Champaign and Clark counties

each offered $200,000 in eight per cent bonds. Franklin

county offered $300,000 in seven per cent bonds, and an

additional $28,000 in private pledges. Montgomery

county, through pledges of her people, was able to offer

$400,000 in eight per cent bonds.⁸⁷

With the question of one college or several, finally

settled in favor of one; with the college declared estab-

lished and its functions defined by legislative action; and

with the location of the college placed in part on the basis

of competitive bidding,--the final disposition of the en-

tire question was not far off. The board of trustees met

on October 13, 1870, and decided to accept the bid of

Franklin county. The college was located at Columbus

on a tract of land comprising a fraction more than three

hundred and fifteen acres.⁸⁸

The course of study was the next problem that de-

manded immediate attention. A difference of opinion

was at once apparent. Some insisted upon a purely

agricultural and mechanical curriculum; others thought

the work of the school should be broad in its training.

After months of debate, the board decided in favor of a

curriculum broad in purpose and scope. In October,

 

86 Ibid., LXVII, 95.

87 Clark, P. H., op. cit., p. 361.

88 Ibid., 362.

• 26
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  249

1872, the board decided to organize ten departments,

namely: Departments of Agriculture; Physics and Me-

chanics; Mathematics; General and Applied Chemistry;

Geology; Mining and Metallurgy; Zoology and Veter-

inary Science; Botany, Horticulture and Vegetable

Physiology; English Language and Literature; Ancient

and Modern Languages; Political Economy and Civil

Polity.89

In April, 1873, Dr. Edward Orton became the first

president of the college. On September 17, 1873, the

doors of the college were opened for the beginning of

school work. During the first year, about forty students

enrolled for instruction. At two o'clock on the afternoon

of January 8, 1874, the president and faculty were for-

mally installed in their respective offices, at an installa-

tion service held in the Senate chamber in the presence

of the board of trustees, the Governor and the State

officers. The college thus became an established fact

almost twelve years after the Congressional land grant

offer had made it a possibility.90

In 1871, a joint committee of the Legislature was

appointed to investigate the recent act of Congress ap-

proved in February of that year whereby several thou-

sand acres of land in the Virginia Military District had

been ceded to Ohio.⁹¹ Six years later the Legislature

voted that the receipts from the sale of this land should

be credited to the fund of the Ohio Agricultural and

Mechanical College.⁹²

 

89 Ibid., 363.

90 Ibid., 364.

91 O. L. L., LXVIII, 220.

^{92 I}bid.. LXXIV, 539.

• 27
 

250      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

The exact amount of land included in this gift to the

State is not accurately known. About 77,000 acres had

been discovered and reported to the University by No-

vember of 1885.⁹³ The total of receipts realized from

these lands by November 15, 1891, was a little in excess

of $63,000. About one-third of this money had been

added to the endowment fund, while the most of the re-

mainder had been spent in buildings for the new college.⁹⁴

A number of laws of minor character were passed

between 1871 and 1878. One of the most important of

these provided for the establishment of a School of

Mines and Mine-Engineering in the new college. The

act provided for a professor; and an appropriation of

$4,500 was voted for the equipment of a laboratory.95

In 1878, the name of the Ohio Agricultural and Me-

chanical College was changed to "The Ohio State Uni-

versity," and the college was reorganized. Under the

reorganized plan, the trustees were to consist of seven

members, appointed by the Governor with the advice of

the Senate. The trustees were appointed to hold office

for a term of seven years, with one vacancy to be filled

each year. No relative of a trustee by marriage or blood,

was to hold a professorship in the institution. The same

powers enjoyed under the old college organization were

delegated to the new board of trustees under the reor-

ganization plan.⁹⁶

The legislation for two decades from 1879 forward,

was concerned almost entirely with the financial side of

 

93 Clark, P. H., op. cit., p. 359.

94 Cope, Alexis, op. cit., p. 59.

95. O, L., LXXIV, 216.

96. Ibid., LXXV, 126.

• 28
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  251

the institution's welfare. An act passed in 1885 re-

quired all lands under lease from the Ohio State Univer-

sity to be subject to taxation. The tax, when collected,

was to be paid over to the University in lieu of rents due

the school.⁹⁷ A general law applying to all institutions

of the State was passed, which made it an offense pun-

ishable by a fine for any officer to permit or contract

debts or create a deficiency in the name of the institu-

tion.⁹⁸

Some difficulty was experienced both by the State

and the University over the land in the Virginia Military

District, which was ceded to the State by act of Con-

gress in 1871, and applied to the fund of the University.

Some of the people claimed possession to some of this

land under claim title to unpatented survey land in the

District. The University was authorized to demand

of these claimants certified copies of the deeds upon

which their claims were based, and the school could re-

quire a certified copy of the unpatented survey in which

the land was situated, as evidence to satisfy the board

that such land had not been surveyed. The trustees were

then required to issue deeds of conveyance to the parties

whose claims were legal. The Auditor of the State was

required to pay to the endowment fund of the University

the sum of one dollar per acre for all land included in the

claims for which the University granted deeds of con-

veyance.⁹⁹ Both in 1898100 and 1900101 the Legislature

made appropriations for the relief of persons who for-

97 Ibid., LXXII, 116.

98 Ibid., LXXXVI, 76.

99 Ibid., LXXXVI, 92.

100 Ibid., XCIII, 257.

101 Ibid., XCIV, 117.

• 29
 

252        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

merly held property in the unpatented lands in the Vir-

ginia Military District.

During the 'nineties, the University developed rap-

idly. A number of new buildings were erected. This

necessitated the securing of funds in advance of appro-

priations. The board of trustees was authorized to issue

certificates of indebtedness signed by the president and

secretary of the board. The certificates were to bear

interest at the rate of six per cent. A blanket permit to

issue certificates was never given. The amounts were

always stated, beyond which the trustees could not go.102

In 1890 Congress made another grant for the benefit

of colleges of the class provided for in the grant of July

2, 1862. In 1891 the Legislature made an appropria-

tion of $15,000 for 1890, and a $10,000 increase per year

for ten years, after which $25,000 was to be paid yearly

to the University, to meet the requirements of the Con-

gressional act of 1890, so that Ohio might secure the

benefits of added endowment from the sale of public

lands through this Congressional act.¹⁰³

102. Ibid., LXXXVIII, 591; LXXXIX, 321; XCI, 62; XCII, 191; XCIII,

109.

103 Ibid., LXXXVIII, 519.

104 The Congressional Act of 1890 provoked a lengthy and heated con-

troversy between the supporters of the Ohio State University and those

of Wilberforce University. A provision in the Act, inserted for the benefit

of the Tuskegee Institute by Senator Pugh of Alabama, gave the states the

privilege of dividing the fund where they had separate institutions for the

training of negroes and whites. Ohio State University had never made

racial distinctions in the admission of students and therefore claimed the

entire benefits of the grant. Wilberforce University, a school exclusively

for colored students, naturally demanded a share in the annuities realized

from this act. The Legislature, after a long political fight, gave the entire

annuity to Ohio State University. Cope, Alexis, History of the Ohio State

University, Vol. 1, 1870-1910, p. 130 ff.)

• 30
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  253

The appropriations from the Legislature and the

financial reports of the trustees of the University, show

the rapid development of the institution and its increas-

ing financial needs. The total receipts from all sources

in 1878 were $35,000 for the University, while the total

of the endowment fund on January 1st of that year

amounted to $501,952.56.105 A similar report for the

year 1899 revealed the total receipts of the University

for that year to have reached the sum of $277,573.06.10⁶

The total endowment of the school, as part of the irredu-

cible fund of the state, reached the sum of $552,617.66

by June 30, 1899, and the interest on this sum amounted

to $33,157.16.¹⁰⁷ In 1925 the irreducible debt had

reached $1,091,689.58 the interest from which brought

the university $65,501.00. The legislative appropria-

tions for the University in 1900 alone amounted¹⁰⁸ to

$185,000 and to $4,024,031.00 for the year 1925. Tui-

tion for this year provided an additional revenue of

$499,025.00.109

The enormous increase in the cost of operation of

the University is evidenced by the total receipts of

$6,129,292.46 and expenditures of $6,129,495.77 for the

year 1925.110

The years 1900 to 1925 may be characterized as the

years of expansion. The general outlines of a financial

 

105 Board of Trustees of the Ohio State University, Eighth Annual

Report, pp. 88, 91.

106 Ibid., Twenty-Ninth Annual Report, p. 14.

107 Ibid., 13.

108 O. L., XCIII, 28.

109 These data are quoted from a letter received from Mr. Carl E.

Steeb, Business Manager for the University, under date of July 9, 1928.

110 Superintendent of Public Instruction, Seventy-second Annual Report,

pp. 280, 281.

• 31
 

254      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

policy for the university had been established. Atten-

tion now centered upon the enlargement of the work if

the institution were to meet the growing demands of the

State.

There had developed a conviction on the part of

many that the University should extend its services tO

different communities of the state. In response to that

demand, the Legislature in 1909111 authorized the College

of Agriculture and Domestic Science of the University

to "arrange for the extension of its teaching throughout

the State." Instruction was to be given in soil fertility,

stock raising, crop production, dairying, horticulture, do-

mestic science and related subjects. Schools were not to

be set up for a longer period than one week, and but one

such school per year could be held in each county. In

addition to the more formal type of work the University

was authorized to give instruction and demonstrations in

agriculture at agricultural fairs, institutes, granges,

clubs, and organizations of similar interests. Instruc-

tion by mail also was made a feature of the College of

Agriculture. The work proved so successful that four

years later the Legislature authorized the establishment

of "a university extension division for the purpose of

carrying on educational extension and correspondence

instruction throughout the State."¹¹² Practically every

phase of university instruction was thus opened to the

remotest corner of Ohio. Not only that, but the broad

outlines of the law and evident purpose of the Legisla-

ture made available to individuals and communities the

most complete and practical service possible from the

 

111 O. L., C, 11.

112 Ibid., CIII, 662.

• 32
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  255

 

university. This consciousness of the service function

of the great educational institutions of the State marks

an outstanding achievement of the University in its re-

lation to its constituency.

The next step in the University's program of expan-

sion came with the establishment of a high school build-

ing on the campus. This made possible a practical type

of teacher-training service and provided as well the fa-

cilities for experimentation and research so necessary

for the fullest possible service of the University to the

Commonwealth."113

Two years later a College of Medicine and a College

of Dentistry were added to the enlarged program of the

institution.¹¹⁴ The intent of the law assumed the con-

solidation of some existing private schools with those

created by the State. In the same year an engineering

experimental station was authorized and located on the

University campus, affiliated with and operated in con-

nection with the College of Engineering."¹¹⁵

The last important legislation in this period of the

University's expansion came in 1915.116 when a State Ag-

ricultural School was established at New Lyme, Ashta-

bula county. This school was under the direct control

of the trustees of Ohio State University. The trustees

and faculty of the University were required to provide

such instruction in the practical, scientific and classical

subjects as would prepare the students "for efficient citi-

zenship, for vocational and industrial pursuits, and for

 

113 Ibid., CII, 297.

114 Ibid., CIII, 344.

115 Ibid., CIII, 647.

116 Ibid., CVI, 320.

• 33
 

256      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

admission to colleges and universities." This of course,

gave the new institution essentially the status of a sec-

ondary school. The reason for this unusual step seems

to have been the desire to merge the New Lyme Institute

of New Lyme with the University.

The growth of Ohio State University since its es-

tablishment has been phenomenal. The major lines of

that development, as traced through the legislation of

the period, reveal how completely the people of the State

have assumed the importance of the University and given

it whole-hearted support. As a result, Ohio State Uni-

versity has achieved a position of eminence that gives it

rank among the foremost of the higher institutions of

learning in the United States.

City Supported Universities

University of Cincinnati.--The University of Cin-

cinnati had its origin in the will of Charles McMicken,

who died in 1858, leaving part of his estate as an en-

dowment for the establishment of such a university.

The University was formally organized in the year

1874.117 It was first opened for instruction in 1875.118

Mr. Vickers, the first president, was elected to that office

in 1878 under the title of Rector.¹¹⁹

The first legislation in behalf of the institution was

passed in 1870, under a general law applicable to cities

of the first class with a population of 150,000.120 The

common council of Cincinnati was empowered to accept

¹¹⁷ The Citizens' Committee on University Affairs, Cincinnati, Ohio,

Final Report, 1900, p. V.

118 Ibid., 53.

119 Idem.

120 O. L., LXVII, 86.

• 34
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  257

any property or funds given for the establishment and

maintenance of a college or university, for the promotion

of free education. The city, as trustee for these funds

or properties, was "perpetually obligated and held to

observe and execute such trust." The board of trustees

consisted of nineteen members, the mayor of the city

being one of the trustees, from the nominations submit-

ted to the council by the board of education of the city.

The term of office of the trustees was six years, three

being elected each year.   Later legislation  required

twelve of the trustees to be elected from nominations

made to the council by the superior court of the city,

where there was such a court.¹²¹ The board of trustees

was given complete management and control of the prop-

erty and funds given in trust for the University; and of

the government, conduct, and control of the institution.

The trustees were authorized to appoint the president,

faculty, and other agents of the institution; exercise or

delegate the government, admission, and control of stu-

dents, courses of study, and other internal affairs to the

faculty; and the trustees could confer "such degrees and

honors as are customary in universities or colleges in the

United States."

The common council of the city was empowered to

set aside, or appropriate, any part of the public grounds

and buildings of the city, not otherwise especially appro-

priated or dedicated by city ordinance for other pur-

poses,¹²² as a site for the buildings and grounds of such

a municipal university. Upon the application of the

board of directors of such university, the board of educa-

 

121 Ibid., LXXVIII, 178; LXXXVI, 292.

122 Ibid., LXVII, 86; LXXXIX, 251.

Vol. XXXIX--17.

• 35
 

258      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

tion of the city was authorized to levy a tax on the tax-

able property of the city, not to exceed one-tenth of one

mill on the dollar, for the support of the institution. The

board of education was further required to levy a tax of

not less than three-hundredths nor more than five-hun-

dredths of one mill on the dollar, annually, for the es-

tablishment and maintenance of an astronomical obser-

vatory in connection with the University.¹²3 The amount

of the general levy for the support of a municipal univer-

sity in cities of the first class, first grade, was later in-

creased to three-tenths of a mill on the dollar, as the

maximum which might be assessed by the board of edu-

cation.¹²⁴ In return for this interest and support on the

part of the city of Cincinnati, the University was at first

required to admit all children of citizens of the city with-

out tuition charge.¹²⁵ Later, free tuition was compul-

sory only in the academic department. The board of

directors was given discretionary power to admit stu-

dents of Hamilton county to all departments without

charge.126

Two schools that were affiliated with the University

of Cincinnati underwent a modification of their relation-

ship to the University near the close of the century. The

Art School of Cincinnati, which had been under the

management of the University, with its property and

funds, was transferred to the control of the trustees of

the Cincinnati Museum Association.127 In 1892 the Cin-

cinnati College was merged with the University of Cin-

 

123 Ibid., LXVII, 86; LXXV, 133.

124 Ibid., XC, 150; XCIV, 399.

125 Ibid., LXVII, 86.

126 O. L. L., LXXXI, 214.

127 Ibid., 214.

• 36
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  259

cinnati. The management of the college came under the

jurisdiction of the board of directors of the University.

The endowment funds of the college were administered

by the board of directors for the purposes for which they

were originally intended.1²⁸

For almost twenty years a building erected on the

grounds of the old McMicken homestead housed the

University of Cincinnati. In 1890 the city set apart for

the new site of the University, a tract of forty-three

acres in Burnet Woods Park. On this site four buildings

had been built or were in the process of erection in 1900.

The Medical and Law Departments were at this time

occupying two separate buildings in the city.¹²⁹ Under

these conditions the McMicken property, with the re-

strictions imposed in the will of Mr. McMicken, became

of little value, and the Legislature authorized the Uni-

versity to sell or lease the property as it deemed best.¹³⁰

Higher education supported and under the control of

municipalities became a subject of general legislation

after 1900. Our discussion, therefore, of the laws that

apply to the University of Cincinnati from 1900 to 1925

must contemplate similar application to the University

of Toledo and later to the Municipal University of Akron

established in 1913. The legislation of this period did

not affect the general policies already established for

these institutions. The new laws and amendments to

existing statutes related almost wholly to the financial

affairs of the universities concerned. For example, the

legislation of 1904 dealt with such problems as the

 

128 Ibid., LXXXIX, 647.

129 Citizens' Committee, Report, op. cit., p. 5,

¹³⁰ O. L. L., XCIV. 471.

• 37
 

260        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

amount of tax levies possible and proper methods of dis-

bursement¹³¹; the right to accept trust funds and their

proper administration; the free admission of citizens of

municipalities to municipally controlled universities, and

the right of cities to set apart or appropriate grounds for

university purposes. A law of considerable importance

to the University of Cincinnati, passed in 1908,132 gave

the municipalities the right to issue bonds for the erec-

tion of buildings or to provide equipment for universities

under their control. This liberal attitude towards such

institutions encouraged their fuller development. Fur-

ther favor was shown this type of university by the act

of 1911133 which exempted from taxation all property of

such universities used either for sites or for revenue.

Toledo University.--Toledo University was founded

as a private university in 1872, when "Jessup W. Scott

and wife conveyed to certain selected trustees 160 acres

of land near the city of Toledo for the purpose of estab-

lishing 'an institution for the promotion of knowledge

in arts and trades and other related sciences'." The in-

stitution was incorporated as "The Toledo University of

Arts and Trades." In 1884 the council of the city of

Toledo adopted an ordinance "establishing Toledo Uni-

versity as the University of the City of Toledo."¹³⁴

131 O. L., XCVII, 544.

132 Ibid., XCIX, 133.

133 Ibid., CII, 32. That the legislation referred to above applied to the

University of Cincinnati, Toledo University, and later to the Municipal

University of Akron, may be verified by references to the application of the

law in Court Opinions and Opinions of the Attorney General cited in con-

nection with these sections in the Ohio School Laws 1915 and Ohio School

Laws 1922.

134 University Education, A book Outlining the University Opportunities

Offered by the City of Toledo in the Day Sessions of Its University, 1921,

p. 7.

• 38
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  261

The first legislation concerning the University,

passed in 1873, made the laws enacted in behalf of the

University of Cincinnati applicable to Toledo Univer-

sity, except that the board of directors for the latter

institution was to consist of thirteen members, and the

tax levy of the city for the support of the University

was not to exceed one-half of one mill on the dollar of

taxable property of the city.¹³⁵ The second act, spe-

cifically relating to Toledo University, changed the board

of directors to five members, maintained the tax levy at

one-half mill as a maximum, and made all laws passed

concerning the University of Cincinnati apply to Toledo

University.¹³⁶ Thereafter all legislation in behalf of

municipal universities was general in character.

Professional Training

Professional training was just beginning to receive

serious legislative attention in 1851. Prior to that time

little had been done to provide training for those who

engaged in the practice of the various professions. Only

meager efforts had been put forth to regulate the quali-

fications of candidates for professional life.

Medical Education.--The practice of medicine was

one of the first professions to become the subject of leg-

islative enactment. As early as 181137 the State was

divided into five medical districts under as many boards

of medical examiners. It was obligatory upon anyone

desiring to practice medicine to obtain a license from one

of these examining boards. The first medical school in-

 

135 O. L., LXX, 117.

136 Ibid., XCIV, 241.

137 Ibid., LX, 19.

• 39
 

262      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

corporated in the State was the Medical College of Ohio,

located at Cincinnati in 1819.138 Eleven institutions

were chartered for medical and surgical training prior

to 1851.139

In 1851 the Cincinnati College of Medicine and Sur-

gery was incorporated with thirteen trustees who en-

joyed perpetual succession. The president of the col-

lege was made a member ex officio of the board of trus-

tees. Complete control of the institution was delegated

to the trustees.  Upon the recommendation of the

faculty, the trustees were authorized to confer the de-

gree of Doctor of Medicine and to grant diplomas.

A number of laws were passed from 1851 to 1900

regulating certain phases of the conduct of medical

schools. In 1875 the Legislature authorized the faculty

of the Medical College of Ohio to give free medical ser-

vice and advice to the patients of the Commercial Hos-

pital of Cincinnati, in consideration of which the medical

students of the school were admitted to observe the op-

erations conducted by the surgical staff. The Legisla-

ture took an interest in the need of human bodies for

dissection purposes for the medical schools. In 1881, an

act was passed which permitted medical schools to re-

ceive the unclaimed bodies from the state institutions,

upon the application of the professors of anatomy of

recognized medical schools. The body was not to be

delivered to the school until twenty-four hours after the

death of the person unclaimed.¹⁴⁰

After the passage of the first few laws in the early

 

138 Ibid., XVII, 37.

139 Miller, E. A., op. cit., pp. 115-116.

140 O. L., LXXVIII, 33; LXXXI, 92; XCIII, 84.

• 40
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  263

part of the century, little attention was given the subject

of medicine and surgery until 1881. In that year the

practice of medicine and surgery was forbidden unless

the practitioner had attended two full courses, and had

graduated from a school of medicine either in America or

a foreign country, and had a certificate to verify these

facts. An exception to the rule was made for those who

had practiced continuously for ten years. They were

considered to have met the requirements of the law.

Those who had been practicing for only five years were

given two years in which to comply with the law.¹⁴l

Four years later the Legislature went a step further, and

required the practitioner of medicine and surgery to be

a graduate of "a reputable school of medicine in the

United States or a foreign country," or to hold a certif-

icate of qualification from a state or county medical so-

ciety, and be of good moral character.¹⁴² This did not

seem to eliminate the undesirables. In 1896 a board of

examiners was established with the representatives

evenly divided among the qualified institutions of the

State. Candidates for a license must present evidence

of graduation from a legally chartered medical school

in good standing. Practicing physicians and surgeons

were required to be examined by the board as to their

medical and surgical knowledge.¹⁴³ By further legis-

lation in 1900, all candidates for certificates as medical

doctors, druggists, and midwives, were required to pre-

sent diplomas showing their A. B. or B. S. degrees, high

school and seminary training, and medical diploma or

 

141 Ibid., LXXVIII, 183.

142 Ibid., LXXXII, 218.

143 Ibid., XCII, 44.

• 41
 

264      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

license then held, before they could be admitted to the

examinations by the State Board of Examiners.144

In ^1908145 and again in 1913146 the law was modified by

the provision that the State Medical Board should "ap-

point an entrance examiner who shall not be directly or

indirectly connected with a medical college and who

shall determine the sufficiency of the preliminary educa-

tion of applicants for admission to the examination."

When the educational credentials of the candidate for

admission to the examination for the practitioner's cer-

tificate in medicine or surgery were not satisfactory, the

examiner became sole judge of the sufficiency of the can-

didate's education which he must certify to be equivalent

to graduation from a first-grade high school. The State

Medical Board was later authorized to modify the edu-

cational requirements for specialized phases of medical

or surgical practice.¹⁴⁷

The practice of midwifery was further subjected to

rigid educational and professional requirements. The

same educational standards for admission to certifica-

tion that governed candidacy in medicine now applied to

midwifery. The minimum age was set at twenty-one,

and graduation from a legally chartered school of mid-

wifery required.¹⁴⁸

Closely allied with the practice of medicine, is the

profession of pharmacy. In 1878 the need of legislation

regulating pharmaceutical practice was recognized. In

cities of the first class, the judge of the Court of Com-

 

144 Ibid., XCIV, 197.

145 Ibid., XCIX, 497.

146 Ibid., CIII, 438.

147 Ibid., CVI, 202.

148 Ibid., XCIX, 500; CIII, 438.

• 42
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  265

mon Pleas was empowered to select a board of exam-

iners for pharmacy, from ten of the leading pharmacists

of the city. The nominations were submitted by trustees

of Colleges of Pharmacy or Associations of Pharma-

cists which were duly incorporated. Candidates were

required to pass an examination before this board be-

fore they could secure a license to engage in the practice

of pharmacy.¹⁴⁹ In 1884 the law was made general. The

Ohio State Pharmaceutical Association was required to

submit to the Governor ten names of pharmacists, of ten

years' experience, from which names he selected five to

constitute the Ohio Board of Pharmacy. All drug stores

and other places of business dealing in medicines, were

required to be in charge of registered pharmacists.¹⁵⁰

Violations of this law were punishable by a fine of $50.151

In 1898 the law specified that registered pharmacists

must have had at least four years of practical experience

as assistants before obtaining a license.  Every year

spent in a school of pharmacy was deducted from this

apprenticeship  requirement.¹⁵² The  standards  were

made more rigid with the enactment of legislation in

1915 and 1919.153 An entrance examiner appointed by

the State Board of Pharmacy with similar duties to that

of the entrance examiner for Medicine was authorized.

After January 1, 1920, graduation from a first-grade

high school or its equivalent was required for admission

to a school of pharmacy.

The practice of dental surgery was a subject of

149 Ibid., LXXII, 16.

150 Ibid., LXXXI, 61.

151 Ibid., LXXXIV, 220.

152 Ibid., XCIII, 181.

153 Ibid., CVI, 329; CVIII, Pt. I, 254.

• 43
 

266      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

special legislation from 1868 to 1900. In 1868 a law

was passed which required all dentists to be graduates

of a dental college duly incorporated under the state

laws of this country or some foreign country.¹⁵⁴ A law

was passed in 1892,155 which created a special state board

of examiners. From this board all dentists were re-

quired to secure a certificate before July 4th of that year.

A written examination was required of all candidates

for licenses who had not been graduated from a reputa-

ble school of dental surgery prior to July 4, 1889, and

had not been in constant practice since that date. All

others were required to submit their credentials before

they could secure a license.

In 1894 an attempt was made to define what was a

reputable dental college. A dental college was recog-

nized as a reputable dental school, in the true meaning of

the law, when under state control, or organized, con-

trolled and governed by a board of trustees such as was

provided for the government of colleges of medicine,

with a graded course covering three years of six months

each, and a curriculum including anatomy, physiology,

histology, pathology, chemistry, microscopy, materia

medica, metallurgy, and mechanical and surgical den-

tistry.¹⁵⁶

But one law of educational significance was enacted

in the next quarter of a century that bore upon the prac-

tice of dentistry. In the general stiffening of the educa-

tional requirements for the professions that took place

154 Ibid., LXV, 165; LXX, 58.

155 Ibid., LXXXIX, 237.

156 Ibid., XCI, 407. Reference to the establishment of a medical and

dental college at Ohio State University was made in the discussion of the

University's expansion on page 255.

• 44
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  267

about 1915, the practice of dentistry was not overlooked.

A law of that date157 made applicable to the practice of

dentistry approximately the same educational standards

as applied to the practice of medicine and surgery. Grad-

uation from a first-grade high school or its equivalent

automatically admitted the candidate to the right of a

certificate of admission to a reputable dental school. The

Superintendent of Public Instruction was authorized to

issue certificates. When candidates had to submit to

examination to determine their educational requisites

that duty also devolved upon the office of the State Su-

perintendent of Public Instruction, or county superin-

tendents so designated by him.

Educational prerequisites also were applied to the

practice of osteopathy.¹⁵⁸ These requirements were

even more rigid than those applied to the practice of

medicine. In addition to the general standards set up

for medicine and osteopathy alike, the candidate for an

osteopathic certificate must show a diploma "from ??

reputable college of osteopathy," and must have passed

a successful examination before an osteopathic commit-

tee in the subjects of "pathology, physiological chemis-

try, gynecology, minor surgery, osteopathic diagnosis

and the principles and practice of osteopathy."

Two other groups associated with the medical pro-

fession, that of nursing and optometry, were subjected

to educational standardization in 1915 and 1919. Gov-

erning the profession of nursing, the law stipulated that

"on and after January 1, 1916, no person shall practice

nursing as a registered nurse in this state without first

 

157 Ibid., CVI, 297.

158 Ibid., XCIX, 501; CVII, 152.

• 45
 

268      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

complying with the requirements of this act.¹⁵⁹ The pro-

visions of this act as subsequently amended in 1919160

required candidates to have reached the age of twenty-

one years and be of good moral character; to meet the

general educational requirements specified for candidates

for certification to practice medicine; and to be in pos-

session of a diploma of graduation from a recognized

training-school for nurses connected with a hospital or

sanitarium.

Similar educational standards were established for

those entering upon the practice of optometry. After

January 1, 1920, those who had been engaged in the

practice of optometry for two years were required to

submit to a limited examination as designated by law.

Other candidates were required to show completion of a

course equivalent to two years of work in a first-grade

high school and graduation from a reputable school of

optometry; to show certification of good moral character

and to have reached their legal majority before admis-

sion was granted to a somewhat rigorous examination

for a certificate to practice.161

Legal Education.--Prior to 1851 only two legisla-

tive acts were recorded on the subject of legal training.

Both of them concerned the qualifications of candidates

who sought admission to the bar.¹⁶² The later legisla-

tion, incidentally, carried with it the mention of the ex-

istence of a law department in the Cincinnati College.

The burden of the legislation after 1851 was con-

cerned with the qualifications of candidates for the bar.

159 Ibid., CVI, 191.

160 Ibid., CVIII, Pt. I, 48.

161 Ibid., CVIII, Pt. I, 73.

162 Ibid., XVII, 82; O. L. L., XLIV, 157.

• 46
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  269

Some minor laws were passed before 1885 on the sub-

ject,¹⁶³ but the first important act was of that date.¹⁶⁴

This law provided that in any county where a law col-

lege, or college or university with a department of law,

was to be found, the Circuit Court was required to ap-

point upon application of the president and faculty of

the college a committee of three to seven attorneys to

attend the graduation exercises and examine the grad-

uates as to their fitness to practice law. A certificate

signed by this committee was sufficient evidence of the

candidate's qualifications to practice law. In 1890, the

duty of appointing this committee of investigation was

transferred to the Supreme Court of the State. If the

committee certified members of the class as worthy of

admission to the bar, and the president of the institu-

tion or department of law of the college certified to the

fact that the students had completed the full course of

study and were of good moral character, the Court was

authorized to admit them to the practice of law.¹⁶⁵

Provision was also made that persons who had spent

at least two years in study under the direction of a prac-

ticing attorney could be admitted to the examinations

for a license. It was necessary that the practicing at-

torney who gave the examination should give the candi-

date a certificate indicating the time of his apprentice-

ship and that he was of good moral character.¹⁶⁶ Later,

the time of apprenticeship was raised to three years.¹⁶⁷

 

163 O. L., LIII,  ; LXV, 88.

164 Ibid., LXXXII, 16.

165 Ibid., LXXXVII, 19.

166 Ibid., XC, 132.

167 Ibid., XCI, 124; XCIII, 308.

• 47
 

270      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

In 1914168 graduates of first-grade high schools were

made eligible for admission to any law school of the state

when they had met the science and language courses re-

quired by such institutions.

Since 1852, when the Legislature delegated its au-

thority to incorporate institutions of higher learning, it

has been difficult to determine the number of schools or

departments of colleges devoted to the training of can-

didates for the legal profession. An act of 1893 made

appropriations for the support of the law department of

Ohio State University, and thus accidentally gives in-

formation of the existence of the legal department

there,¹⁶⁹ The annual report of the State Commissioner

of Schools included the reports of only two schools

where legal training was specified in 1900 and but one

in 1920. That there were more schools or departments

of law in the State, is of course well known.

Theological Education.--There was very little legis-

lation on the subject of theological education. Three

schools definitely bearing in their names the suggestion

of their theological function were incorporated before

the year 1850.170 The Western Literary and Theological

Seminary of the Reformed Presbyterian Church was in-

corporated by legislative action in 1851.171 The only other

legislation referring to the subject is found in the act of

1869, in which the general incorporation law of 1852

was amended to include the possibility of incorporating

 

168 Ibid., CIV, 125.

169 Ibid., XC, 253.

170 Miller, E. A., op. cit., p. 116.

171 O. L., XLIX, 5.

• 48
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  271

institutions of higher learning for the advancement of

theological knowledge.¹⁷²

 

CHAPTER V.

 

EDUCATIONAL LEGISLATION FOR SPECIAL CLASSES

Education of Defectives

The Deaf and Dumb.--Attention was given to the

care of the deaf and dumb early in the history of the

State. The first act of the Legislature in behalf of these

unfortunates was passed in 1822.1 The law authorized

the county commissioners to appropriate money for the

care and education of deaf and dumb children, when

their parents or guardians found it impossible to pay for

their instruction. The first asylum for such children,

was brought into being in 1827,2 with the incorporation

of the "Trustees of the Ohio Asylum for Educating the

Deaf and Dumb." The school was operated under

the direction and control of the General Assembly. The

treasury of the State could be drawn upon for the sup-

port of one indigent student from each judicial circuit,

for a period not to exceed three years. The trustees of

the institution were dependent upon private donations

for the principal support of the asylum.

State support of the deaf and dumb was a gradual

development in Ohio. The first grant of money by the

Legislature for an asylum occurred in 1828.³ From that

time forward various amounts were appropriated for

the institution. In 1846 the Legislature appears to have

172 Ibid., LXVI, 14.

1 O. L., XX, 49.

2 Ibid., XXV, 87.

3 Ibid., XXVI, 4

• 49
 

272      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

begun a system of yearly support of the school.⁴ At the

beginning of the year 1851, the Legislature had prac-

tically accepted the principle of state support for the

deaf and dumb.

The state government of benevolent institutions un-

derwent a reorganization in 1852.5 The several institu-

tions were placed under the control of one board of trus-

tees, to whom was given complete authority over the

institutions. The board of trustees consisted of nine

members, three of whom were selected from the city of

Columbus or its immediate vicinity, and the remaining

six of whom were chosen from various parts of the

State, which thus assured full sectional representation.

At least one trustee was required to inspect the schools

monthly, and a majority of them were required to make

such an inspection semi-annually. The State Treasurer

was made the custodian of all moneys given for the sup-

port of the institutions, and the State paid the expenses

of the trustees.

In 1854 an act was passed which required parents

or guardians of deaf and dumb children to provide cloth-

ing and traveling expenses of the children to the asylum.

Where poverty made this impossible the State was re-

quired to meet such expenses.⁶ Later the law provided

that where parents neglected to meet their just obliga-

tions in this matter, the State should send the itemized

account to the local county auditors for payment.⁷ At no

time during the period from 1851 to 1925 did the legis-

 

4 Ibid., XLIV, 130.

5 Ibid., L, 194.

6 Ibid., LII, 71.

7 Ibid., LXX, 15.

• 50
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  273

lation indicate any question on the part of the legislators

as to the propriety of state support of these defectives.

Appropriations appear in the session laws regularly for

the deaf and dumb until near the close of the period when

the "dumb" were omitted as a class in the designation

of types of defective children. In 1856 a law was passed

authorizing the submission of plans and estimates for a

new building for the asylum.⁸ In the same year appro-

priations were made for the payment of the salaries of

teachers.⁹ In 1879 state responsibility was so thoroughly

accepted that a special appropriation of $1,400 was made

to the school board of Cincinnati for the care of the deaf

and dumb children in that city, because the State asylum

was so overcrowded that additional pupils could not be

cared for properly.10

An act providing for the reorganization of the

Asylum for the Blind was passed in 1866.11 The num-

ber of trustees was reduced to three, who were ap-

pointed by the Governor. The trustees were authorized

to appoint the superintendent, and with his advice to

formulate all the rules governing the institution. The

trustees were authorized to appoint the teachers and as-

sistants upon the recommendation of the superintendent,

and to fix their salaries. The superintendent lived in the

institution and had complete control over the inmates

and employees. Deaf and dumb children between the

ages of ten and twenty years were eligible for admission,

at the discretion of the superintendent. Seven years was

set as the maximum length of time that a child could re-

8 Ibid., LIII, 196.

9 Ibid., LIII, 206; LIV, 6.

10 Ibid., LXXVI, 184.

11 Ibid., LXIII, 116.

Vol. XXXIX--18.

• 51
 

274      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

main in the Asylum. Those children who gave evidence

of exceptional ability and promise as teachers were al-

lowed to remain an additional three years. The out-

standing provision of the law was the authorization of

the enlargement of the mechanical departments and the

introduction of trade studies.

The effect of legislation which permitted extensive

trade studies in the Asylum, was felt at once. The fol-

lowing year¹² the Legislature authorized the introduc-

tion of the study of printing and bookbinding. Eleven

years later shoemaking was added to the industrial

courses of the institution.¹³ In 189214 the cutting, fitting

and making of feminine wearing apparel was added to

the industrial curriculum for the deaf and dumb.

A change of policy in the training of deaf mutes was

apparent in the legislation of 1898. A law enacted at

that time required cities of the first class, first and sec-

ond grades, to maintain schools for the deaf mutes res-

ident there.¹⁵ Annual reports concerning the work of

such schools and the number of deaf mutes in the city

between the ages of three and twenty-one years were

required to be sent to the Governor. The Treasurer of

the State was authorized to pay the sum of $150 for

each child in these cities who could not attend the regu-

lar public school because of such defect. This law ap-

plied to each child who was so defective in speech that

work in the ordinary school was impossible. Whatever

expense was entailed beyond the amount granted by

 

12 Ibid., LXIV, 124.

13 Ibid., LXXV, 507.

14 Ibid., LXXXIX, 313.

15 Ibid., XCIII, 186.

• 52
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  275

the state for the support of these schools was to be paid

out of the general school levies of these cities. The

money received from the state treasury for the educa-

tion of the deaf mutes was to be kept in a separate fund

and expended for no other purpose. Another law en-

acted during the same session of the Legislature made

it necessary to have five deaf mute pupils before state

aid could be given to city schools conducted for de-

fectives.¹⁶ The State School Commissioner had sole

authority to appoint teachers for these schools, upon the

application of the board of education of the city con-

cerned. It was his duty, also, to appoint an inspector

of all schools so organized. This inspector was required

to visit these schools twice a year, and report to the

Commissioner the condition of the buildings and the

nature of the instruction given. In 190017 the Legisla-

ture appropriated $5,650 to the city of Cincinnati, and

$7,975 to the city of Cleveland in compliance with the

provisions of these laws.

Education of the deaf and dumb was made more

effective by a law passed in 190218. This law required

truant officers to report annually, during the month of

July, the number of deaf mutes in their counties and

whether these children were being properly educated,

or whether their interests would be served best by send-

ing them to the State Institution for the Deaf and

Dumb. In 1908 responsibility for the enumeration of

these unfortunates was transferred to the properly des-

 

16 Ibid., XCIII, 236.

17 Ibid., XCIV, 16.

18 Ibid., XCV, 620.

• 53
 

276       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

ignated officers responsible for the general school

enumeration.¹⁹

The Legislature of 1906 gave considerable atten-

tion to the education of the deaf.²⁰ The chief provisions

of the law enacted at this time were as follows:

1. Authority was granted to boards of education to estab-

lish schools for the deaf when the average daily attendance at

such schools numbered three or more above the age of three.

2. Annual reports to the Commissioner of Schools from

boards of education maintaining such schools were required.

3. Payment from the "state common school fund" of the

county concerned of one hundred and fifty dollars to the boards

of education for each deaf youth properly instructed for a period

of nine months was authorized.

4. When a school for the deaf was not maintained within a

given county, the county so deficient had to assume the regular

allowance of one hundred and fifty dollars for such student who

was privileged to go elsewhere for proper instruction.

5. Only trained teachers with one year's experience as a

teacher in a school for the deaf could be employed for this work.

They were to be employed in the same manner as other teachers

of the public school.

Some subsequent modifications of the law took place.

In 191321 the payment of the one hundred and fifty dol-

lars allowed by the act of 1906 was paid by the State

Treasurer direct. The next year²² inspection of these

special schools was made mandatory upon the office of

the State Superintendent of Public Instruction.       Still

later the State substituted a proportionate basis for the

payment of the expenses of deaf children educated by

the various school districts. Instead of a flat rate of

one hundred and fifty dollars, the extra expense only

19 Ibid., XCIX, 80.

20 Ibid., XCVIII, 219.

21 Ibid., CIII, 270.

22 Ibid., CIV, 225.

• 54
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925         277

over that incurred in the education of the normal child

was accepted as the State's charge. However, board

and room, where children were not cared for at home,

was now assumed as the legitimate expense of the State.

In no case could the total charges so incurred exceed

three hundred dollars.²³ The principal trend of the

numerous changes in the legislation of 192524 was in

the direction of centralizing authority and responsibility

for the education of the deaf with the State Director of

Education.

The following table will indicate something of the

growth in numbers of the deaf and dumb in Ohio from

1850 to 1925, and the consequent school problem as the

State became more vigorous in its determination to pro-

vide adequate schooling for these unfortunates.

TABLE IV-THE NUMBER OF DEAF AND DUMB CHILDREN IN

OHIO OVER A PERIOD OF SEVENTY-FIVE YEARS

Date .....                        1850            1860           1870             1880             1890             1900              1925

Number ..                     915              959              1,339            2,301            2,655            3,115             3,49225-26

The Blind.--The care of the blind did not receive

consideration for several years after the State had be-

23 Ibid., CVII, 153; CVIII, Pt. II, 1280; CIX, 258.

24 Ibid., CXI, 26-29.

25 The data for 1925 included the youth between one and twenty-one

years of age classified as partially deaf, totally deaf, and with speech de-

fects. The table, therefore, is only roughly comparable. Superintendent of

Public Instruction, Seventy-second Annual Report, p. 117.

26 In interpreting these figures, it must be borne in mind that for the

first three dates given, the figures represent only those entirely deaf and

dumb. In 1880 and 1890 all those under fifteen years of age who were

deaf, even though they might be able to speak with varying degrees of

capability, were classified as deaf and dumb. In 1900 the age limit was

placed at 19 years. Those under twenty years of age who were deaf, though

not necessarily dumb, have been classified together because the public insti-

tutions generally admit such when they are of school age. U. S. Census

Reports, V, 11, p. 67.

• 55
 

278      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

gun to provide for the deaf and dumb. The first school

established, for which the State assumed responsibility,

was organized in 1837 through the appointment of trus-

tees, and the appropriation of $15,000 was made for

buildings and $10,000 for materials and the expenses of

the school.²⁷ A year later the Legislature appropriated

another $15,000 to complete the construction of the

building for the blind, and also authorized the trustees

to accept twelve students at state expense.²⁸

In 1843 the limitation on the number of students the

trustees could accept at state expense was removed.²⁹

In 185130 tuition charges were removed, and the

State accepted the full responsibility of the support of

the blind, except the traveling expenses to and from the

school, and the necessary clothing of the inmates. These

items of expense were borne by the parents or guardians

of the pupils. By this act the State definitely recog-

nized the principle of public responsibility for the care

and education of this class of unfortunates.

The School for the Blind felt the effects of the re-

organization of the benevolent institutions of the State

in 1852.31 By this legislation the Asylum came under

the administration of a board of trustees acting for all

of the benevolent institutions of the State.  Once a

month the school was inspected by one or more trustees,

and twice each year a majority of the trustees were re-

quired to examine the government and activities of the

school. A similar law of general application gave to the

27 O. L., XXXV, 116.

28 Ibid., XXXVI, 49.

29 Ibid. XLI, 57.

30 Ibid., XLIX, 110.

31 Ibid., L, 194.

• 56
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  279

superintendent of the school power to nominate the

teachers for appointment by the trustees, and the right

to discharge them for cause.³² Another law passed in

1862 gave to the trustees power to appoint both the su-

perintendent and teachers, and to discharge them for

cause, as well as to fix the salaries of the teachers.³³

There seems to have been a feeling of dissatisfaction

with this plan, which divided the interest of trustees,

whose attention was demanded by several schools. The

trustees served without pay; only their traveling ex-

penses were paid by the State. These men depended

upon their professions and business pursuits for their

support. It was too much to expect of the most public-

spirited of citizens, that their own interests were con-

tinually to be neglected for the sake of the welfare of

these institutions. An attempt was made to correct this

apparent difficulty. In 186634 the control of the Asylum

was placed in the hands of a board of trustees, ap-

pointed by the Governor for this school alone. Two

were appointed from Columbus, and the third one from

the State at large. One trustee at least was required

to visit the school each month, and a majority of the

board was expected to inspect it every quarter. The

superintendent of the school and the trustees were re-

quired to submit an annual report to the Governor con-

cerning the school. Full local responsibility for the con-

duct of the institution was delegated to the superin-

tendent who was required to reside at the institution.

Pupils between the ages of eight and twenty years were

 

32 Ibid., LIII, 96.

33 Ibid., LIX, 93.

34 Ibid., LXIII, 170.

• 57
 

280      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

eligible for admission to the school for a term not to

exceed seven years, at the discretion of the superintend-

ent and trustees. Where the parents or guardians were

adjudged financially able, they were expected to pay the

traveling expenses and provide the clothing of the chil-

dren as specified in a previous law; exception to this rule

was made in the case of indigent pupils. Subsequent

changes in the law allowed children at the age of four

years to enter the Asylum and remain for a period of

twelve years, if their progress justified the extension of

the time limit.³⁵ For the most part, the children were

governed by the same age limits for admission to the

School for the Blind, as governed the admission of pu-

pils into the public schools of the State.³⁶

Little additional legislation of importance appeared

for more than a decade. The blind shared in part the

benefits of the general legislation for defectives. An

act passed in 190237 required truant officers to report

the number of blind of school age annually for their

respective school districts. They were to indicate

whether each blind youth was being properly educated

or whether such children should be sent to the State In-

stitution for the Blind. This duty was transferred later

to the school enumerator.³⁸

In 190839 the Ohio Commission for the Blind was

created, composed of the superintendent of the State

School for the Blind and five others appointed by the

Governor. The Commission served without pay; but

35 Ibid., XCIII, 75.

36 Ibid., LXXIII, 111.

37 Ibid., XCV, 620.

³⁸ Ibid., XCIX, 80.

39 Ibid., XCIX, 362.

• 58
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  281

 

they were given a definite and somewhat detailed list

of duties to perform. Among these the most important

were:

1. To act as a bureau of information and industrial aid as

a means of finding employment for the blind and to teach them

home industries.

2. To prepare and maintain a complete register of the blind

in the State with detailed information about each.

3. To promote visitation to the homes of the aged or help-

less blind, etc.

4. To establish, equip and maintain schools and workshops

for industrial training and employment of the blind.

5. To make inquiry into the causes and prevention of blind-

ness.

6. To prepare annually a report to the Governor covering

their activities and estimated costs for the projected activities of

the following year.

This represented a decided advance in the care of the

blind; and a much more systematic effort to train as

well as to discover the remedy for the prevalence of

blindness.

Five years later,⁴⁰ a rather comprehensive law was

enacted, which outlined a system of instruction for the

blind in connection with the public schools. Upon the

application of a board of education to the Superintend-

ent of Public Instruction, authority was granted to or-

ganize a school for the blind within the local district.

Children above the age of four could attend. The law

required at least three in average daily attendance. For

this the county was required to pay to the district in

which the school was located two hundred dollars per

pupil in attendance for nine months. The money was

taken from the "state common school fund." The law

40 Ibid., CIII, 270.

• 59
 

282      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

made attendance compulsory at the discretion of the

local board of education. Annual reports to the office

of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction were

required. Further, state inspectors were authorized to

investigate and to report to the above state officer the

general condition of these schools.⁴¹

Later, for educational purposes, the age limit was

placed between the years three and forty-five. The law

also recognized the right of the blind pupils to board in

the district where they attended school.⁴² Further, the

State was compelled to bear at least part of the financial

burden. However, the demands upon the State could

not exceed three hundred and seventy-five dollars per

pupil.43

The Crippled.--Until 1913 no systematic effort was

made to provide for the crippled or maimed children.

In that year the Legislature placed the education of these

needy children on the same basis as that of other physi-

cal defectives.⁴⁴ In general, thereafter, the educational

fortunes of the crippled were inseparable from those of

the blind and deaf.⁴⁵

In one or two respects there was a slight recognition

of the specific problems that might enter into the edu-

cation of the crippled youth. For instance, where chil-

dren were so badly crippled that they were unable to

attend a special school provided for this class of de-

 

41 Ibid., CIV, 225.

42 Ibid., CVII, 153; CIX, 257.

⁴³ Ibid., CIX, 258.

44 Ibid., CIII, 270.

⁴⁵ Ibid., CIX, 257.

• 60
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  283

fectives, the State recognized the right of such children

to receive some training at home.⁴⁶

The Mentally Deficient.--Prior to 1851 the State

had given no consideration to the mentally deficient chil-

dren. In that year a resolution was passed "inquiring

into the expediency of making provision for the educa-

tion of idiotic and imbecile persons."⁴⁷   Six years later

the Legislature enacted laws which made provision for

this neglected class of children.    The attitude of the

General Assembly toward the question was clearly set

forth in a lengthy preamble to the law:

Whereas the State of Ohio has recognized the education of

its youth as a duty incumbent upon the State, and has provided

for those who are not susceptible of improvement in common

schools, modes of instruction adapted to their wants and capa-

bilities; and whereas, it appears by the report of the Secretary of

State that there are a large number of idiotic youth resident

within its borders who are incapable of improvement in ordinary

public or private schools, who are a burden to their friends and

to the community, objects of commiseration, degraded and help-

less; and whereas, experience has satisfactorily demonstrated that

under the system of instruction adopted in schools for idiots in

other states and in Europe, that these youths may be elevated,

their habits corrected, and their health and morals greatly im-

proved, and they be enabled to obtain their own support; now,

therefore, in discharge of the duty of the State to educate its

weak and helpless children as well as the gifted and strong, and to

elevate a hitherto neglected class,

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio,

That there shall be established and organized as soon as prac-

ticable, an institution for the education of idiotic and imbecile

youth, to be denominated the "Ohio State Asylum for Idiots."⁴⁸

The organization of the asylum was similar to that

of the other schools maintained by the state for the edu-

 

46 Ibid., CIX, 258.

47 Ibid., XLIX, 815.

48 Ibid., LIV, 190.

• 61
 

284      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

cation of defectives. The Governor appointed three

trustees who were given the control and manage-

ment of the asylum. Nine idiots from the judicial dis-

tricts of the state could be admitted to the school. Tui-

tion pupils were to be admitted upon such terms as the

trustees might adopt. The age limit for admission was

placed at fifteen years. The following year the law re-

quired pupils who were supported by the State to be

under sixteen years of age when accepted in the school.

Tuition pupils, however, could be accepted at any age.⁴⁹

Judged by its legislative interest, Ohio has never

been seriously concerned about its mental defectives.

Other than for financial support little legislation of im-

portance took place prior to 1925. The change in the

enumeration law in 1908 required a census of all "im-

beciles or feebleminded children between the ages of six

and twenty-one."⁵⁰ The most extensive legislation came

in 1915 and 1919, especially important being that of

1919. The first concern of the Legislature was the cre-

ation of a state board in 1915 known as the Ohio Board

of Administration.⁵¹ This board was given full respon-

sibility for the care of the feebleminded of the

State. In 1919 the law specified that a new institution

should be erected in the northern part of the State; for

the construction of which six hundred thousand dollars

was appropriated.⁵² Such agricultural and mechanical

training as could be given was to be provided for the

State's mentally deficient. The legislation was quite ex-

 

49 Ibid., LV, 67.

50 Ibid., XCIX, 180.

51 Ibid, CVI, 5.

52 Ibid., CVIII, Pt. I, 552.

• 62
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  285

plicit in the elaborateness of the plans made for the

care of these dependents.

Education of Dependents

The Legislature made an appropriation from the

State treasury for the support and education of a de-

pendent orphan Indian girl in 1820.⁵³ This act of state

support antedated anything done for the deaf and dumb

or the blind. It proved to be the first legislation giving

state support for dependency, and the only act of the

kind prior to 1850.⁵⁴ During this period from 1803 to

1850 the State passed two laws for the protection of

child servants and apprentices, which required the mas-

ters to see that their wards were given the rudiments of

an education in reading, writing and arithmetic.55 Eight

orphan asylums or children's homes were incorporated

in Ohio between 1833 and 185056 and three schools for

poor children.⁵⁷ None of these institutions were the re-

cipients of state support.

This backward state of affairs could not long en-

dure. In 1866 a law was enacted which permitted cities

of the first and second class to provide homes or schools

for neglected, abandoned or vagrant children under six-

teen years of age.⁵⁸ The next year legislation of more

general application was passed which provided that

where schools had been established for poor children by

private enterprise, the board of education of townships,

 

53 Ibid., XVIII, 66.

54 Miller, E. A., op. cit., p. 126.

55 O. L., IV, 72; XXII, 381.

56 U. S. Census Report, 1904, Benevolent Institutions, p. 106 ff.

57 Miller, E. A., op. cit., p. 127.

58 O. L., LXIII, 51.

• 63
 

286      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications villages or cities, where such schools were located, were authorized to negotiate for the admission of other chil- dren into the schools at fixed tuition rates. The money for these tuitions was to be drawn from the school treas- ury of the local district.59  In 1869 the county commis- sioners were authorized to make appropriations to the extent of $6,000 for the support of such schools.60 A year later, permission was granted to counties in which infirmaries were located, to establish schools in connec- tion with such institutions and employ teachers for the instruction of the children who were inmates.61 In this legislation the principle of public support and responsi- bility in essence was recognized. Children's homes and orphan asylums had a tremen- dous growth during this period. It is difficult at times to distinguish the difference between these institutions and some of the schools previously considered. Chil- dren' homes and orphanages steadily increased in num- ber until the last two decades of the century, when they suddenly developed a mushroom growth. The number of homes and orphanages founded within ten-year periods from 1850 to 1920 is shown in the accompanying table. TABLE V--ORPHANAGES AND CHILDREN'S HOMES FOUNDED IN OHIO FROM 1850 TO 1925 BY TEN-YEAR PERIODS62

59 Ibid., LXV, 150; LXXV, 530. 60 Ibid., LXVI, 11. 61 Ibid., LXVII, 58. 62 U. S. Census Report, 1904, Benevolent Institutions, p. 106 ff. The

• 64
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  287

These homes and orphanages were essentially

educational in nature.63 The act of 1866 provided for

the appointment of a matron for children's homes,

whose duty it was to direct the employment and give

suitable physical, mental, and moral training to the in-

mates. Neglected and abandoned children were eligible

for admission to these schools for such training.⁶⁴    The

intent of this act was reaffirmed several times in later

years.⁶⁵ Where it was possible to do so, homes in which

these children might be educated under the environment

of approximately normal home conditions were found

for these unfortunates. The trustees of the institutions

were authorized to appoint a visiting agent. It was the

duty of this agent to find homes where these children

would be welcomed and given a home with proper educa-

tional opportunities. The agent was expected to visit

the children placed in private homes once or twice a year,

and report to the trustees any failure on the part of the

families concerned to provide the children with suitable

school facilities.⁶⁶

In 1877 the county commissioners were required to

levy a sufficient tax to support industrial education for

the inmates of children's homes and orphanages in the

counties where such institutions were located.⁶⁷        Six

years later the law gave to the trustees of the orphan-

 

orphanages and children's homes were classified with the nurseries. The

latter were for the most part easily distinguishable. In a few instances it

was difficult to determine the category in which the institutions belonged.

The table given is approximately correct. Nurseries were not included.

63 O. L., LXIV, 118; LXVI, 61.

64 Ibid., LXIII, 45.

65 Ibid., LXXIX, 28; LXXV, 266.

66 Ibid., LXXXVI, 340.

67 Ibid., LXXIV, 128.

• 65
 

288      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

ages, children's homes and other benevolent institutions,

the right to petition the directors of the school district in

which they were located for separate schools. Districts,

receiving such a request, were required to establish a

separate school for the children of these institutions, pro-

vide the rooms and equipment, and pay from the district

school fund a pro rata share to the asylum school on the

basis of the school district enumeration. All necessary

money needed for the conduct of the asylum school

above this amount, the institution was required to pay

from its own funds. The trustees of the home or or-

phanage were in full control of the asylum school, sub-

ject to the general school laws which governed boards

of education.⁶⁸

In 1890 the county commissioners were given the

right to appropriate a sum not to exceed $8,500 for the

support of these institutions and to receive in exchange

a lien upon the property.⁶⁹ This limitation was later re-

moved and the commissioners were allowed to use their

own discretion in the amount of financial aid given.⁷⁰

Three laws were passed the next year which opened

wide the doors of public support of these homes for de-

pendents. The first law gave the county commissioners

or city councils the right to support established institu-

tions for dependents by the purchase of land, erection of

buildings, and subscriptions.⁷¹ The second act required

the county commissioners to appoint four trustees for

such homes, when the county provided the sites and

 

68 Ibid., LXXX, 217.

69 Ibid., LXXXVII, 252.

70 Ibid., LXXXIX, 351.

⁷¹ Ibid., XC, 11.

• 66
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  289

buildings. The trustees were given full control of the

home or orphanage. The effect of this legislation was

to transfer both authority and the responsibility for the

support and education of dependants to the local units of

government.⁷²  The third law    enacted, enabled the

county to use the unappropriated part of the state school

fund for the support of the homes in any district in the

county.⁷³ The law was amended in 191374 to grant to

these children all the privileges of the public school for

the full time prescribed by law. Any deficiencies in-

curred financially were to be paid either out of the funds

of the institution or appropriated by the county commis-

sioners. The last modification of the law came in 1917.75

By this act the doors of the public schools were opened to

these children when such were available. When special

schools had to be established in connection with orphan-

ages, they were under the control of the local school sys-

tems. With the approval of the authorities in charge

of the home the board of education appointed the teach-

ers, provided schoolbooks and all necessary equipment.

The Legislature took particular interest in the wel-

fare of the Ohio Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphans' Home

located at Xenia, Ohio. In January, 1875, the General

Assembly passed a joint resolution which requested that

a committee be appointed to report a bill to the Legisla-

ture providing for industrial training at the orphanage.76

In response to that resolution, a bill was introduced and

passed in March of the same year. This bill provided

72 Ibid., XC, 46.

73 Ibid., XC, 192.

74 Ibid., CIII, 864.

75 Ibid., CVII, 60.

76 O. L. L., LXXII, 263.

Vol. XXXIX--19.

• 67
 

290      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications for training courses in agriculture, horticulture, tech- nology, industry, and art. The law declared that what- ever branch of industry the trustees might find proper to introduce, they were to endeavor to have taught in

such a thorough fashion that the institution would be- come a model school for the teaching of that particular branch of industry.77 The next year, shop work was added to the curriculum. The trustees were required to purchase the tools and materials for the shops and 77 O. L., LXXII, 187.

• 68
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  291

sell the finished products. The course of study for the

children over thirteen years of age was planned definitely

to fit the pupil for future usefulness and the earning of

a livelihood. A splendid feature of the law was the pro-

vision that enabled children in the last two years of their

training at the orphanage, to retain their earnings from

the products of their trade work. By this means, chil-

dren were able to save enough to tide them over while

they were seeking a position after they had left the or-

phanage.⁷⁸

All orphans of former soldiers and sailors and all

children of disabled soldiers and sailors were admitted

to the Ohio Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphans' Home.

There the orphans were supported and educated until

they reached the age of sixteen. Girls and crippled chil-

dren were allowed to remain until they were eighteen.⁷⁹

In 1900 the law required the trustees to receive all the

children of soldiers or sailors, who had died or might

thereafter die from injuries received in war. Further,

in cases of extreme destitution, the children of veterans

were admitted to the orphanage.⁸⁰ Later children of the

Ohio National Guard were admitted on the same terms

as other children of veterans.81 The orphanage was con-

trolled and supported by the State.⁸²

Education of Delinquents

The need of educating delinquents was not recog-

nized prior to 1850. Only three laws were passed on the

 

78 Ibid., LXXIII, 26.

79 Ibid., LXXXIV, 401.

80 Ibid., XCIV, 88.

81 Ibid., CVI, 435.

82 Ibid., CIII, 159; CIX, 128.

• 69
 

292      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

subject from 1803 to 1850, and they were minor in char-

acter.⁸³ A complete change of attitude took place during

the next seventy-five years. From 1851 to 1925, a mass

of legislation was enacted which provided for the care

and education of delinquents.

The establishment of the Ohio Reform School was

made possible in 1856.84 The Governor was authorized

to appoint three commissioners, who were to erect the

necessary buildings and supervise the education and dis-

cipline of the inmates. This was the first serious effort

on the part of the State to cope with the delinquent

problem.

In 1857 the Legislature began to grapple with the

delinquent problem in earnest. A system of reform in-

stitutions calculated to meet the needs of the situation

was outlined.⁸⁵ The State was ready to recognize three

types of institutions that were thought best fitted to care

for delinquents. The first type was to be known as a

house of refuge. Here the more vicious boys and girls

were to be incarcerated. The lower age-limit for in-

mates was placed at twelve years for boys and ten years

for girls. The second type was to be known as the re-

form farm. In this place those needing less restraint

were to be segregated, and employed in agricultural pur-

suits. The third type was to consist of private institu-

tions supported by private charity, under the care of

corporate bodies which were recognized by law. In the

nature of the case, this last type was less easily charac-

terized, because the mild and the vicious were likely to

 

83 Miller, E. A., op. cit., p. 128.

84 O. L., LIII, 66.

85 Ibid., LIV, 171.

• 70
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  293

be found in these schools. The entire system was to be

under the general supervision of the commissioners who

were provided for in the law of 1856, to insure uni-

formity in the regulation of all the institutions involved.

The next year the law was modified and the term

"reform schools" defined. The first two classes of re-

form schools remained as described in the act of 1857.

The third class was changed, apparently eliminating pri-

vate institutions from consideration, and the schools in

this group were called "reformatories," when estab-

lished according to certain regulations. The schools in

these three classes were defined as follows: "The term

'reform schools' shall be understood to apply to institu-

tions, where youth are detained, under discipline, for

their reformation, rather than for their punishment."⁸⁶

It is interesting, from a pedagogical point of view, to

find this expressed attitude toward the place of punish-

ment in the educative process. Something of this same

spirit of enlightened concern for the wayward boy or

girl, is found in the law of 1892. The Court of Common

Pleas was required to appoint six persons, three of them

women, as a board of visitors, for a term of three years.

It was the duty of this board to be present at the trial of

every child under sixteen years of age, to protect the

interests of the child.⁸⁷

A number of reform institutions were established as

a result of the legislation passed from 1851 to 1925. A

law of considerable proportions was passed in 1857, out-

lining in elaborate detail the form of organization for

houses of refuge.   In 1871 cities were authorized to

 

86 Ibid., LV, 27.

87 Ibid., LXXXIX, 160.

• 71
 

294      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

purchase lands outside their corporate limits on which

to build these schools.⁸⁸ The reform farm at Lancaster,

Fairfield county, appeared in the legislation of 1858 as

a type of the school embraced in class two of the general

system outlined in the law of that date.⁸⁹ The work of

this school was outlined broadly as including any activity

that would prepare the inmates for lives of usefulness.

To this end, courses in agriculture or mechanical indus-

try were emphasized.⁹⁰ In 1885 the reform school in

Fairfield county changed its name to the "Boys' Indus-

trial School."⁹¹ It continued to provide the same kind of

industrial training as before. No further direct legisla-

tion applied to the school until 1913.⁹² This legislation,

as subsequently amended in 1921,93 placed full control

of the school in the hands of "the controlling administra-

tive department" subject, of course, to such inspection as

might be provided by law. Boys between the ages of ten

and eighteen might be committed to the school by the

Juvenile Courts. All such commitments presupposed re-

lease at the age of twenty-one unless good behavior and

satisfactory progress in training justified an earlier ter-

mination of the sentence.

In 1891 the intermediate penitentiary changed its

name to the "Ohio State Reformatory." Persons be-

tween the ages of sixteen and thirty years were sent to

this school. None could be sent there, however, who had

been convicted of first or second degree murder. In-

88 Ibid., LXVIII, 90.

89 Ibid., LV, 27.

90 Ibid., LXXV, 60.

91 Ibid., LXXXII, 141.

92 Ibid., CIII, 864.

93 Ibid., CIX, 523.

• 72
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  295

dustrial training, with the emphasis upon labor industry,

seems to have been the agency depended upon for the

reformation of the inmates.94

The reform schools previously discussed were mostly

for boys. A resolution was passed in 1868 which recom-

mended the appointment of a committee to locate and es-

tablish similar reform agencies exclusively for girls.⁹⁵

At the next session of the Legislature, a law was enacted

which made provision for the establishment of a "Re-

form and Industrial School for Girls." Its organiza-

tion was patterned in principle after the schools of sim-

ilar nature established for boys. The training was in-

dustrial in character, the industrial courses being adapted

to girls.⁹⁶ The name of the school was later changed to

the "Girls' Industrial School."⁹⁷

A school for the more vicious type of girl was created

by the Legislature in 1878.98 The object of this school

was declared to be "for the instruction, employment, and

reformation of evil-disposed, incorrigible, and vicious

girls."  A girl committed to the Girls' Industrial Home,

was required to remain there until reformed or dis-

charged from the institution when she had attained the

age of eighteen years.⁹⁹ Considerable change in the

school was effected by new legislation in 1911100 and

1913.101 The time of incarceration was extended to the

age of twenty-one, except for good behavior, and a re-

94 Ibid., LXXXVIII, 382; XCIII, 349.

95 O. L. L., LXV, 298.

96 O. L., LXVI, 110.

97 Ibid., LXIX, 189.

98 Ibid., LXXV, 144.

99 Ibid., LXXXVI, 180; XCI, 102.

100 Ibid., CII, 307.

101 Ibid., CIII, 864.

• 73
 

296      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

ward of merit might secure the release of an inmate

three months before her twenty-first birthday. In addi-

tion to the regular subjects of the elementary school, in-

dustrial training was provided "of such character as to

prepare them to perform the skilled labor required to fit

them for self-support when released." For this purpose

a skilled instructor was to be employed. Likewise, a

woman physician was to be added to the staff who should

reside at the school to give necessary medical attention

to the inmates and instruct the girls in physiology, hy-

giene, and physical culture.

In 1845 the appointment of a chaplain for the peni-

tentiary was authorized by law.l⁰² In 1856 an act fur-

ther defining the educational duties of this officer was

passed.¹⁰³ Convicts under twenty-one years of age, who

did not possess a good knowledge of writing, reading,

and arithmetic, were sent to school three working hours

per day under the direction of the chaplain. For illiter-

ate men over twenty-one years of age, the working time

was reduced one hour so that they could attend school.

The warden was at liberty to designate additional time

for school work for convicts. In 1858 geography was

included in the curriculum of penitentiary studies.104

The wording of the law frequently underwent changes

but its essential character and purpose was undisturbed

until 1913. Even then the change was not one of pur-

pose. It was rather a radical adjustment in furtherance

of the basic intent of the original legislation.

The new law¹⁰⁵ practically established a full-fledged

102 O. L. L., XLIII, 446.

103 Ibid., LIII, 126.

104 O. L., LV, 136.

105 Ibid., CIII, 273.

• 74
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  297

elementary school in the penitentiary. The school was

"to be so conducted as to afford to such prisoners, as far

as practicable, the advantages of a common school educa-

tion." The Ohio Board of Administration was author-

ized to employ a superintendent for the school and such

"assistants and teachers as in its opinion, may be deemed

necessary." Schoolrooms, equipment and supplies were

to be provided. The required curriculum consisted of

reading, writing, spelling, arithmetic and English gram-

mar. In addition, if deemed wise, manual training, do-

mestic science and commercial departments were to be

established. The superintendent could require the at-

tendance of prisoners. Prisoners qualified to teach could

be detailed to that work and their sentences shortened

thereby. The same applied to pupils except that the law

specified that one month's diminution of sentence was to

be gained by each advancement in grade for all except

prisoners with a life sentence. For them their school

record was to have weight in any appeal for pardon, pa-

role, or commutation of sentence. The school was to be

in session not less than two hours per day, six days a

week and forty weeks each year. The penitentiary,

thereby, became a significant educational institution of

Ohio.

Juvenile Legal Agencies. Two agencies of consid-

erable educational significance for dependants and de-

linquents came into existence in the last twenty-five

years of the period under consideration. These were

the Juvenile Court created in 1902 106 and the Bureau of

Juvenile Research organized in 1913.107 The latter was

106 Ibid., XCV, 785.

107 Ibid., CIII. 175.

• 75
 

298      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

closely associated with the former and was in a sense

but an extension of the Juvenile Court idea.

The Juvenile Court, created in 1902 and extensively

reorganized in the next session of the Legislature,¹⁰⁸ was

from its inception quite an important institution. The

completeness of its organization and educational signifi-

cance can be appreciated from a brief outline of the es-

sential features of the law:

1. Delinquent children seventeen years of age or

under, not inmates of a state institution, came under the

jurisdiction of the Court where they remained until the

age of twenty-one was attained by the boys and eighteen

by the girls.

2. A separate room and separate records must be

provided for the trial of Juvenile Court cases.

3. On petition of any citizen of the State the Court

was required to take cognizance of any child held to be

neglected, dependant or delinquent.

4. The Juvenile Courts of the several counties could

appoint properly qualified persons as probation officers.

5. Probation officers were in the eyes of the law

friends of the children. They were required to investi-

gate, to provide the Court with information needed, and

in general to care for the children under the direction of

the Court.

6. In case of neglect, dependency, or delinquency,

the child might be sent to a suitable state institution or

given in charge of some person willing to care for the

child as the Court might require, subject to the super-

vision of the probation officer.

108 Ibid., XCVII, 621.

• 76
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  299

7. The superintendents of the Boys' Industrial

School and the Girls' Industrial Home, and similar in-

stitutions, were required to appoint agents whose duty it

was to investigate all homes to which children were pa-

roled by them and keep a close supervision over such

children.

8. The act was to be so construed that proper guar-

dianship should be given the child to insure its educa-

tional, moral and physical welfare.

9. The Juvenile Court was clothed with sufficient

legal authority to enforce its decisions. In fact no ap-

peal from its decisions was possible.

The law governing the Juvenile Court was sub-

jected to extensive revision four years later.¹⁰⁹ Only

two changes are of educational interest. The one raised

the age-limit from eighteen years to twenty-one for the

Court's continued jurisdiction of both girls and boys.

The other authorized the establishment of a "detention

home" near the court-house in those counties where the

judge of jurisdiction so advised. The superintendent

and matron must be "discreet persons, qualified as teach-

ers of children." The age under which initial action

might be taken by the Juvenile Court was raised from

seventeen to eighteen.110

An interesting revision of the Juvenile Court law

took place in 1913 and was only slightly modified later.

This legislation centered about the pension for mothers

of children within the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court.

Mothers of children not eligible for "an age and school-

ing certificate," whose husbands were dead, permanently

¹⁰⁹ Ibid., XCIX, 192.

110 Ibid., CIII, 864.

• 77
 

300      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

disabled, or who had deserted, were to be allowed a

stated pension when such aid would make possible the

proper education of the children. When the age of

legal employment was reached by the children concerned

the pension of the mother ceased.¹¹¹

The last innovation in the care of dependants and

delinquents came in 1913 with the establishment of the

Bureau of Juvenile Research.¹¹² The Ohio Board of Ad-

ministration was charged with responsibility for its

creation and maintenance. The primary function of

this Bureau was that of mental and physical examina-

tion, and treatment when necessary, of cases committed

to it by the aforesaid Board. Individuals could be as-

signed to or transferred from one institution to another

as the findings of the Bureau warranted. The distinct

value of this Bureau lay in the better placement of

minors as their physical and mental condition might

suggest after careful examination and study.

 

CHAPTER VI

 

THE PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHE

The Certification of Teachers

The first law which provided for the certification of

teachers was passed in 1825.1 The law required the

Court of Common Pleas in each county to appoint three

examiners for the county. It was the duty of these ex-

aminers to examine teachers and certificate those who

were considered competent. A modification of the law

 

111 Ibid., CIII, 864; CVI, 436; CIX, 70.

112 Ibid., CIII, 175.

1 O. L., XXIII, 36.

• 78
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  301

was made in 1827 which permitted the Court of Common

Pleas to appoint not to exceed one examiner for each

organized township in the county.² The evident pur-

pose of this act was to secure local examiners for the

convenience of each township in the certification of

teachers. A teacher without a certificate could not

claim, legally, any portion of the public funds in payment

for her services in the schools. The principle of certifi-

cation has been quite generally accepted from that time

to the present.

The general school law of 18493 made applicable to

cities, villages and special districts the provisions of the

special Akron Act of 1847.⁴ By the provisions of this

act, the boards of education of city, village, and special

district were required to appoint three competent persons

within the district to serve as examiners. All applicants

for positions in the district schools were required to pass

an examination conducted by at least two of the district

examiners. Successful applicants, if possessed of good

moral character, were granted a certificate which stated

thereon the school subjects which they were found qual-

ified to teach. No person could teach in the public

schools without such a certificate.

The general school laws of Ohio underwent a revision

and the schools were reorganized in 1853. At this time

the Probate Judge was authorized to appoint a county

board of school examiners which consisted of three per-

sons who should hold office for two years. The exam-

iners were to determine the time and place of holding ex-

 

2 Ibid., XXV, 65.

3 Ibid., XLVII, 22.

4 Ibid., XLVI, 105.

• 79
 

302      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

aminations for the candidates who desired teachers' cer-

tificates. Due notice of the time and place of these

examinations was published in a paper of general cir-

culation in the county. A certificate granted by two

members of the board was valid for two years anywhere

in the local county. The granting of these certificates

was based upon the possession of good moral character

as well as the ability to pass successful informational

examinations in orthography, reading, writing, arithme-

tic, geography, and English grammar. In 1868 an ex-

amination in the knowledge of the theory and practice of

teaching was required before the applicant could receive

a certificate.⁵ Where the teacher desired to teach in ad-

vanced schools, an examination had to be taken in the

subjects taught in schools of that grade, and the requisite

certificate secured.

No limit had been placed, in this law, upon the num-

ber of meetings the examiners might hold for the pur-

pose of granting certificates. As a result, a variety of

practices sprang up in the conduct of these examinations.

In some counties there were so many examinations held

that the practice of unrestricted examination was seri-

ously questioned. If an examination were to be held

every time a teacher wanted to try for a certificate, there

was grave danger that the examinations would become a

fomality and a farce, and the true intent of the law

would be defeated.   In 1858 the Commissioner of

Schools called for reports from county examiners. He

found, for example, that in Franklin county, fifty-three

meetings had been held during the year for the examina-

tion of 421 candidates; while in Licking county, adjoin-

 

5 Ibid., LXV, 171.

• 80
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  303

ing Franklin, but twenty-four examinations had been

held to accommodate 642 candidates. Some counties had

held as few as ten examinations. In the light of these

facts, Mr. Smyth seriously questioned the wisdom of

conducting more than twenty-four examinations during

the year. Private examinations were forbidden by law.

He, therefore, recommended an amendment to the law

which would provide for a stated examination at the

county-seat once a month, with twelve special meetings

optional at the convenience of the examiners within the

same twelve-month period.⁶

This recommendation seems to have fallen on deaf

ears at the time. No attempt was made to remedy the

situation until the year 1864. In that year, legislation

was enacted which made a number of important changes

in the law which governed the certification of teachers.

Among these changes was one based upon the recom-

mendation made six years before by the Commissioner.

The number of examinations was limited to eighteen per

year for each county. Certificates were issued for not

less than six months, nor for a longer period than two

years. Teachers were forbidden to teach without a cer-

tificate.⁷ The same law created a board of examiners

for the State. The State Commissioner of Schools was

authorized to appoint the three examiners who were to

hold office for two years. The examiners were empow-

ered to issue certificates to teachers of high qualifications,

the certificates to be countersigned by the State Com-

missioner of Schools. Certificates from this board su-

perseded all county certificates, eliminated the necessity

6 State Commissioner of Common Schools, Fourth Annual Report, p. 33.

7 O. L., LXI, 31.

• 81
 

304      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

for further examination, and were valid in any school

district in the State.

In 1873 three agencies with clearly defined fields of

activity were recognized for the certification of teachers.

The state board of examiners were empowered to grant

certificates to exceptionally well-qualified teachers.

These certificates were valid anywhere in the State. The

city and village boards of examiners were permitted to

grant certificates which were valid only in their local

districts. The county board of examiners issued certifi-

cates to teachers, which were recognized only in the

county where granted. Where cities and villages had

their own examiners, the county examiners had no juris-

diction.⁸

The law which governed the county examiners un-

derwent numerous changes after 1873. The term of

office for the examiners was changed to three years.

The legislation of 1873 specified that members of the

board of examiners must not be connected in any way

with a normal school or school for the special training of

teachers.⁹ The same act permitted the examiners to

issue certificates for six, twelve, eighteen, twenty-four,

and thirty-six months from the day of examination. If

indorsed by the president and secretary of the board of

examiners of any village or city, these certificates became

valid therein without examination. The board was re-

quired to organize¹⁰ by selecting a president and a clerk

from its members. The clerk was required to keep a rec-

ord of all certificates issued and to make an annual re-

 

8 Ibid., LXX, 195.

⁹ Ibid.

10 Ibid., LXX, 241.

• 82
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  305

port to the State Commissioner of Common Schools.

The report included the number of candidates examined;

dues collected; certificates granted and for what periods;

examination sessions held; and the amount of money

drawn from the county treasurer for the payment of

members of the examining board for their services. An

act passed the following year permitted the board to

secure qualified examiners for branches of study in

which the board felt itself unqualified to examine the

candidates.11 In 1891 the qualifications of members of

the board of county examiners were made more strin-

gent. Members were required to have had at least two

years of teaching experience and to have taught within

the period of five years preceding appointment.12 Not

until 191413 did the board again receive major attention.

In that year the personnel of the board was changed to

consist of the county superintendent, one district super-

intendent, and a teacher. The teacher must have had

two years' experience, and while on the board be a

teacher or supervisor in the schools of the county. The

term of office was shortened to two years. The number

of examinations per year for the certification of candi-

dates was shortened from twelve to eight. The last

change for the period came seven years later when the

board was changed from three to four members with

the county superintendent, one city superintendent, a

high school principal, and a teacher.¹⁴ The number of

sessions allowed for the examination each year was fur-

ther reduced. Only four examinations were allowed,

11 Ibid., LXXI, 107.

12 Ibid., LXXXVIII, 495.

13 Ibid., CIV, 100.

14 Ibid., CIX, 246.

Vol. XXXIX--20.

• 83
 

306      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications This was clearly in the interest of higher professional standardization of teacher certification. The number of subjects in which a teacher must pass satisfactory examinations to receive a county certificate

steadily increased. In 1882 the history of the United States was added to the list of subjects,15 and six years later, elementary physiology and hygiene were included for examination.16 Civil government became a required 15 Ibid., LXXIX, 70. 16 Ibid., LXXXV, 93.

• 84
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  307

examination subject in 1896.17 In 1900 a certificate could

not be granted to a teacher unless he could pass an ex-

amination on the nature and effect of alcohol and nar-

cotics upon the human system as well as the proper

methods of teaching the subject.¹⁸ The final additions

for the period came with the inclusion of literature19 and

agriculture²⁰ among the examination subjects. Teachers

of special subjects or limited fields such as kindergarten

or the primary grades were expected to pass examina-

tions only in those subjects or fields which they elected

to teach.²1 The legislation concerning high school sub-

jects in certification requirements closely paralleled that

for the elementary school, except that wide variations in

subjects and classifications appeared through the years.

The nature and number of teachers' certificates be-

came more complicated toward the close of the period.

In 1888, county examiners were permitted to grant cer-

tificates for one, two, and three years from date of ex-

amination. Five-year certificates could be granted to

teachers, who in addition to the necessary high scholar-

ship qualifications, had been for three years immediately

preceding the date of application engaged in teaching,

twelve months of which had been in one place. This cer-

tificate was renewable at the discretion of the board,

without examination.²²  Later, an eight-year certificate

was issuable to teachers who had taught for five years,

eighteen months of which had been in one place. Appli-

 

17 Ibid., XCII, 36.

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid., XCVII, 371.

20 Ibid., CIV, 100.

^{21 I}bid., LXXXV, 93; XCII, 36.

^{22 Ibid.,} LXXXV, 330.

• 85
 

308      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

cants for this certificate had also to pass an examination

in botany, algebra, natural philosophy, and English lit-

erature. This certificate was also renewable without

examinations.²³

After 1900 steps were taken to discriminate between

possible certificates to be issued. Accordingly, in 190424

the county boards were authorized to issue three kinds

of certificates, namely: Teachers' Elementary School

Certificates, Teachers' High School Certificates, and

Teachers' Special Certificates.  These three were the

only types of certificates recognized prior to 1925. There

were, however, other certificates of a less permanent na-

ture within these three general classifications. Among

these should be mentioned the provisional certificates

issued for one, two, and three years, the emergency cer-

tificate valid for one year only,²⁵ and the limited elemen-

tary and high school certificates26 of which there were

several grades. Another partial cause for this diversity

of certificates came through the one, two, three, five and

eight years for which many of them were valid. The

local boards seem to have been given considerable lati-

tude in the standards applied for some of these certifi-

cates.  There is significant evidence that after 1910

the county as a certification agency was losing favor.²⁷

To secure uniformity of examinations and standard-

ization of certification, the secretary of the State Board

of Examiners was required to prepare questions in series

form for each county examination in the State. The

23 Ibid., XCIII, 115; XCII, 121.

24 Ibid., XCVII, 372.

25 Ibid., CII, 439; CIV, 100.

26 Ibid., CVIII, Pt. I, 683, and Pt. II, 1274.

²⁷ Ibid., CIV, 104; CVI, 340; CIX, 189.

• 86
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  309

questions were to reach the examining board two days

before the county examination; and the questions were

not to be opened until the time of the examination, when

they were to be opened in the presence of the examiners.

Unless the boards definitely decided to the contrary, they

were obligated to use these questions. To avoid all pos-

sibility of fraud in the use of these questions, county

examiners were required to hold examinations at times

specified by law.²⁸

The boards of city and village examiners, provided

for in the law of 1873, were to consist of three, six, or

nine persons for cities of the first class, and three mem-

bers for cities of the second class and villages with a

population of 2,500 or above. The boards of education

were the appointive powers for these examiners.²⁹

Boards of examiners for cities of the first class were

limited to three or six members in 1888, two of whom

must have had at least two years of practical teaching

experience.³⁰ Examining boards of the smaller cities

and villages remained unchanged in point of size, but,

otherwise, came under the application of the law for

boards in cities of the first class. The minimum popula-

tion number of the village or city to which these laws

could apply was lowered to 700 in 1886.31 In 1904 the

size of the boards was reduced to three.³²

Both in cities of the first class and second grade and

villages, certificates could be granted for one, two and

 

28 Ibid., XC, 300; XCVII, 370; CIV, 100.

29 Ibid., LXX, 195.

30 Ibid., LXXXV, 330; LXXXVIII, 280.

31 Ibid., LXXIII, 135

³² Ibid., XCVII, 372.

• 87
 

310      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

three years.³³ In 1881 certificates were granted for five-

and ten-year periods, also. The five- and ten-year cer-

tificates presupposed at least three years of teaching ex-

perience on the part of the candidate.³⁴ The law of 1888

prescribed the qualifications for the five-year certifi-

cate quite definitely. The applicants must have been

"for three years next preceding their application en-

gaged in teaching, eighteen months of which experience

shall have been in one place." The certificate was re-

newable without examination.³⁵ In 1900, cities of the

first grade of the first class were given authority to

issue certificates valid for life within the district. To

be eligible for the certificate the applicant must have had

fifty months successful experience in teaching, thirty of

which must have been in the city district where the cer-

tificate was granted. In addition to this "the applicant

shall give evidence of satisfactory knowledge of the his-

tory of education, science of education, and psychol-

ogy."³⁶ The village district examining board was abol-

ished in 1904.³⁷ Thereafter the city and county issued

similar certificates except that the city could give a more

rigid examination and might examine in additional sub-

jects other than those permitted to the county exam-

iners.38

No important changes in the law governing the state

board of examiners occurred until 1881. In that year

the state board was given the right to issue two grades of

 

³³ Ibid., LXXII, 114.

3⁴ Ibid., LXXVIII, 87.

35 Ibid., LXXXV, 330.

36 Ibid., XCIV, 91.

³⁷ Ibid., XCVII, 372.

38 Ibid., XCVII, 376.

• 88
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  311

certificates. The first grade or life certificate was given

to those of good scholarship, moral character and pro-

fessional experience, although nothing is said in the

law that would further explain just what constituted

eligibility in this regard. The second grade certificate

was issued for a period of ten years, to those showing

satisfactory attainment in the ordinary branches re-

quired for county certificates, and the certificates were

good wherever these branches were taught in the State.

The principal value of this certificate lay in the wider

scope it gave the possessor in the choice of desirable posi-

tions.³⁹ In 1888 a radical change was introduced in the

composition of this board and the kind of certificates

offered. The board was enlarged to comprise five mem-

bers who held office for five years. Three grades of life

certificates were issued. These certificates were granted

on the basis of scholarship, character and ability. Three

grades of schools were recognized according to the

branches taught, for the work of which, those receiving

these certificates, were considered especially well-pre-

pared.⁴⁰

For twenty-six years the state seemed to consider

with satisfaction the State Board of School Examiners

created by law in 1888. At least no modification of the

law took place to suggest dissatisfaction. The three

types of life certificates authorized in 188841 were still

recognized in 1914 but in that year definite regulations

for their attainment were provided through legislation.⁴²

As a general prerequisite of any one of the three life cer-

³⁹ Ibid., LXXVIII, 39.

⁴⁰ Ibid., LXXXV, 330.

41 Ibid., LXXXV, 330.

42 Ibid., CIV, 100.

• 89
 

312      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

tificates it was required that after January 1, 1915, eli-

gibility should be based upon a year's work in summer

schools of teacher-training institutions of the rank of a

college or normal school or a liberal arts college. After

January 1, 1920, the prerequisites were to include two

years' work from the type of institution suggested as

standard for 1915. For any who had taught fifty months

the above law did not apply, and such teachers might

qualify for a life certificate if high school graduates.

A provisional elementary certificate, good for four years,

could be granted to a graduate of a two-year academic

and professional course in a teachers' college, college or

university. Completion of a four year's course in such

an institution qualified the candidate for a provisional

high school certificate good for four years. The third

type of certificate, the provisional four years' special

certificate, could be granted upon completion of a two-

year course, as in the two certificate situations above

mentioned, with additional training-school experience

and specialization in the subject to be taught. Upon the

completion of twenty-four months of successful teaching

such a provisional certificate could be changed to a life

certificate.⁴³

Some changes and additions to the state certification

laws were made in 1919 and 1921. The prerequisites

for life certificates were made more stringent. In 191944

elementary, high school, and special life certificates could

be granted only on completion of a minimum of one

year's special training as as specified in the law of ¹⁹¹⁴⁴⁵

43 Ibid., CVII, 458; also Ohio School Laws, 1912, pp. 160-161, Sec.

7858-1-7.

44 O. L., CVIII, Pt. I, 683.

⁴⁵ Ibid., CIV, 100.

• 90
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  313

plus fifty months' successful teaching experience. Two

additional state provisional certificates appear for the

first time. A certificate to teach vocational subjects such

as agriculture, home economics, and industrial courses

supported by federal aid, and a certificate to teach kin-

dergarten and the first two grades of the primary were

created. Two years later, 1921, these provisional voca-

tional and kindergarten certificates were made subject to

validation for life upon the completion of fifty months

of successful teaching experience. All special subjects

certificates came under the provisions of this law.⁴⁶ Col-

lege graduates with fifty months' teaching experience

were virtually made eligible to a life certificate upon

recommendation of the State Superintendent of Public

Instruction.

 

Teachers' Institutes

For more than two decades after Ohio became a

state, nothing was done for the training of her teachers.

The first ones to feel the need of more adequate profes-

sional training in the public schools, and to seek a

remedy for this evident shortcoming, were the teachers

themselves. An association of teachers, for the discus-

sion of educational problems, had been meeting together

in Cincinnati as early as 1829.47 Between that date and

1847, a number of associations and institutes for the

professional improvement of teachers were organized

and incorporated.⁴⁸ In 1847 eleven counties in Ohio

were given permission to incorporate teachers' insti-

 

46 Ibid., CIX, 189.

47 Taylor, J. W. A Manual of the Ohio School System, p. 333.

48 Miller, E. A., op. cit., p. 129 ff.

• 91
 

314       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

tutes.⁴⁹ The next year the act was made general for the

State.⁵⁰ In 1849 the county commissioners were au-

thorized to appropriate an amount not to exceed $100 for

the support of county institutes for teachers. This ap-

propriation was conditioned upon the teachers raising

at least one-half of the sum needed for the support of

the institutes.⁵¹

That the institute movement was enjoying a healthy

growth by the close of the year 1851, is clearly evinced

by the annual school report for that year. A total of

forty-one teachers' institutes made reports to the office

of the Secretary of State, showing an attendance of

3,251 teachers.⁵² Mr. King makes this significant com-

ment upon the institute situation for the year:

A large number of Institutes have been held during the past

year, in different counties of the State. But few, however, have

been reported to this office. Many of them have been provided

with teachers through the instrumentality of the State Teachers'

Association  .  .  . Calls have been made for instructors to

conduct Institutes, from many counties which could not be sup-

plied.⁵³

The institute movement received very little legisla-

tive help prior to 1861. In that year supplementary leg-

islation was passed which permitted teachers' institute

associations of several counties to unite in one large in-

stitute. The commissioners of the several counties thus

uniting, were authorized to appropriate $100 from each

county for the benefit of the institute, upon the petition

of twenty practical teachers of the county who indicated

49 O. L., XLV, 67.

50 Ibid., XLVI, 86.

51 Ibid., XLVII, 19.

52 Secretary of State, Annual Report, 1851, p. 47.

53 Ibid., p. 16.

• 92
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1975     315

their intention of attending such an institute. A full re-

port of the receipts, expenditures, and names of teachers

in attendance at the institute had to be made to the office

of the School Commissioner within thirty days after the

close of the institute.⁵⁴ In 1864 county treasurers were

authorized to pay out institute money for separate county

institutes only on petition of forty practical teachers who

indicated their intention of attending the institute. In

other respects those responsible for the management of

the organization were governed by the same provisions

applying to joint county institutes.⁵⁵

The general school law of 1873 provided a detailed

outline of the methods of organization and conduct of

county teachers' institutes. This act authorized any

county in which thirty practical teachers petitioned, to

support an institute organized by these teachers. The

teachers were empowered to appoint a secretary and a

committee to manage the affairs of the association. The

officers were required to give bond to the State in double

the amount of institute funds in the county treasury. No

money could be paid out of the treasury of the county

for institute purposes until this bond had been duly filed

with the County Auditor.⁵⁶ The Institute committee was

 

54 O. L., LVIII, 61.

55 Ibid., LXI, 31.

56 One is at once impressed with the lack of permanency suggested in the

institute organization. However this apparent difficulty was overcome by

the explanation made in the Commissioner's Opinions for 1880. "The only

practicable mode of carrying out the provisions of this chapter, and the

mode established by custom throughout the State, is for the teachers of

each county to organize a permanent association, known as the Institute.

At each yearly session officers are chosen, who make the necessary prepara-

tion for the next session. These officers are a president, vice-president,

secretary and executive committee. This committee is the legal represen-

• 93
 

316       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

required to report to the State Commissioner of Schools,

within thirty days after the session of the Institute, the

information demanded in the act of 1861, with the addi-

tion of the names of instructors and lecturers who had

been present.⁵⁷

The Commissioner of Schools was given the right to

hold Institutes in those counties where none had been

held for a period of two years. The organization and

control of the Institute was to be provided for in the

usual way, except that a petition was unnecessary. In-

stitutes of this type were required to continue their ses-

sion for at least four days. Teachers were privileged to

dismiss their schools to attend the Institutes in their

counties; except that for city districts of the first class,

situated within a county, the matter was optional with

the board of education. Teachers of union or graded

schools were not free to attend unless a majority of the

teachers of such schools agreed to do so.⁵⁸

Two other types of Institutes were authorized by this

law. Cities of the first class were permitted to hold In-

stitutes for their own teachers. The expense for this

was to come from the regular fund for that purpose,

which was derived from the fees of candidates for

teachers' certificates. Joint Institutes, for the teach-

ers of the graded schools in several counties, were made

possible. The several counties concerned were author-

ized, through the boards of education of the cities, vil-

lages and special districts therein, to contribute from

tative of the Institute...... They must see to it that the secretary keeps

account of such matters as are required in said report, otherwise they are

liable to the penalty stated in section 4088." Ohio School Laws, 1880, p. 106,

57 O. L., LXX, 195.

58 Idem.

• 94
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  317 their Institute and contingent funds to the support of these Institutes. No important changes were made in this general law before 1914. In 1888 the length of time given the Insti-

tute committee to report to the State School Commis- sioner after the session of the Institute, was shortened to five days.59 The legislation of 1914 indicated a tendency to take the control of the Institute out of the hands of the teach- 59 Ibid., LXXXV, 196.

• 95
 

318       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

ers and lodge it with the county board of education in

conjunction with the county superintendent. The ques-

tion of whether or no an institute would be held was de-

cided thenceforth by the board. The county superin-

tendent, however, was made responsible for part of the

Institute program⁶⁰ and was responsible for reports of

the Institute required by the State. The law but gave

voice to what had come to be a common practice at this

time. The law further definitely limited the Institute to

a five-day session. From 1870 to 1900, the movement

enjoyed a very large growth. The following table, taken

from the reports of the State Commissioner of Schools

for ten-year periods, reveals something of the steady

growth of the Institute movement from 1851 to 1909.

Thereafter the Institute movement experienced a sharp

decline. This has been due largely to the increased em-

phasis placed upon teacher-training during the summer

for periods of from six to twelve weeks at regular

teacher-training institutions.

 

TABLE VI--GROWTH OF THE TEACHERS' INSTITUTE MOVE-

MENT FROM 1851 TO 1925 BY TEN-YEAR PERIODS

 

1851  1860  1870  1880  1890  1900  1909  192561

No. Teachers'

Institutes  .......               41                  19                72                87                88                 87                88                 68

Attendance.......                3,251             1,294           6,487           10,972         15,787          18,473         21,601          13,825

Cost of Institute                 .......               $2,444         $15,021       $19,356       $24,027        $28,508       $37,997        $17,824

 

Training Schools for Teachers

The limitations imposed upon Teachers' Institutes of

one or two weeks was generally recognized among the

 

60 Ibid., CIV, 155.

61 The Report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction for 1920

does not give the number in attendance or the cost of the Institute for that

year, hence the use of the data which was available for 1925.

• 96
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  319

educational leaders of Ohio. The need of adequate facil-

ities for training teachers led some of the early educa-

tors to seek legislative assistance which would make

possible the incorporation of special schools for that pur-

pose.⁶² The first training-school which emphasized the

education of teachers, was incorporated in 1832 as the

Marietta Collegiate Institute and Western Teachers'

Seminary.⁶³ The first school to appear under the name

of a normal school, was the Farmington Normal School

incorporated in 1849.64 It was not, however, exclusively

devoted to the training of teachers.

Much agitation concerning the establishment of nor-

mal schools characterized the next seventy-five years in

the educational life of Ohio. The Secretary of State in

his report for 1851 called attention to the facts of nor-

mal school progress in other states. Michigan, Massa-

chusetts, New York, and Connecticut had already estab-

lished training-schools for teachers. The advanced po-

sition taken by the state of Connecticut in its normal

school law of 1849 was taken as a model of what Ohio

should do. The Connecticut law provided that a normal

school should be established and the object of its instruc-

tion "shall be, not to educate teachers in the studies now

required by law, but to receive such as are found com-

petent in these studies, in the manner hereinafter pro-

vided, and train them in the best methods of teaching

and conducting common schools."⁶⁵ A similar plea for

special schools devoted to the training of teachers,

 

62 O. L. L., XXXII, 217; also, Taylor, op. cit., p. 334.

63 Ibid., XXXI, 18.

64 Ibid., 261.

65 Secretary of State, Annual Report, 1851, p. 26.

• 97
 

320      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

showed that Ohio was spending a niggardly amount for

teachers' institutes and nothing for training schools.

Ohio was contrasted with New York, which spent during

the year 1870, over $128,000 for normal schools; for

teachers' institutes, $15,345; with Massachusetts, which

spent, during the same period, $48,500 for normal

schools, and $2,800 for teachers' institutes; with Minne-

sota which had spent $22,500 upon three normal schools;

with Pennsylvania, which had appropriated $30,000 for

normal schools, and $11,213 for teachers' institutes;

with Illinois, which the year before had spent $33,656 on

her State Normal University and was preparing to open

another normal school of similar size.⁶⁶

Notwithstanding the State's failure to take any ac-

tion looking towards the establishment of institutions

for the training of teachers for the greater part of this

period, schools were being established for that purpose.

In 1875 the school report recorded the founding of seven

normal schools between the years 1850 and 1875. The

largest of these, the National Normal School established

in 1855 at Lebanon, Ohio, had an enrollment of 1,576

students.⁶⁷ How many other schools were in existence,

attempting to do the same kind of work, it would be im-

possible to say. From various sources it is well estab-

lished that the State School Commissioner's report at

that point was not complete. No mention was made of

the normal school, conducted by the board of education

in the city of Cincinnati, established in the year 1868.68

66 State Commissioner of Common Schools, Eighteenth Annual Report,

p. 47.

67 Ibid., Twenty-second Annual Report, p. 191.

68 Board of Education of the Common Schools of Cincinnati, Fortieth

Annual Report, p. 85.

• 98
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  321

The Commissioner's report did discuss the situation in

another connection, and there mentioned in addition to

Cincinnati, three other cities where normal schools had

been established. Dayton had established such a school

in 1869, and had graduated seventy students in its six

years of work. Cincinnati reported a total of 240 grad-

uates. Sandusky and Cleveland had each established a

training-school in 1874.69

While it is impossible to state the actual number of

schools which were attempting to train teachers, it is

equally difficult to determine how adequately this train-

ing was being done by the institutions which labeled

themselves normal schools. It was found in the study

of the high school curriculum that a name did not neces-

sarily give a true index of the work of the school. One

is equally suspicious that the same thing was true in the

case of many schools that professed to train teachers.

Indeed, there is concrete evidence of the various and

often futile methods employed in the training of teach-

ers. A somewhat superficial investigation made by cor-

respondence in 1895, disclosed, at that late date, widely

varying procedure in teacher-training methods. Some

places conducted a review of the common branches for

prospective teachers and nothing more; a few cities and

institutions of higher learning added special pedagogical

subjects to the curriculum; and others placed the em-

phasis almost exclusively upon practice-teaching with-

out adequate supervision and criticism.⁷⁰ In normal

schools such as were conducted in Cincinnati or other

 

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

port, p. 50 ff.

70 Ibid., Forty-second Annual Report, p. 12.

Vol. XXXIX--21.

• 99
 

322      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

very large cities for the training of teachers for that

particular school system, the curriculum was constructed

specifically for the needs of the teacher.  Cincinnati

offered a very extensive range of courses for various

phases of the teaching business. Combined with the

theoretical aspects of teaching, prospective teachers were

taken into the classroom and given opportunity for ob-

servation and actual practice in teaching under compe-

tent critics. A standardized curriculum was not adopted

for normal schools by the State before 1900. The near-

est approach to a uniform course of study was reached

as a result of the action of the State Board of Examin-

ers in 1894. In that year the board outlined courses in

pedagogy, history of education, and the science of edu-

cation. These courses in general became the standard

offerings of nearly all colleges, universities and normal

schools of the State.71

The legislation concerning normal schools prior to

1900 was local in character, with the exception of the

act of 1887,72 which permitted village councils to give

financial support to these schools. The first intimation

of legislative interest in teacher-training schools came

with a joint resolution of the General Assembly in

1865.73 The School Commissioner was requested to

make a study of the normal schools of Europe and

America and report the advisability of Ohio sponsoring

the establishment of one or more of them. Apparently

nothing came of this legislative start in the direction of

 

71 Idem.

72 O. L., LXXXIV, 63.

73 O. L. L., LXII, 214.

• 100
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  323

normal schools for the State, for the Legislature re-

mained silent upon the subject for more than a decade.

Then followed a series of local acts which related

to isolated village and township attempts to establish

what they were pleased to designate "normal schools."

In 187774 the trustees of Canfield township, Mahoning

county, were authorized to issue bonds for the establish-

ment and support of a normal school. Every law deal-

ing with the normal schools, except one, from that date

until 1900, was concerned principally with bond issues

for the establishment or support of these schools.75

To what extent these schools functioned in harmony

with the purposes suggested in their name, is a matter

of conjecture. The wording of the enabling act or the

content of the law itself, frequently suggested that the

school had other functions besides the training of teach-

ers. The enabling act for the normal school at Middle

Point village, Van Wert County, reads "to aid in the

erection of normal school buildings, and to provide

means of higher education of the youth of said village."

It would seem that not an unimportant part of the work

of this school was the high school opportunities which

the institution was expected to give the children of the

community.⁷⁶ The general act of 1887, referred to

above, gave townships and villages the right to establish

and support normal schools. The law was quite liberal

in its statement of the type of instruction which might

be offered in these institutions. Financial aid could be

given to schools that offered work especially in branches

 

74 O. L., LXXIV, 482.

75 O. L. L., LXXXI, 295; LXXXIII, 252; XC, 126,

76 O. L. L., LXXXI, 295.

• 101
 

324       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

usually comprehended in academic, university and col-

legiate courses, though not excluding primary instruc-

tion.⁷7 The influence of this law was felt in an act

passed in 1889 which permitted the village of Fayette to

support a school organized on the broad curriculum

basis suggested in the general law of 1887.78 It is quite

evident that not every institution calling itself a normal

school was one in fact.

The unsatisfactory state of affairs was becoming in-

creasingly evident to the friends of education in Ohio.

Various organizations were beginning to assert them-

selves in behalf of tax-supported normal schools for the

State. In 1897 the State Teachers' Association adopted

the following resolution: "That the sentiment of this

association is, without reservation, in favor of such a

system of state normal schools as will insure not only

the adequate training of teachers for this work, but also

the efficient qualifying of our young men and women

for positions of leadership in educational affairs."⁷⁹

The following year the Ohio Federation of Women's

Clubs in session at Columbus, adopted similar resolu-

tions:

Whereas, There are but five states in our Union without

a state normal school, and it is with profound regret that we

acknowledge our own state as one of these five delinquents; and

as there are no bounds to the organized force of the Women's

Club movement, therefore be it

"Resolved, That we exert that force in the establishment of

an Ohio State Normal school.⁸⁰

77 O. L., LXXXIV, 63.

78 O. L. L., LXXVI, 422.

79 State Commissioner of Common Schools, Forty-sixth Annual Report,

p. 12.

80 Idem.

• 102
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  325

True, a state-governed normal department had been

established at Wilberforce University in 1887.81 But

this department was established for the training of ne-

gro teachers only, and was in part the result of agita-

tion for Congressional aid for the school. Finally, as

the product of the composite judgments of the leading

educators of the State, a bill was introduced in the

House for the appointment of a committee of five to

select sites and receive proposals for the establishment

of a series of state normal schools. The measure was

defeated in the House; failing to pass by only four votes

of the constitutional majority required. A month later

the bill in a modified form was again defeated.⁸²

It was not until 1902 that a law was passed which

provided for state-supported normal schools.⁸³ The law

authorized the establishment of two state-supported

normal schools; one was to be located at Athens in con-

nection with the Ohio University, and the other at Ox-

ford as part of the Miami University. The schools were

to be under the management and control of the trustees

of these institutions, offering "theoretical and practical

training for all students desiring to prepare themselves

for the work of teaching." For the support of these

schools a tax levy was authorized amounting to one-

thirtieth of one mill on the taxable property of the State,

when in any two-year period the Legislature failed to

make an appropriation for the support of the schools.

When regular appropriations were not made, the one-

 

81. L., LXXXIV, 127.

82 State Commissioner of Common Schools, Forty-seventh Annual

Report, p. 16.

83 O. L., XCV, 45.

• 103
 

326      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

thirtieth of a mill levy was to be divided upon the basis

of seven-twelfths for Ohio University and five-twelfths

for Miami University. In addition to these two schools,

a commission was provided for in this act, whose duty

it was to investigate the advisability of extending the

normal school project to other institutions, or, the wis-

dom of establishing additional separate schools for the

training of teachers.

Ohio University immediately established the State

Normal School in conjunction with the University, for-

mally opening for the reception of students Septem-

ber 9, 1902, "with forty-eight students in attend-

ance.^"84 It must be borne in mind that a normal depart-

ment had been established as early as 1886 at Ohio Uni-

versity as the result of a $5,000 appropriation by the

Legislature for such work.⁸⁵

Miami University acted with equal promptness in

establishing a normal school. In September of 1902,

the normal department opened for the reception of stu-

dents with a well-organized staff of instructors. Mr.

F. B. Dyer, assistant superintendent of the schools of

Cincinnati, was made dean of the school.⁸⁶

Ohio had at last undertaken the training of teachers

in earnest as a state responsibility. In addition to the

efforts made by the larger school systems to train their

own teachers prior to 1900, a very respectable group of

private and semi-public normal schools were aiding in

raising the standards of the teaching profession. In-

 

84 Peters, W. E., Legal History of the Ohio University, Athens, p. 281.

85 Ibid., 279; O. L., LXXXIII, 127.

86 State Commissioner of Common Schools, Forty-ninth Annual Report,

p. 6.

• 104
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  327 eluding the normal schools of the larger cities, there were eleven normal schools that reported in 1900. All of these schools had been organized between 1851 and 1900. They showed a total enrollment of 4,590 stu-

dents, 86 instructors in the year 1900, and a total num- ber of graduates since their founding of 4,679.87 It is probable that the other agencies and normal schools were active but are not listed in the report. A number of colleges, also, as well as a score or more of school 87 Ibid., Forty-seventh Annual Report, p. 288.

• 105
 

328      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

systems throughout the State were offering courses in

pedagogy.

The impetus gained was not to be stopped. Eight

years later an act of the Legislature made possible the

creation of two additional normal schools.⁸⁸ The act

specified that one school should be located in Northeast-

ern Ohio and the other in the Northwestern part of the

State. Bowling Green almost at once became the chosen

city for the new institution of the Northwest. The new

school under the name Bowling Green State Normal

College was founded in the same year its creation was

authorized--1910. The normal school for the North-

east was not so easily located. It required three years

to locate a suitable place. Finally, in 1913, under the

name of Kent State Normal College, the second school

was located at Kent near the extreme Northeastern part

of Ohio. Not satisfied with present accomplishments,

another teacher-training institution was authorized in

1915,89 to be located in eastern Ohio. The law was

almost a duplicate of that of 1910. This movement, how-

ever, seemed to be abortive. As late as the 1926 report

of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction no

state institution is listed in response to this act.

The reason for the apparent failure to establish

another teacher-training institution under state patron-

age may not be difficult to find. In Mr. Riegel's annual

report for 192590 a summary report is given of teacher-

training work in the State for that year. According to

his report 51 county normal schools with one-year

88 O. L., CI, 320.

⁸⁹ Ibid., CVI, 490.

90 Superintendent of Public Instruction, Seventy-second Annual Report,

p. 32 ff.

• 106
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  329

courses graduated 1061 teachers in 1924-25. Not in-

cluding the city normal schools at Steubenville and

Zanesville, 34 institutions of this character offered at

least two years or more of specific teacher-training

work--some four years of teacher-training--and all

leading to four-year elementary certificates for their

graduates. In addition to this array of institutional ma-

chinery for the preparation of teachers, forty colleges

offered " the twenty-four semester hours of education

including practice teaching" required for state four-year

high school certificates. One is not surprised to find

hesitancy about the establishment of new training cen-

ters with such a formidable group of recognized insti-

tutions already at work.

Teachers' Pensions

The opening wedge for teachers' pensions was defi-

nitely made in 1896. The Legislature approached the

subject cautiously. At the close of the year 1900, only

the three larger cities enjoyed the right to establish such

a fund; namely, Cincinnati, Cleveland and Toledo. Each

city had the benefit of special legislation to meet its

needs in the establishment of such a fund.91

Cincinnati.--The Cincinnati teachers' pension fund

was established in 1896 under the law which governed

such a fund for cities of the first grade of the first

class.⁹² The fund was made possible by requiring "the

proper officers" to deduct one per cent of the teachers'

 

91 Cincinnati created her pension fund under the provisions of general

legislation. The effect was just the same as though the legislation had been

designated special, inasmuch as Cincinnati was the only city of the first

grade of the first class.

92 O. L., XCII, 149.

• 107
 

330      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

salaries and to pay the same into the city treasury to the

credit of this fund. This section was amended in 1900,

changing the amount deducted from the salaries of

teachers from one per cent to a straight $2 per month.⁹³

The fund as well as the interest therefrom could be

utilized in the payment of pensions.

The pension was to be under the management and

control of a board of trustees of seven members, com-

posed of: (1) two members of the board of education,

(2) two members of the union board of high schools,

(3) three teachers in the public schools, and (4) the

superintendent of schools as a member ex officio. The

representatives of the board were to be elected by their

respective groups; the first two groups were elected for

terms of two years, and the third group was chosen for

three years. To them was given full control over the

fund.

The board of education was given authority to re-

tire a teacher after twenty years of teaching, three-

fifths of that time having been in the city paying the

pension. Retirement could be effected for physical or

mental disability of the teacher, and then by a majority

vote of the board only. The term "teacher" included

superintendents of instruction, principals, special teach-

ers, and all teachers employed by the board of education

or the high school board. Women were permitted to

retire of their own volition after teaching for thirty

years, and men could retire when they had taught thirty-

five years. The pension was to be calculated on the

basis of one-half the annual salary when retiring, but

could not exceed a total of $600 per year. In case

93 Ibid., XCIV, 305.

• 108
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  331

the fund was insufficient to meet the demands upon it,

the pension allotments were to be pro-rated. The rates

were later changed to $500 for the total pension that

could be received in one year and the pension rate was

calculated on the basis of $10 for every year of service.

No teacher was entitled to receive a pension until a sum

equal to $20 for each year of service had been contrib-

uted to the fund.⁹⁴ The law of 1900 made it possible for

a teacher, ceasing to be an employee of the city schools,

to receive one-half of the amount paid into the fund; or

in case of death, one-half of the amount was payable to

the heirs or assignees of the teacher.⁹⁵

Cleveland.--The pension fund of Cleveland was

made possible by an act passed in 1900 which established

such a fund for the city.⁹⁶ The main features of this

act were much the same as those found in the Cincinnati

law. One per cent of the teacher's salary was to be

deducted up to the maximum salary of $1,200. Exam-

ination fees of the teachers were credited to this fund.

The retiring board was composed of three teachers

elected for three years, together with the superintend-

ent of instruction and the president of the school council

of the city. They were required to select two business

men to serve for three years, who, with the city treas-

urer, were to act as the trustees of the pension fund.

The retiring board was given complete power to retire

and pension teachers. After twenty-five years of ser-

vice, four-fifths of the time having been spent in the

schools of Cleveland, teachers could be retired upon the

⁹⁴ Ibid., XCIV, 305.

95 Ibid.

96 O. L. L., XCIV, 539.

• 109
 

332      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

recommendation of the superintendent and a majority

vote of the retiring board, at half salary, the same not

to exceed $600 per year. Teachers who had taught for

thirty years, with four-fifths of the time spent in the

schools of Cleveland, could voluntarily retire on a pen-

sion. Should a teacher be removed from the schools

after five years of teaching therein, the total amount of

the money deducted from this salary for the pension

fund must be returned to him. In case of death, all in-

terest in the pension fund by the person terminated.

Toledo.--The pension fund of Toledo was estab-

lished by the special act of 1896 which provided for such

a fund.⁹⁷ The board of trustees of this fund consisted

of seven members who were elected for a term of three

years. Three were to be elected by the board of educa-

tion, three by the teachers of the schools, and the super-

intendent of the schools was ex officio a member of the

board. The management and control of the pension

money was placed in the hands of this board. One per

cent of the salary of the teacher was deducted for pen-

sions.

The board of education had the right to retire teach-

ers by a majority vote; otherwise the rules that gov-

erned the eligibility of teachers for retirement were al-

most identical with those which applied to Cincinnati.

In the case of death, all claims of the person upon the

pension fund terminated. Where teachers became per-

manently incapacitated through sickness or accident, the

trustees of the fund could grant the regular pension rate

to these teachers the same as though they had been reg-

ularly retired under the service provisions of the law.

97 Ibid., XCII, 683.

• 110
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  333

In 1902, the right to pension teachers was extended

to other school districts. At that time a law was enacted

which provided that "whenever the board of education

of any school district shall declare by resolution,

adopted by a majority vote of the members of said

board, that it is advisable to create a school-teachers'

pension fund for such school district, said school-teach-

ers' pension fund shall be under the charge, management

and control of a board to be known as the board of trus-

tees of the school-teachers' pension fund for such school

districts."98

From this point forward our interests center upon

the general application of the pension law and we

cease to trace the development of pensions in sep-

arate cities.  This is true for two reasons.     First, in

another chapter our attention was called to the apparent

inconsistency of the law and legislative practice. A law

was passed which forbade the enactment of special leg-

islation. To avoid this obvious intent of the law the

Legislature enacted laws for certain localities without

mention of the name by use of the simple device of des-

ignating an inclusive population limit which was so re-

stricted as to exclude all possibility of the law's appli-

cation to other than one community.        So flagrant a

flouting of the evident intent of the law could not long

go unchallenged. In 1902 the Supreme Court of Ohio

 

98 O. L., XCV, 610. It is a little difficult from the reading of the law to

determine how sweeping was the intent of the legislation. It appears as

section 3897b of the Statutes and was classified by the School Commis-

sioner under City School Districts in the Ohio School Laws, 1904. Sections

3897 and 3897a refer to "City school districts" while following sections

3897b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, seem to admit of unlimited application to

all districts in the State.

• 111
 

334      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

declared unconstitutional such a law passed for the sole

benefit of Cleveland. A special session of the Legisla-

ture was called to correct the evil. The second reason

for the larger approach is that the idea of pensions for

teachers had gained favor too widely to permit longer a

denial of its general benefits to all.

Only minor changes in the general pension law for

teachers were effected after 1902. There was a grow-

ing conviction that the pension system as constituted

was unsound. This early pension legislation but repeats

the mistakes found in nearly all of the earlier attempts

to protect the teacher in old age. Ohio was one of the

first states to recognize the futility of its pension plan

and to attempt a scientific reorganization.⁹⁹

The reorganization of the teachers' pension plan

took place in 1919.100 The new plan was designated the

State Teachers' Retirement System. The general man-

agement of the organization was vested in a retirement

board which consisted of the Superintendent of Public

Instruction, Auditor of State, the Attorney-General, and

two teachers elected by the teachers. The State Treas-

urer was made custodian of the funds of the system.

The board was authorized to secure such technical as-

sistance as was needed for the administration of the or-

ganization. Eligibility for membership included all

teachers in the public schools and institutions of higher

learning supported by the State. A special merit of the

law was its retroactive service feature. This enabled

the older teachers to benefit by the new provisions of the

 

99 See Studensky, Paul, Teachers' Pension Systems in the United States,

pp. 282-287, 410-425, for a detailed discussion of the Ohio situation.

100 O. L., CVIII, Pt. I, 195.

• 112
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  335

law as well as the young. The provisions of the law re-

quired a minimum of four per cent on the part of each

teacher's salary up to two thousand dollars. The em-

ployer on the other hand was required to contribute an

additional amount sufficient to provide for the deficien-

cies represented in the teacher's contribution.  Addi-

tional tax levies were authorized to enable school boards

to meet their deficiency payments. Under this plan

teachers retired on allowance after thirty years' service.

Old pension systems such as Cleveland, Cincinnati, and

Toledo represented could be merged with the new plan

by assuming all obligations for deficiencies duly estab-

lished by a competent actuary. With the establishment of

this new retirement system Ohio joined the ranks of

those few states who, at about this time, set their houses

in order and adopted a scientific teacher retirement plan.

 

CHAPTER VII

 

SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES

Libraries

School Libraries.--There was no provision made for

school libraries until near the close of the first fifty years

of Ohio's school life. The first legislation on the subject

appeared in 1846.1 School districts were authorized to

raise by taxation a sum not in excess of $30 for library

purposes. The law was permissive in nature, in that it

left the question of such a tax to the vote of the tax-

payers of the district.

In the reorganization of the schools in 1853, the law

compelled school districts to establish school libraries,

1 0. L., XLIV, 81.

• 113
 

336      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

and to levy one-tenth of a mill on each dollar of taxable

property in the district for their support.² The act fur-

ther provided that the State Commissioner of Schools

should direct the purchase of the books and apparatus,

and the county auditors were required to see that they

were properly distributed to the local school district of-

ficers. The boards of education were made responsible

for these libraries and were given authority to prescribe

the rules governing the use and care of the books. Each

district was required to have a librarian appointed by the

board of education. The purchase of books of a sec-

tarian or denominational character for these libraries

was not permissible with the money raised by taxation.³

The provision of the law which required a tax of one-

tenth of a mill for the support of the libraries was re-

pealed in 1860.4 The other sections of the law still re-

mained in force. As a result, the schools found them-

selves in possession of valuable libraries which they

were required to administer as before, but without the

aid of a special library tax. The State School Commis-

sioner gave an opinion on the subject to the effect that

boards of education were under obligation to preserve

the libraries which they had; and were further required

to replace lost or worn-out books by an equal number of

others, not necessarily the "same books or books of the

same value."5

In 1864 an amendment was added to the school law

which required the consolidation of library books in cen-

 

2 This tax was supposed to cover the expense of school apparatus, also.

3 0. L., LI, 429.

4 Ibid., LVII, 22.

5 Ohio School Laws, Fourth Edition, 1865, p. 77.

• 114
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  337

tral libraries equipped with adequate book cases under

lock and key. Where sub-districts desired library books,

and suitable persons could be found in the district to

care for them, a part of the central library could be dis-

tributed to these districts for periods of six months.⁶

The need of more definite financial provision for the

care of the libraries seems to have become evident to

those who administered this phase of the school law. In

1867 the tax levy of one-tenth of a mill was restored

for the support of school libraries, and the boards of

education were authorized to employ librarians for the

care of the same. To these libraries the families of the

district were given free access.⁷ Further financial aid

was given in 1875,8 through an act which permitted

boards of education to make appropriations from their

contingent funds for the purchase of books and ap-

paratus. The total sum that could be appropriated for

these purposes was: $300 for city districts of the first

class; $150 for city districts of the second class; and $75

for all other districts. Later, the law was amended to

permit districts containing cities of the first grade of the

first class to expend not to exceed $1200 from their con-

tingent fund for library and apparatus purposes.⁹ In

1898 10 cities of the fourth grade of the second class,

where library associations were supporting public li-

braries, were required through their boards of educa-

tion to levy a tax of from three-tenths to five-tenths of

a mill on the dollar of taxable property for the support

6 . L., LXI, 31.

7 Ibid., LXIV, 62.

⁸ Ibid., LXXII, 29.

9 Ibid., LXXVIII, 110.

10 Ibid., XCIII, 8.

Vol. XXXIX--22.

• 115
 

338      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

of such libraries. Where such was done, the boards of

education were forbidden to make further levies or ap-

propriations for library purposes.

In 187811 the board of education of the city of Cleve-

land was authorized to elect a library committee at its

first regular meeting after the second Monday in April,

1880. The library committee was given complete con-

trol of the school library in the city, and was authorized

to purchase such books, magazines, periodicals, and

journals "as may be deemed suitable for the public

school library." For the support of this library the

committee could levy a tax of two and one-half tenths

mills on the dollar of taxable property in the city.12 The

law does not indicate to what extent this library was to

serve the general public. The fact that the committee

was to be composed of citizens of the city who were not

members of the board of education, suggests the prob-

able intention of the framers of the law that the library

was to be accessible to the public. Evidently a strong

demand was made in this direction, for in 1883 the law

was modified and the library became the public library

of the city.¹³

The action taken in 1883 appears to have been the

last significant enactment on extensive school libraries.

From this date to 1925 but two relatively unimportant

pieces of legislation seem to have concerned school li-

braries. The first came as a part of the general library

legislation of 1902. In school districts where public

libraries were not maintained the boards of education

 

11 Ibid., LXXV, 101.

12 Ibid., LXXVI, 50.

13 Ibid., LXXX, 172.

• 116
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  339

 

were authorized to appropriate annually two hundred

and fifty dollars for the purchase of books, other than

school books, for the use of pupils and teachers. The

boards were further empowered to receive gifts and

property for the use of such libraries.¹⁴ The second law

came as an amendment to that of 1902. It made manda-

tory upon boards of education of such districts as

are described above, the appropriation of a like amount

for each gift or bequest made to the district for school

library purposes. No appropriation was to exceed one

hundred dollars in any one year for a particular school.¹⁵

Public Libraries.--Public libraries began their his-

tory almost with the beginning of the State. The first

law which granted a library charter was passed in 1805

and incorporated as the Dayton Library Society.16 The

first library which was supposed to have been organized

in the territory that now embraces Ohio, was known as

the Putnam Family Library. In 1796 it became known

as the Belpre or Farmers' Library, at Belpre, near Mari-

etta.¹⁷ The libraries generally were organized as stock

companies.¹⁸ Libraries which were organized on this

basis probably were restricted in a measure to the use of

members of the stock company, and were not open to

the public to the degree that later obtained under school

district or city control. The general development of the

library movement was rapid. In 1838 it was claimed

that reading-rooms could be found in most of the towns

 

14 Ibid., XCVI, 9.

15 Ibid., CVIII, Pt. 613.

16 Ibid., III, 288.

17 Miller, E. A., op. cit., p. 134.

18 Ibid.

• 117
 

340      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

of Ohio.¹⁹ During the first fifty years of statehood, one

hundred and ninety-two library societies had been in-

corporated in Ohio.²⁰

After 1850, further legislation concerning public li-

braries did not appear until 1867.21 At the later date,

in cities with a population of 20,000 or over, the boards

of education which had charge of the public libraries

were authorized to elect a board of managers for such

libraries. The president of the board of education be-

came a member ex officio. The board of managers was

under the control of the board of education of the city.

The next year the council of any city of the second class

was authorized to levy a tax of one-half of a mill for the

maintenance of a free public library and reading-room,

provided a suitable lot and building equipped with li-

brary furniture and fixtures were donated to the city.²²

In 1873 two other significant laws were passed, pro-

viding for the establishment of public libraries. The

first law authorized the township trustees to submit the

question of the establishment of a public library in town-

ships containing a city or incorporated village of less

than 1,000 inhabitants, upon the petition of twenty resi-

dent electors.²³ The second law provided for the main-

tenance of libraries and reading-rooms in cities of the

first class with a population of not less than 31,500 nor

more than 90,000. A tax levy of one-half mill was au-

thorized for their support.  All libraries established

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

p. 348.

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

21 0. L., LXIV, 100.

22 Ibid., LXV, 12.

23 Ibid., LXX, 244.

• 118
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  341

under this act were to be forever free to the general

public. One important provision of this law was that

which required boards of education of these cities to

surrender all libraries under their control to the public

library, when the latter was established under this act.

The public schools were allowed to maintain only such

library materials as were necessary to their work.²⁴

With the legislation of 1873, the public library move-

ment assumed a new institutional character and growth.

The so-called public libraries, prior to 1850, were prin-

cipally of the stock company type.   After 1853, the

legislative emphasis was placed upon the development of

school district libraries to which the people of the dis-

tricts had free access.²⁵ These libraries undoubtedly

tended to overshadow the privately supported institu-

tions if not to eclipse them entirely in the smaller places.

The school libraries emphasized the needs of the school

rather than the desires of the community in the matter

of the selection of books and reading materials. The

few public libraries established prior to 1873 were under

the control of the schools. After that date the com-

munity became the center of interest, and the power of

the schools over the libraries was increasingly mini-

mized. The liberal tax support, legalized, made the

library an important educational and community factor.

In 1878 Portsmouth was empowered to merge any

public library therein with any other library or reading-

room that existed in the city. A tax of one-tenth of a

mill was authorized for the support of the consolidated

library. The board of education was required to elect

 

24 Ibid., 142.

25 Ibid., LI, 429; LXIV, 62.

• 119
 

342        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

as members of the library committee citizens who were

not at the same time members of the board of education.

The committee was given complete control of the library,

which the law specified should be "kept open for the use

of the public at all reasonable hours."²⁶ The tax levy

authorized for the support of this library was raised to

two-tenths of a mill in 1881,27 and to three-tenths in

1896.28

In 1883 the library board of Cleveland became

known as the "public library board of the city of Cleve-

land" in keeping with the tendency toward a wider field

of application and activity on the part of such libraries.²⁹

The principal change in the law which governed the

Cleveland public library concerned the tax levy for its

support. This was changed from a maximum possible

levy of two and one-half-tenths of a mill to three and

three-fourths-tenths of a mill in 1893;30 the next year

it was increased to five-tenths of a mill,31 and in 1900 it

was raised to six-tenths of a mill.32

In 1898 the board of trustees of the public libraries

in cities of the first grade of the first class (Cincinnati

 

²⁶ Ibid., LXXV, 541; LXXVI, 97.

27 Ibid., XCII, 309. The Portsmouth law refers only to cities having

at the last federal census or at any future census a population of 5,592.

The United States Census Reports for 1870 show Portsmouth as the only

city which had that exact population. Obviously it would be entirely acci-

dental should any other city have at any given federal census the exact

population specified. This is an example of the practice of the General

Assembly of Ohio during the greater part of this period to enact legisla-

tion for a special reason, under cover of a general law.

28 Ibid.

29 Ibid., LXXX, 172.

30 Ibid., XC, 96.

31 Ibid., XCI, 123.

32 Ibid., XCIV, 26.

• 120
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  343

was the only city in Ohio of that grade and class in

1898) was appointed to represent four interested groups

in the city. The board of trustees consisted of seven

members. Two members of this board were appointed

by the board of education; two by the board having

charge of the high schools of the city; two by the di-

rectors of the university of the city, and one by the

judges of the Court of Common Pleas of the county in

which the city was located. Residents of the county in

which such a library was established, were granted free

use of its books and library facilities.³³ The tax levy

authorized in 1898 for the support of the library was

three-tenths of a mill.³⁴ Two years later the maximum

levy was placed at five-tenths of a mill.³⁵

Cincinnati in 1902 was again the object of library

legislation. Andrew Carnegie had made a conditional

gift for branch libraries in the city. The city was au-

thorized to accept the gift. Bonds were to be issued for

the purchase of sites and the erection of buildings in

amount not to exceed one hundred and eighty thousand

dollars. To meet the bonds thus issued an annual tax

levy was to be made and a sinking fund created to

liquidate the debt when due.³⁶

The management of the public libraries in the larger

cities was in general quite similar. The composition of

the library board and the amount of tax support granted

to the libraries were the principal points of important

difference. The law of 1888 provided that the library

 

33 Ibid., XCIII, 191; XCIV, 204.

34 Ibid., XCIII, 191.

35 Ibid., XCIV, 204.

36 Ibid., XCV, 903.

• 121
 

344      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

board of cities of the third grade of the first class, of

which Toledo was the chief exponent, should consist of

nine members to be appointed by the common council of

the city. Four of these were to be selected from a list

submitted by the board of education of the city. The

mayor of the city was to serve as one of the members

of the library board.³⁷ The maximum tax rate allowed

in 1900 was thirty-five hundredths of a mill for library

support.³⁸

Cities of the second grade of the second class could

establish public libraries through their board of educa-

tion which was authorized to elect six electors of the city

to serve as a library board. The members of the li-

brary board were to be equally representative of the two

leading political parties of the city. The tax levy was

not to exceed three-tenths of a mill for the support of

libraries in these cities.³⁹ One of the features of this

class of legislation which had Dayton primarily in view,

was the privilege given to the library board to devote a

portion of its library levy to the maintenance of a public

museum.⁴⁰

Among the numerous classifications made of cities

in which public libraries were to be supported, none was

more important than the one providing for the main-

tenance of libraries in cities and incorporated villages

not exceeding a population of 30,000. The vast ma-

jority of cities and villages came under this classifica-

tion. The board of six directors responsible for the

 

37 Ibid., LXXXV, 209.

38 Ibid., XCIV, 166.

39 Ibid., LXXIX, 229.

⁴⁰ Ibid., XC, 377.

• 122
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  345 public libraries established therein were to be appointed by the common council of the city or village. Not more than one member of the common council could serve on the board of directors for the library at the same

time. Complete control and management was vested in the board of directors. A tax levy of one mill on the dollar of taxable property was authorized for library purposes. The law also provided that where library as- sociations were already in existence duly incorporated with free libraries open to the public, the city council at

• 123
 

346      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

its discretion could levy a tax and support the existing

association. If at any time the association ceased to

meet the spirit of the law, the council was authorized

to take possession of the property acquired by the asso-

ciation through public tax levies.41

A library law of broad application was passed in

1902. The provisions of this law were made applicable

to "any city, village or special school district." Boards

of education were authorized, as they saw fit, to estab-

lish libraries, purchase sites, erect buildings, and levy

taxes not to exceed one mill for the maintenance of

these libraries. These libraries were open and free to

all residents of districts concerned. Some limitations

appear to have been placed upon the board after the

initial establishment of such libraries. A board of seven

trustees was to be elected by the board of education

wherever the library contained twenty-five thousand or

more volumes. These trustees were to hold office for

seven years, maintain complete control of the libraries,

branches, stations, and other phases of library work in

the district, hold title to all library property, employ

librarians and assistants, and by a two-thirds vote pur-

chase sites and erect buildings. No member of a board

of education could become a trustee within a year of

previous service upon such school board.⁴² This same

law made possible the establishment of a museum as an

adjunct to the library under the management of the

board of education or the library trustees. Two years

later the powers of the board of trustees were enlarged

when municipal corporations were given the right to

41 Ibid., LXXXIX, 98.

42 Ibid., XCVI, 8.

• 124
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  347

transfer all library property or property suitable for

library purposes to such trustees.⁴³ Later the tax levy

was increased to one and one-half mills for the support

of libraries.⁴⁴

At this time a number of private associations sup-

ported free public libraries as an act of civic duty and

public welfare. It was only a matter of justice that the

spirit of public support and responsibility should carry

over to these groups. The enactment of a law⁴⁵ gave

practical expression to this sentiment. Trustees of town-

ships wherein such libraries were located were empow-

ered to levy an annual township tax of not to exceed

one-half mill for the support of such libraries. A similar

law applicable to city, village, township and special dis-

trict authorized an agreement with private library

groups to make available to the public, libraries main-

tained by them in return for tax support. For this sup-

port a levy of one mill was allowed.⁴⁶

The last extensive library legislation of this period

occurred in 1921. By this enactment a county library

district was created.⁴⁷ The establishment of such li-

braries, however, was limited to counties wherein free

library service for all had not been maintained. A peti-

tion signed by twenty-five per cent of the qualified

electors automatically forced an election on the proposi-

tion. When such libraries were established the man-

agement thereof was committed to a board of five county

library trustees who held office for five years. Two

43 Ibid., XCVII, 138.

44 Ibid., CI, 304.

45 Ibid., XCVIII, 47.

46 Ibid., XCVI, 9; CIV, 225.

⁴⁷ Ibid., CIX, 351.

• 125
 

348      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

members of the board were to be appointed by the com-

mon pleas judge and three by the county commissioners.

A tax levy for the support of these libraries could not

exceed two-tenths of a mill. The trustees were empow-

ered to contract with any existing libraries of the county

for the free use of such libraries by the people of the

county. The trustees were clothed with approximately

the same authority as those of the city districts. One

important exception obtained. The law provided that

"the librarians of the two public libraries of largest cir-

culation in the state, the director of state library service,

and two persons representing rural library work and

chosen by the state library commission should constitute

a state board of library examiners." It was the duty

of this board to examine all candidates for the position

of librarian in county districts. Only those thus ap-

proved could be employed by the trustees of the county

libraries.

Law Libraries.--In 187248 legislation was enacted for

the promotion and encouragement of Law Library As-

sociations. This was a new type of library which was

beginning to assume a place of importance in its rather

restricted field. The act of 1872, through its general

provisions, became the model for practically all subse-

quent legislation in behalf of law libraries. For that

reason the act will be discussed in a more detailed fash-

ion than would be justified otherwise. The law pro-

vided that in counties where there was a city of the first

class with a population of less than 150,000 at the last

federal census, which had a police court, and a Law

 

48 Ibid., LXIX, 165.

• 126
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  349

Library Association that furnished the use of its law

books free to the county officers and judges of the regu-

lar courts, financial assistance could be given to the As-

sociation.  Upon the recommendation of the trustees

of this Association, the judges of the Court of Common

Pleas of the county were authorized to appoint a suit-

able person as a special bailiff to act as the librarian of

the Association. A sum not to exceed $500 annually

was to be paid out of the county treasury for the sup-

port of such Association. All fines and penalties im-

posed and collected by the police court, except such as

were required to be paid into the school fund, and a

sufficient amount to pay the fees allowed to the judges,

clerk and prosecuting attorney of the court for services

for the State, were to be expended by the Association

for law books and maintenance of the library. The

amount thus expended could not exceed $500 in any one

year. In return for this aid, the books of the law library

were to be maintained for the free use of all officers of

townships, villages, and cities of the county.

The principal legislation concerning these libraries

in the next few years emphasized the extension of the

idea to other cities. In 187349 the act of 1872 was made

to apply to all counties wherein there were cities of not

less than 31,500 nor more than 90,000 population. Dur-

ing the same year the provisions of this act were also

given effect in cities of the first class with a population

of 200,000 or over.⁵⁰ The following year the benefits

of the law library act were extended to counties in which

 

49 Ibid., LXX, 141.

50 Ibid., 162.

• 127
 

350      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

were cities of the second class with a Superior Court.⁵¹

In 1885 the law was made to appply to all cities of the

second and third class, irrespective of size, where there

was or would likely be in the future a law library asso-

ciation.⁵² Four years later, a rather inclusive act made

effective the principal provisions of the legislation on

legal libraries in practically all counties where there was

a law library which provided the county and court offi-

cers with free library privileges.⁵³

A careful survey of the legislation on this subject

from 1850 to 1925 does not show any essential changes

in the provisions embodied in the first law. In a few in-

stances there were no police courts to impose and collect

penalties. In these situations the equivalent authorities

were authorized to transfer the designated amounts to

the law library association.⁵⁴ In some cases the amount

allowed for the maintenance of the Association was

raised and in others no limit was specified.⁵⁵

State Library.--The State Library at Columbus was

established in the year 1817.56 It received state appro-

priations as early as the year 1824.⁵⁷ There was little

legislation of importance concerning the Library during

the greater part of its existence. The major part of the

period from 1850 to 1925, as far as the legislation af-

fected the Library, was devoted to the organization,

enlargement, and the making available of the facilities

 

51  Ibid., LXXI, 49.

52 Ibid., LXXXVI, 231.

53 Ibid., LXXXVI, 231.

54 Ibid., XC, 312; XCI, 219.

55 Ibid., LXXXII, 216; LXXXV, 3; XCII, 430.

56 Atwater, Caleb, op. cit., p. 356.

57 O. L. L., XXII, 36.

• 128
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925   351

of the State Library. In 1882 any one was authorized

to visit the Library, examine and read books there. Spe-

cial privileges were given to the members of the Legis-

lature and state officials. They were awarded the spe-

cial privilege of removing books from the building for

stated periods. Clergymen, who were residents of Co-

lumbus, were also granted these favors. In the case of

persons doing productive research work, press editors,

reporters and such, the library commissioners were

given discretionary powers with respect to library privi-

leges.⁵⁸*

Recreational Activities

It was well toward the close of the period when

Ohio undertook a comprehensive program of recrea-

tional activities. In 192159 cities, villages, or counties

were authorized to set apart or purchase buildings or

sites "for use as playgrounds, playfields, gymnasiums,

public baths, swimming pools or indoor recreational cen-

ters." Bonds could be voted for these purposes when in

the judgment of any such district they seemed advis-

able.

The educational significance of this law became evi--

dent in the character of the control provided for these

 

* In 1896 a law was enacted placing the employment of the State Li-

brarian in the hands of a Board of Trustees and giving said Board the

power to make regulations in regard to the loan of books and the care of

other property of the Library. At different times the Legislature has au-

thorized the creation of a Legislative Reference Division and a Library

Organizing Division under the Board of Library Commissioners. A

Traveling Library Division has been in operation since 1896. Since 1896

the library has been open on equal terms to all citizens of the state.--ED.

58 O. L., LXXIX, 36.

59 Ibid., CIX, 609.

• 129
 

352      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

recreational centers. Authority for their control and

maintenance might be vested in any board then existing

or in a separate recreational board, as the city, village,

or county should see fit. If a recreational board should

be the form of control established, this board was to

consist of five persons, two of whom were to be mem-

bers of the board of education of the district involved.

This board exercised full control over the recreational

work undertaken, and could employ "play leaders, recre-

ational directors, supervisors, superintendents" for the

proper direction of the activities therein.

Further, any two cities or combinations of cities,

villages and counties might unite for the purposes of

this act. School districts could join with any combina-

tion, as mentioned above, for the support of recreational

centers, could aid in equipping, operating, and maintain-

ing them, and could make appropriations of money

therefor.

No tax limitations had been placed upon the districts

where recreational centers were established. The Legis-

lature of 192560 limited school districts, cities, and coun-

ties to a levy of not to exceed two-tenths of one mill for

these purposes where the population was under fifty

thousand, and to one-tenth of one mill when the popu-

lation exceeded fifty thousand.

Miscellaneous.--Prior to 1851 there were large num-

bers of societies, organizations and institutions that

were incorporated for the promotion of some phase of

education. These could be carefully scrutinized in the

legislation of that period, since all incorporate organiza-

tions received their incorporation papers through legis-

60 Ohio School Laws, Advanced Sheets, 1925, Sec. 5649-8.

• 130
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925      353

lative action. A total of sixty-four lyceums, institutes,

literary societies, and organizations of similar character

received incorporation prior to 1850.61 During this time

twenty-three college and university societies and a large

number of other educational agencies were incorporated,

such as: the Historical and Philosophical Society of

Ohio,* the New Paris Musical Institute, and the Cleve-

land Academy of Natural Sciences.⁶²

In 185263 incorporation ceased to be a legislative

function, except to enact general incorporation laws, or

where modification of the laws in certain cases was

deemed advisable. Consequently, the appearance of

miscellaneous educational agencies in the legislation

after 1852 was incidental. Over a score of legislative

references relating to these agencies, have been found in

this period. They were of minor character for the most

part and therefore of no value in this study.

 

61 Miller, E. A., op. cit., p. 136.

* The Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society was chartered

under the laws of Ohio, March 12, 1885. Its publications relating chiefly

to Ohio and the Northwest Territory, now number 35 volumes. The ma-

terial in these appears first as a Quarterly and is afterwards bound in

annual volumes. A number of miscellaneous books and pamphlets are

also published. These are distributed among Public and School Libraries.

This Society is recognized by the State in a joint legislative resolution

(O. L. LXXXVIII, 932), which authorizes the Governor to appoint six

members of the Board of Trustees. The Society elects nine members. It

is also recognized by a number of acts, relating chiefly to monuments and

parks which are placed in the custody of the Society. It is included under

the Department of Education in the administrative code (O. L. CIX, 123.)--

ED.

62 Ibid., p. 137.

63 O. L. L., 128.

 

 

 

Vol. XXXIX--23.

• 131
 

354      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

CHAPTER VIII

 

SCHOOL FINANCE

The history of school finance in Ohio is at once the

most fascinating and one of the most tragic stories con-

nected with the educational life of the State. Much of

this history had been made prior to 1850. The legisla-

tive side of this study for the period before 1851 has

been chronicled in a monograph written by E. A. Miller,

to which frequent allusion has been made in this study.

For our purposes, only sufficient reference will be made

to events prior to 1851 to render intelligible the legis-

lative history of school finance for the subsequent

seventy-five years.

Support of Common Schools

Common schools in Ohio received financial support

from a number of sources. The principal support of the

elementary schools came from the sale or rent of school

lands, the irreducible debt of the State, direct and indi-

rect taxes, tax exemption of school property, and appro-

priations made from the general fund in the state

treasury.

I.--School Lands.--The history of school lands be-

longs principally to the pioneer days of educational his-

tory in Ohio. The land grants for the support of com-

mon schools had been made, and a settled policy concern-

ing them adopted before 1851. In fact a large part of

these grants had been disposed of by that date. They

were depended upon as the financial bulwark of educa-

tion in the early educational development of the State.

So uniformly was this true, not only of Ohio but of

• 132
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925     355

other states as well, that a student of this period has

declared:

The journals of Congress, from 1820 to 1860, are dotted

with records of memorials, from nearly all the States, seeking

grants for educational projects. Did a State desire to increase its

school facilities, or start a new college, or assist an old one, the

national government was immediately asked for land to further

the accomplishment of the desire.¹

That Ohio was quite successful in her appeal for

these land grants, is evidenced by the number of grants

and the amount of acreage actually secured in this

manner. For common school purposes Ohio was favored

with five large grants and a number of smaller ones. The

total acreage included is variously estimated at about

twelve million acres.2 and 3

The land grants of Ohio resulted from the breaking

up of the Northwest Territory into States. This terri-

tory had been claimed by New        York, Connecticut, Mas-

sachusetts, and Virginia, under their old colonial char-

ter, grants, or purchases.⁴ All of these states, except

Connecticut and Virginia, had relinquished their claims

to this land in favor of the Federal Government by the

end of the year 1786.5 A small strip of land was re-

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

tion in the Northwest Territory." Papers of the American Historical Asso-

ciation, Vol. 1, No. 3, p. 34.

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

3 There is a disagreement among authorities as to the actual number of

acres involved. Miller places the figures at above 12,000,000 acres in the

total of these land grants to Ohio. Swift gives the total as a little above

11,000,000 acres. A comparison of the two tables which they present of the

grants and the acreage will reveal the points of difference between them.

See Swift, F. H., Public Permanent Common School Funds in the Uniteu

States, 1795-1905, pp. 52, 369.

4 Knight, G. W., op. cit., p. 7.

5 Ibid., 9.

• 133
 

356      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

tained by Connecticut in the northeast corner of the

territory. Another section of the territory which bor-

dered on the Ohio river was reserved by Virginia under

agreement with Congress for the benefit of Virginia's

soldiers in the Revolution. These became known as the

Connecticut Western Reserve and the Virginia Military

Lands. The United States Military Lands formed one

of the grants in the Ohio region similar in nature to the

Virginia Military Reserve. There were some Indian

Lands, also, which were later taken over by the State,

which were involved in the grants for educational pur-

poses.

When Ohio applied for admission to the Union un-

der the Ordinance of 1787, which provided for the divi-

sion of this Northwest Territory into states, one of the

conditions of admission was that Section Sixteen of

every township should be set aside for the benefit of the

schools of such township.⁶ This ordinance did not apply

to the special lands referred to above. The Constitu-

tional Convention of Ohio demanded that this provision

or a similar provision be made to apply to the lands in

the Connecticut Western Reserve, the Virginia Military

District, and the United States Military District.⁷ Inas-

much as these districts were not on the same basis as the

land governed by the law which set aside Section Six-

teen, the demand arose that Congress appropriate from

its public lands in the State, an amount equal to one

thirty-sixth of the land in these districts for the benefit

 

6 2 U. S. Statutes, 173.

7 1 U. S. Statutes, 490. The U. S. Military District land was a large

tract of land appropriated by Congress in 1796 to satisfy land bounties

granted soldiers of the Revolution.

• 134
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  357

of schools therein. Congress finally assented to this as

a reasonable and liberal government policy.⁸

The lands thus granted for school purposes were

leased or sold. Much of the land was sold immediately.

School land that was not sold was managed under a sys-

tem of leasing. So thoroughly and quickly had the dis-

position of the major portion of these lands taken place

that only one general law was recorded after 1850 con-

cerning the Connecticut Western Reserve Lands. This

law provided that the agent in charge of the sale of this

land should receive six per cent of all the money turned

into the State treasury.⁹ Nothing of importance with

reference to the Virginia Military Reserve was found

in the legislation after 1850. Several laws were recorded

dealing with the details of the management and sale of

the Virginia lands.10 In the legislation of 1880, the

registrar of the Virginia lands was ordered to close his

office at Mansfield.11 This action indicated the near

completion of the sale of the Virginia Military Lands.

Swamp lands aggregating a little more than 25,000

acres12 were granted to the State by an act of Congress

in 1850. The total number of acres for which claims

had been reported to December 31, 1895, amounted to

117,931.28.13

The following year the General Assembly stipulated

that the proceeds from the sale of the swamp lands

 

8 2 U. S. Statutes, 225.

9 O. L., LIII, 55.

10 Ibid., LXXVIII, 421; LXV, 288.

11 Ibid., LXXVI, 147.

12 Knight, G. W., op. cit., p. 60.

13 Swift, F. H., op. cit., p. 66. "Table taken from State Grants of

Public Lands, Tables, General Land Office, March 12, 1896, p. 8."

• 135
 

358       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

should be added to the school fund.¹⁴ The interest on the

proceeds so realized was to be funded until 1855, when

it was to be distributed annually on the basis of the

enumerated white male population above the age of

twenty-one in the several counties. In 1873 the law

provided that this money should be added to the perma-

nent school fund.¹⁵ The proceeds from the land, instead,

were spent almost as fast as received.¹⁶

Section Sixteen was the subject of a mass of legis-

lation between 1851 and 1925, although much of the

legislation appeared before 1900. No important change

of policy toward these lands was inaugurated during the

period. The practice of selling the land and adding the

proceeds to the school fund was consistently followed,

as well as the customary methods of leasing unsold lands.

Ohio was the first state to receive the Congressional

grant of saline lands for school purposes.¹⁷ This grant

made to Ohio in 1824 consisted of 24,216 acres.¹⁸ Two

years later the General Assembly ordered this land sold

at public auction.¹⁹ The interest on the proceeds of the

sale of this land was to be funded until 1832;20 there-

after the interest on the fund was to be distributed to

the several counties on the basis of the enumeration. The

time for the beginning of these payments was later ex-

14 O. L., XLIX, 40.

15 R. S., 1880, Sec. 3952.

16 Knight, G. W., op. cit., p. 60. "About $6,000 has been paid in on the

'swamp' lands and distributed with the common school fund." Extract

from letter of Auditor of State, May 19, 1884.

17 Swift, F. H., op. cit., p. 59.

18 Ibid., p. 66. These figures are from the "Table taken from State

Grants of Public Lands, Tables, General Land Office, March 12, 1896, p. 8."

19 O. L., XXIV, 41.

20 Ibid., XXV, 78.

• 136
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  359

tended to 1835.21 For ten years payments from this

fund were made; they were then discontinued without

authority for more than a quarter of a century.²² In

187323 a law was passed pledging the State to pay inter-

est annually upon the money received from the sale of

saline lands. Apparently the law was never complied

with and the fund disappeared.²⁴

A number of general laws which governed the dis-

position of school lands of whatever grant, were passed

during the period from 1850 to 1900. Imperfect sur-

veys, improperly kept records or no records at all, and a

general laxity in regard to legal requirements which

would safeguard titles to property, led to many conflict-

ing claims. To meet this situation legislation was ef-

fected to remedy past conditions and to prevent con-

tinued trouble. In 188325 all leases of school land made

prior to June 1, 1831, even though such leases had not

been made out before a proper officer authorized to

acknowledge deeds, leases and property titles, were

thereafter to be deemed valid. The other laws of this

period were concerned with safeguarding the rights of

the leasees and purchasers of school lands in the future

as well as protecting the interests of the schools.²⁶

 

21 Ibid., XXIX, 423.

22 Knight, G. W., op. cit., p. 59.

23 O. L., LXX, 195.

²⁴ Knight, G. W., op. cit., p. 60. "No such fund exists at present. The

reports of the Auditor of State for 1870-71 show that the sum of $41.024.05

was credited to the 'salt'-land fund. No interest was paid on this fund,

and the reports fail to show how it was distributed, though our predecessors

inform us it was disbursed with the common school fund." Extract from

a letter of the Auditor of State, dated May 19, 1884.

25 O. L., LXXX, 218.

26 Ibid., LVIII, 39; LXXXII, 256; LXII, 105.

• 137
 

360      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

The most important example of this later legislation

is found in the comprehensive enactment of 191727 with

the extensive amendments and supplementary legislation

of 1919.28 The main features of these laws included de-

tailed instructions to the township trustees, clerks, treas-

urers, and county officers who worked under the direc-

tion of the state supervisor of school and ministerial

lands; careful recognition of the timber, gas, oil, coal,

iron and other mineral claims of the State upon these

lands which the regular leases did not cover; detailed

regulations for the renewal or first lease of these lands,

sale, and appraisal as a basis of minimum sale price.

Possibly no phase of this legislation better indicates a

changed point of view as to the responsibility of the

State for the careful management of these trust lands

than those sections which reserve the oil, gas, coal and

mineral rights to the State. However, in 191429 this

had been provided for in considerable detail. By this

act unsold portions of all state lands must thereafter be

leased or sold only when a definite clause was included

in the deed or lease reserving "to the State all gas, oil,

coal or other minerals on or under such lands, with the

right of entry in and upon said premises for the purpose

of selling or leasing the same, or prosecuting, develop-

ing or operating the same."

II.--The Irreducible Debt.--When the land grants

were made to Ohio, Congress provided that these school

lands should be preserved permanently for the benefit of

the schools within these districts.³⁰ Leasing did not

27 Ibid., CVII, 357.

28 Ibid., CVIII, Pt. I, 618.

29 Ibid., CIV, 224; CV, 6.

30 2 U. S. Statutes, 173.

• 138
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  361

prove satisfactory and an appeal was made to Congress

to authorize the sale of the land.³¹ In response to this

urgent demand, Congress passed a law in 1826 author-

izing the State to sell the land, invest the proceeds in a

fund, and make the interest available for the schools.

The townships were to be the recipients of the benefits

arising from  the sale of their own school lands.³²  In

1827 the State enacted legislation complying with the

conditions of the act of Congress of the previous year.³³

The State pledged itself to preserve the funds that arose

from the sale of such school lands and to pay six per

cent interest thereon.³⁴ Three years later the law pro-

vided that all money received from   the sale of school

lands should be paid into the State treasury as a loan at

six per cent interest.³⁵ This principle of state responsi-

bility for the preservation of the fund was reaffirmed in

the Constitution of 1851:

The principle of all funds arising from the sale or other dis-

position of lands or other property granted or entrusted to this

state for educational or religious purposes, shall forever be pre-

served inviolate and undiminished; and the income arising there-

from shall be faithfully applied to the specific objects of the

original grants or appropriations.³⁶

Ohio, with the money thus loaned to it, "instead of

creating a large permanent fund to be loaned on mort-

gage security as was done in Massachusetts, Kansas

and many states . . . provided that the proceeds aris-

ing from the sale of section sixteen and other school

31 Knight, G. W., op. cit., p. 52.

32 4 U. S. Statutes, 138.

33 Knight, G. W., op. cit., p. 53.

34 O. L., XXV, 78.

35 Ibid., XXVIII, 56.

36 Constitution, 1851, Art. VI, Sec. 1.

• 139
 

362      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

lands should be constituted a great irreducible debt held

forever by the state with an annual interest of six per

cent, to be paid thereon to the districts from which the

money was originally derived."³⁷

The funds that made up this "irreducible state debt"

at the close of the nineteenth century represent the pro-

ceeds from the sale of the following lands:

I. Section Sixteen in (1) lands purchased by the

Ohio Company in 1787; (2) lands purchased by John

Cleves Symmes in 1787; (3) every congressional town-

ship granted by Congress in 1803, upon the admission

of Ohio into the Union; (4) lands originally granted to

the Moravians, but reconveyed by them to the United

States in 1824.

II. Lands granted in lieu of Section Sixteen in (1)

U. S. Military Reserve; (2) Connecticut Western Re-

serve; (3) Virginia Military Reserve.

III. Ministerial Lands, i. e., sections numbered

twenty-nine in the lands purchased by the Ohio Com-

pany and by John Symmes.

IV.   (1)  Swamp lands; (2) Salt Lands.³⁸

The amount realized from these lands is given in a

somewhat detailed form by the State School Commis-

sioner for the year 1901.39 The following table will give

a summary view of his statement, supplemented by data

for 1925 received in a letter from the State Auditor of

Ohio under date of July 5, 1928:

37 State Commissioner of Common Schools, Forty-eighth Annual Report

p. 9.

38 Swift, F. H., op. cit., p. 369; also State Commissioner of Common

Schools, Forty-eighth Annual Report, p. 9.

39 Ibid.

• 140
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925        363

 

TABLE VII. SOURCES AND AMOUNT OF THE IRREDUCIBLE

STATE⁴⁰ DEBT OF OHIO FOR COMMON             SCHOOLS AND

INTEREST ACCRUING ON THE FUND FOR

THE YEARS 1901 AND 1925

Amount of            Interest               Amount of     Interest

Source of the             fund Nov.          payable               fund               received on

fund                       15, 1901            Jan. 1, 1902        1925              fund, 1925

Section Sixteen $3,405,335 43           $204,371 91 $3,535,284 53    $212,587 12

U. S. Military

Lands .......   120,272 12      7,216 33   120,272 12     7,216 33

Virginia Military

Lands .......    195,598 47    11,824 13   197,144 07    11,833 64

Western Re-

serve Lands..           257,499 21        15,449 95           257,499 21    15,449 95

Swamp Lands..           24,972 09          .............              25,121 09       0 00

 

Grand Total $4,003,677 32              $238,862 32 $4,135,321 02  $247,087 05

 

The amount realized from these lands for the Irre-

ducible State Debt was in no sense commensurate with

the sum that should have been secured from their lease

and sale. It is at this point that the tragedy of Ohio's

school finance is most glaringly evident. The leasing

system under the legislation of the early period permitted

the robbing of the school fund almost beyond credibility.

The following examples show this phase of the evil in a

striking manner. The Auditor of State in 1839 reports:

On the 29th of January, 1821, a special act was passed by the

Legislature, by which the trustees were authorized and empow-

ered, with the consent of the present leasee, to re-lease the same

⁴⁰ Ibid., p. 10. (It will be noted here that Ohio had finally taken cog-

nizance of her obligations in regard to the "swamp lands" and had pre-

served the fund. Section 3952, Revised Statutes, specifically includes the

"swamp lands" and the "salt lands" among the funds belonging to the irre-

ducible debt. No interest on the "Swamp Lands" had been paid prior to

1901. The Commissioner indicates that payments are expected to begin

soon. No explanation is made for the failure of the State to restore the

lost "salt land fund" previously discussed.

• 141
 

364         Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

upon any terms which in their opinion would best secure the in-

terests of the township. Under this broad power a new lease

was given to the leasee, subject to a rent of forty dollars per

annum, and dispensing with all future revaluations. The tract

lies immediately   . . . adjoining the city of Cincinnati.        It

is still held under the lease of forty dollars per annum, and at this

day (1839) is estimated to be worth not less than $100,000 . . .

This is an isolated case, but there are hundreds in existence,

. . . where, in the looseness and inadvertence of special legisla-

tion, the revaluation clauses have been repealed, and the causes

of religion and education deprived of the benevolent grants for

their support.⁴¹

Not only were valuable leaseholds granted for a pit-

tance of their true value, but land was sold for a consid-

eration that represented a sacrifice of the school fund.⁴²

Even more serious was the evident misuse and squan-

dering of funds that characterized part of the history of

the Irreducible Debt. Lacking adequate supervision,

local treasurers frequently appropriated the money for

their own use.⁴³ An attempt was made to recover some

of the embezzled money, but the efforts were frequently

nullified by legislative relief until the Auditor became

disheartened.⁴⁴

 

41 Knight, G. W., op. cit., p. 62.

42 "It is not uncommon to find land sold for fifty, forty, thirty, twenty,

ten, and in one case even as low as five cents per acre. Men had become

purchasers of whole sections for a mere trifle, and that sometimes where it

only required a few years to have realized five, ten, fifteen, or twenty dollars

per acre." (Superintendent of Common Schools, Report, 1839, p. 58.)

43 Knight, G. W., op. cit., p. 55.

44 Knight, G. W., op. cit., p. 56. "In his report for 1843 he says: 'There

seems to be no end to the plunder upon this fund. The multiplicity of these

details has in no wise wearied me, but I confess that I have felt my

energies relaxed by the facility with which 'relief bills' have been gotten up,

and so often succeeded in the General Assembly...... The lands have been

squandered and the fund has been plundered until it is now merely nominal

in character. If sympathy for defaulters is to succeed to the wrong they

have done, it is useless for a single officer to stand in the breach."

• 142
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  365 The story of Ohio's "irreducible debt" or "perma- nent school fund" is now largely a matter of history. Had the "fund" and its sources been prudently adminis- tered its total undoubtedly would be several times its present size. In 1900 there were unsold school lands,

the sale of which would add something to the irreducible debt of the State. Just how many acres remain to be credited to the school fund it is impossible to estimate. "These lands belong to the townships, and since the State has no concern except to receive the money when the

• 143
 

366      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

lands are sold, there is no record (kept by the State) of

the acreage.^"45

Finally, after every opportunity had been given the

unscrupulous through laxity of the law to exploit the

school lands, the State awoke in 1917, and in a belated

fashion passed some stringent laws peremptorily de-

manding that by a specified date a report should be made

to the State from every lessee of the state lands. This

report was to include the amount of acreage held, date

when the lease was granted, copy of the same, and other

data that might be desired by the State supervisor. These

data were required on pain of forfeiture of all lease

rights held.⁴⁶ Now at the close of a century and a half

of state history, we can gain some definite information

as to the status of the school lands still unsold. The

Auditor of State reports that in 1925 there remained but

9442 acres of unsold land in Ohio. (This information

came to the writer in a letter from the State Auditor of

Ohio under date of July 5, 1928).

III.--State Common School Fund.--With the adop-

tion of a new constitution and the reorganization of the

schools in 185147 provision was made for "the state

common school fund." This consisted of the revenues

from a number of different sources, namely: (1) the

interest upon the purchase money of the salt lands; (2)

the balance of the surplus revenue fund after the pay-

ment of seven per cent stock for which it was pledged;

(3) the interest upon the surplus revenue paid by the

several counties; (4) fees from licenses to peddlers; (5)

45 Swift, F. H. op. cit., p. 376.

46 O. L., CVII, 357.

47 Ibid., XLIX, 27.

• 144
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  367

auction sale duties; (6) taxes upon lawyers, physicians,

insurance and bridge companies, and (7) state tax by the

General Assembly for the support of schools.

The school laws were completely reorganized in 1853.

The "state common school fund" was reconstituted to

consist of the general state school tax only. At this time

a levy of two mills on the taxable property of the State

was authorized. The money was to be distributed by the

State "in proportion to the enumeration of scholars."⁴⁸

The next year the tax rate for this fund was decreased

to one and one-half mills,⁴⁹ which decrease was con-

tinued until the levy was placed at one mill in 1873.⁵⁰

The one mill rate remained in force until after 1900. In

1891 the policy of an annual levy stipulated by the Gen-

eral Assembly was continued in principle but provision

was made that the legislators should pass upon the ques-

tion every two years; in case of failure to make a levy

at any such time the rate was fixed at one mill for the

fund.⁵¹ This law was reaffirmed in 1900.52

For nearly twenty years thereafter the only changes

that took place in the law were the constant adjustments

of the tax rate downward. The law underwent a radical

revision in 191953 and 192154. The new law provided first,

for an "educational equalization fund" to enable schools

to comply with the law whose tax levy when placed

at the maximum would not provide sufficient funds

 

48 Ibid., LI, 429.

⁴⁹ Ibid., LII, 110.

50 Ibid., LXX, 8.

51 Ibid., LXXXVIII, 159.

⁵² Ibid., XCIV, 81.

53 Ibid., CVIII, Pt. II, 1303.

54 Ibid., CIX, 148.

• 145
 

368       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

to continue the schools as required by statute;

secondly, for "an additional tax of two and sixty-

five hundredths mills, the proceeds of which shall

be retained in the several counties for the support of

schools therein."    Two    years later the    "educational

equalization fund" was modified so that in 1925 the fund

drew from four sources; namely, (1) appropriations by

the General Assembly, (2) proceeds of a tax levy, (3)

revenues from certain fines, and (4) delinquent tax col-

lections from the tax levy for the State common school

fund as it had been constituted prior to 1923.⁵⁵ This

fund was placed under the control of the Director of

Education. When school districts had imposed upon

themselves the maximum levy permitted by law and

could not maintain their schools they made application

to the Director for aid. If, after investigation, he found

their claims justifiable, he was authorized to certify to

the State Auditor the amount necessary to carry on the

work of the schools. A very rigid inspection was re-

quired and an additional tax levy raised before such

districts could participate in this fund.⁵⁶

IV.--Direct Taxes.--

General Levies.--The direct taxes were variously

classified from time to time according to the different

types of school districts recognized in the state.^{56 1/2}

 

55 Ibid., CX, Sec. 7595.

56 Ibid, CX, Secs. 7595-1, 2, 7596, 7596-1, 2, 7597.

56 1/2 The term "direct taxes" in this discussion is used to differentiate be-

tween the regular tax levies made in the usual manner for the support of

schools, and the general custom during the period to seek support for the

schools through the transfer to the school funds of the school districts of

the proceeds of license fees, fines, and penalties for violation of law, and

similar funds, which are spoken of in this chapter as "indirect taxes."

• 146
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  369

At the beginning of this period the school district

classification was limited. Township and sub-district

schools were allowed to levy a tax of two mills for school

purposes.⁵⁷ The general act for schools in cities, towns,

or villages⁵⁸ which made general the provisions of the

Akron Law, permitted a maximum levy of four mills

for schools in these districts. Legislation at this time

specifically limited cities of the second class to four mills,

and cities of the first class to a two-mill levy for school

support.⁵⁹

No change in the tax rates was effected until 1864

when the township levy for schools was raised to three

mills as a maximum.60 From then on to the close of the

period, the tax rates began to increase and to vary. In

1900 they ranged all the way from three and one-fourth

mills to a possible ten mills among the several districts,

with seven mills as the general average of maximum

levies.⁶1 Twenty-five years later under certain limita-

tions maximum levies could exceed fifteen mills.⁶²

Special Levies.--From 1850 to 1925 recognition was

given to the need of special tax levies to meet emergen-

cies or unusual situations. New building needs most

frequently taxed the district resources beyond the legal

limits for school purposes. Under such circumstances

the board of education was authorized to call a special

election of the school district electors to vote on the in-

 

57 Ibid., LI, 429.

⁵⁸ Ibid., XLVII, 22.

59 Ibid., LI, 360.

60 "Ibid., LXI, 31.

61 Ibid., XCIV, 391.

62 Ibid., CIII, 57.

Vol. XXXIX--24.

• 147
 

370       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

creased levy necessary.63 In some cases the general

levies were insufficient for the ordinary requirements of

the school.   For these districts there were numerous

special acts passed by the Legislature which permitted

additional levies for general maintenance.⁶⁴

From direct taxes the school districts received their

principal financial support. The school revenues in 1900

for the entire State amounted to $14,426,858.02, of

which sum $10,830,111.83 was received from direct

taxes,⁶⁵ while for 1925 the total revenues had jumped to

the formidable sum of $102,932,894.98,66 of which sum

$71,892,593.4967 represented the income from        direct

taxes. A year later the income from direct taxes alone

had reached $108,708,695.95.68

V.--Indirect Taxes.--One of the favorite sources of

revenue for the schools, especially in the earlier period,

was the elaborate system of licenses, fines, and penalties,

the proceeds of which were turned into the treasuries of

the local schools. Some of these were paid into the local

township treasury,⁶⁹ while in other cases the money col-

lected from these sources was paid into the county

treasury for the benefit of the local schools.⁷⁰ Between

1851 and 1925 nearly threescore acts were passed con-

cerning this phase of school support.

 

63 Ibid., LI, 429; XCIV, 38.

64 Ibid., LXVII, 129; LXXXI, 325.

65 State Commissioner of Common Schools, Forty-seventh Annual

Report, p. 49.

66 Superintendent of Public Instruction, Seventy-second Annual Report,

p. 8.

67 Ibid., p. 252.

68 Ibid., Seventy-third Annual Report, p. 163.

69 O. L., LXIV, 128.

70 Ibid., LIV, 196.

• 148
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  371

 

Only three laws pertaining thereto were passed prior

to 1830.71 A large part of the legislation concerning in-

direct taxes enacted prior to 1851 was in effect at that

date.⁷² Some of the laws were repealed during the

period, but many of them were still in effect in 1925.

Two other sources of income which properly be-

longed to this class of school revenue were tuition fees

and property rentals. These were minor in importance

and local in character. There were not many children

likely to attend schools where fees were exacted, es-

pecially when schools in the local district were free. Even

though the district assumed the tuition charges, influ-

ences would be brought to bear to keep all the money for

the local district expenses. However one is surprised to

find that school district tuition in 1925 amounted to

$7,461,051.78.73 In the very nature of the case there

would be only infrequent situations where rentals would

play an important part in local school finance outside of

the regular land grant property.

The revenue from indirect taxes was not as large as

it should have been. The legislation on this subject was

generally buried in the midst of laws dealing with

foreign topics. Only a painstaking search of the session

laws of the State would reveal the existence of most of

these laws. For this reason the average local school

official did not know such legislation was in existence.

Several efforts were made to simplify the problem for

local school officials. Reference has been made to the

 

71 Miller, E. A., op. cit., p. 47.

72 Ohio School Laws, Third Edition, 1862, p. 60 ff.

73 Superintendent of Public Instruction, Seventy-second Annual Report,

p. 252.

• 149
 

372        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

list compiled by Smyth.⁷⁴ In 1901 Mr. Bonebrake made

a similar compilation of the legislation that bore upon

this subject and suggested the serious loss of revenue

from   the neglect or ignorance of these laws.              "Ex-

pert accountants sent out by this department to ex-

amine school finances have sometimes found such items

neglected, and in one instance were able to turn over

several thousand dollars."⁷⁵ Notwithstanding the neglect

of the sources of financial aid to bolster up badly

cramped school treasuries, the Commissioner reported a

total of $534,647.49 from indirect taxes for school pur-

poses in 1900.76 The amount received in 1915 from

licenses, fines and penalties alone was reported to be

$82,045.31.77

VI.--Tax Exemption.--An important source of

school support not generally so recognized is that of tax

exemption for school property. As a matter of fact,

this feature of the law has freed hundreds of thousands

of dollars of school funds for other school purposes.

The Constitution guaranteed freedom from taxation of

public schoolhouses.⁷⁸ The law of 1851 enlarged upon

 

74 He recognized the loss resulting from these lost funds which "by the

neglect of school officers, are frequently diverted from the use of schools,

and which, if an account were rendered in the different counties and town-

ships of the State, might afford a considerable fund of arrearages." Ohio

School Laws, op. cit., p. 60.

75 State Commissioner of Common Schools, Forty-eighth Annual Report,

p. 11.

⁷6 Ibid., Forty-Seventh Annual Report, p. 49.

77 Superintendent of Public Instruction, Sixty-second Annual Report, p.

69. No data about the revenues from these sources were obtainable in

1925 either from reports or from the Auditor's office. The data would

scarcely have been comparable any way as so many variations in the classi-

fications of these funds are used in the different Annual School Reports.

78 Constitution, 1851, Art. XII, Sec. 2.

• 150
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  373

the constitutional provision and granted tax immunity

for the furniture, books and equipment of school build-

ings, and school grounds not to exceed five acres.⁷⁹ This

principle was made to cover assessments for public im-

provements, thus forcing the agencies of public im-

provements to make up the assessments which logically

fell upon school property, from other sources.⁸⁰

Loans and Bond Issues

Extensive legislation provided for loans and the

issue of short and long time bonds, principally to assist

in school building enterprises. The value of this privi-

lege if properly safeguarded against extremes, is at once

recognized. In the rapid expansion of schools, costly

buildings were necessitated. A policy of "pay as you

go" was out of the question for struggling pioneers when

they confronted such drastic monetary demands as were

involved in new schools. Payments for these enter-

prises had to be financed over periods of years. For

the most part Ohio seems to have handled this phase of

school support with creditable care. From the begin-

ning, the State manifested a close supervision of this

aspect of school development. Practically every exten-

sive improvement forced the schools to exceed their tax

limit and thus borrow money and issue bonds. Several

hundred local laws dealt with these situations.

From these laws the policy of the Legislature was

clearly discernible. Schools were usually authorized to

borrow money, with the maximum rate of interest stipu-

lated as well as the length of time for which the loan

 

79 O. L., XLIX, 58.

⁸⁰ Ibid., LXXXIX, 115; XC, 19.

• 151
 

374      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

could be made.⁸¹ Bonds were authorized for sale to

cover this loan. A rather wide variety of practice was

manifested. Some school districts were allowed wide

latitude in the kind of bonds issued and the time in which

they chose to redeem them.⁸² The general practice, how-

ever, was to indicate something concerning the denomi-

nation of the bonds, the rate of interest, and the time

within which they must be redeemed. A tax levy usually

was authorized to meet these bond payments. In some

cases the district was forbidden to exceed the regular

levy rate allowed by law.⁸³

Later the Legislature made definite provision for

the discharge of all bond obligations of boards of educa-

tion. These boards were required to levy the necessary

taxes to pay interest on their bonded indebtedness, the

payment of serial bonds as they become due, and for the

creation of sinking funds to meet outstanding debts.

These sinking funds were to be under the control of

"boards of commissioners of the sinking fund."⁸⁴ Rigid

specifiations were made to cover the various phases of

bond transactions.⁸⁵

Care of Funds--Depositaries--

School funds received the usual care given to public

funds. The school treasurers from the district to the

county were required to give adequate bond for the

proper administration of the school money entrusted to

 

81 O. L. L., LXVII, 122.

82 Ibid., XCIV, 677.

83 Ibid., LXIII, 213; XCIII, 435; LXXIX, 212.

84 O. L., XCVII, 353; CIX, 345.

85 Ibid., CIII, 179; CVI, 303; CIX, 336.

• 152
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  375

them.⁸⁶ Where the County Treasurer was the custo-

dian of both the city and school funds of that city, two

bonds were required; one of them had to be acceptable

to the school board of the city.⁸⁷ Where there was sus-

picion of the misuse of funds, the Commissioner of

Schools was authorized to employ accountants to ex-

amine the books of school treasurers.⁸⁸

A unique feature for the care of school funds and

other public moneys was introduced late in the period.

In 1888 a law provided for a Depositary Commission in

cities of the second grade of the first class. The Mayor.

the City Solicitor, and the President of the Board of

Education, composed this Commission. They were re-

quired to submit the question of deposits of school and

other moneys to competitive bidding by the banking in-

terests of the city. A detailed plan of procedure for the

submission of the proposition and the reception of bids

was outlined. When the bids were opened, the bank that

offered the highest rate of interest consonant with

safety was to become the legal depositary of the school

funds. All bids could be rejected when they did not offer

a sufficient interest rate on the funds. One of the pecu-

liar things about this law was that it became obligatory

upon the school treasurers to deposit the school funds in

the designated depositaries, yet the school treasurers

were held liable for all money so deposited.⁸⁹

From 1888 to 1896, not a session of the Legislature

passed that did not enact from one to six laws concern-

 

86 Ibid., LXX, 66.

⁸⁷ Ibid., LXXII, 82.

88 Ibid.

89 Ibid., LXXXV, 197.

• 153
 

376      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

ing Depositaries and Depositary Commissions. The

Legislature was concerned almost exclusively with city

districts. In one instance, only, did the legislation in-

clude the county funds. In this instance it was done in

connection with cities located therein.⁹⁰ It has been diffi-

cult to understand the complete absence of comment con-

cerning this legislation in any of the school literature of

the 'eighties and 'nineties. These acts were very mi-

nutely worked out and drastically affected the manner of

handling school money. More than a score of these

laws were passed in a period of less than ten years. A

number of minor laws and amendments appear through-

out the remainder of the period but no fundamental

changes were made in the depository plan for the care

of school money.

Support of Secondary Schools

Secondary schools were limited in their support to

three sources of revenue, namely: gifts, tuition, and

taxes. The latter source of support was practically un-

known prior to 1853. In the very nature of the case, it

was confined almost exclusively to the public high school

from 1850 to 1925.

Academies and Seminaries --

These schools were supported principally through

gifts and tuitions. Stock companies were frequently or-

ganized which sold shares of stock in the school to inter-

ested citizens of the community. By this means commu-

nities provided the advantages of advanced schooling for

their children with the financial burden more or less

 

90 Ibid., XCI, 853.

• 154
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  377

equally distributed. Tuition charges for those not par-

ticipating in the stock of the company, and donations and

gifts from public-spirited citizens of means, comprised

the financial resources of practically all of the secondary

schools of this character.⁹¹  A law was enacted in 187392

which authorized colleges that were not supported by

voluntary contribution, to maintain academies as auxil-

iary institutions. Only the state-supported schools and a

few others could meet these conditions.

Exemption from taxation was another form of finan-

cial support given to academies and seminaries. All

money and credits, as well as property, were free from

taxation when the same were used exclusively for the

support of such institutions not conducted for profit.⁹³

The Public High School--

From the first, public high schools were not depend-

ent upon a public tax for their support. The earliest

high schools were established by special act of the Legis-

lature and were supported by gifts from the local com-

munity.⁹⁴ The first general law authorizing the estab-

lishment and support of these schools by public taxa-

tion was passed in 1853.⁹⁵ From that time forward,

public high schools were under the control of the boards

of education of the public schools, and were supported

by taxation as part of a free school system.

 

91 For a full discussion of this problem prior to 1851, see Miller, op. cit.,

chapter on "Secondary and Higher Education"; also Chapter III on

"Secondary Education" in this volume will suggest the general status of

the problem for the period from 1851 to 1925.

92 O. L., LXX, 248.

93 Ibid., XLIX, 58.

94 O. L. L., XXVIII, 116.

95 O. L., LI, 429.

• 155
 

378      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

In keeping with the state policy toward all public

educational institutions, the property of the high schools

was exempt from taxation.⁹⁶ Donations and gifts of

various kinds were probably a minor source of revenue

for the high schools. Tuition, however, undoubtedly

provided a more important source of income for the in-

dividual high schools than it did for the elementary

schools. High schools were not compulsory but optional

with the local districts. This resulted in many districts

being without the advantages of advanced educational

training for their children. The more progressive fami-

lies were inclined to send their children out of the com-

munity to attend neighboring high schools. The high

schools could charge these children tuition as a basis of

admission.⁹⁷

All this was changed with the compulsory school leg-

islation enacted in 191498 and 1921.99 By raising the age

of compulsory school attendance, high schools attend-

ance was logically the only alternative for some children.

The Bing Law of 1921 specifically exempted those

within the compulsory age limit only when they were

graduates of first-grade high schools. This forced

upon the public a tax-supported secondary school parallel

with the elementary school and of necessity available to

all communities. Taxation thereafter became the essen-

tial form of secondary school revenue.

 

96 Note the discussion on this point on page 372 of this chapter. The

legislation on tax exemption applying to the elementary schools applies here.

97 Ohio School Laws, Fourth Edition, 1865, p. 26, for Commissioner's

"Opinion."

98 O. L., CIV, 225.

99 Ibid., CIX, 379.

• 156
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  379

Support of Colleges and Universities

Private Institutions--

The discussion under the topic of academies and

seminaries applies equally to private institutions of

higher learning.  The sources of revenue for these

schools were principally gifts, tuition, and tax exemp-

tion. The latter was taken away in 1878.100

Public Institutions--

It is difficult at times to clearly delimit this group

from the former type of school. It was not until late in

the history of some of these schools that they came to

embody the full characteristics of public institutions.

I.--Land Grants.--The most fruitful source of reve-

nue for some of these institutions came from land

grants. The first aid of this kind was given to the

school now known as the Ohio University, through the

contract with the Ohio Company and the United States

whereby two townships were granted to the Company

for college and seminary purposes.101 A similar agree-

ment was entered into between the United States and

John Cleves Symmes under the Symmes Purchase. By

this contract, a grant of one township was secured for

the school later established as Miami University.¹⁰²

These lands were leased and the proceeds applied to the

support of the universities. Had they been properly

managed these grants would have become, with the rise

in land values, a golden source of revenue for the schools.

Mal-legislation, however, destroyed their greatest value.

 

100 Ibid., LXXV, 436.

101 Knight, G. W., op. cit., p. 117,

102 Ibid., p. 122.

• 157
 

380       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

As a result these institutions received but a fraction of

the revenue which their lands ought to have yielded un-

der normal conditions.103

The next land grant was made to what is now known

as the Ohio State University. Congress offered govern-

ment land for the endowment of agricultural schools in

the various states. Ohio received 630,000 acres of land

scrip in lieu of government land.104 A special commit-

tee was appointed to take charge of the sale of this land

scrip.¹⁰⁵ On December 10, 1866, the committee reported

to the Governor that the land scrip had been sold to the

amount of 629,920 acres for the sum of $340,894.70.

The average price received was approximately fifty-four

cents per acre.106

The act of Congress authorizing this grant stipulated

that the proceeds from the sale of the land scrip were to

be invested "in stocks of the United States or some other

safe stocks yielding not less than five percentum upon

the par value of said stocks."107 In keeping with this

provision the money was deposited with the State Treas-

ury bearing interest at the rate of six per cent.108

Another grant was made by Congress in 1871 which

consisted of some irregular tracts of unsold land in the

Virginia Military Reserve.¹⁰⁹ Ohio formally accepted

this land and gave it to the Ohio State University in the

 

103 Ibid., pp. 117-124.

104 Cope, Alexis, op. cit., p. 3. (The government lands had all been

disposed of in Ohio. Scrip was issued in its stead. This scrip was to be

sold the same as land.)

105 O. L., LXII, 189.

106 Cope, Alexis, op. cit., p. 10.

107 Ibid., p. 3.

108 Clark, P. H., op. cit., p. 358.

109 Cope, Alexis, op. cit., p. 57.

• 158
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  381

year 1873.110 The total cash receipts realized from its

sale to the close of the year, November 15, 1891,

amounted to $63,798.58.111

The Ohio State University was the recipient of addi-

tional revenues by the act of Congress passed in 1890.

The act was supplemental to the Law of 1862 and pro-

vided for the institution a yearly increase in revenue of

$25,000 as a permanent annuity.112

The proceeds from the grant of 1862, and a portion

of the proceeds of the grant of 1871 were loaned to the

State bearing six per cent interest. This loan consti-

tutes the Ohio State University portion of the Irreduci-

ble State Debt as a permanent endowment fund for the

institution. This fund had reached the sum of

$552,617.66 in 1899 and in 1925 amounted to

$1,091,689.58.113

II.--State and Municipal Aid.--The first direct aid

given to these institutions by the State was in the form

of appropriations. Ohio University received such aid in

the sum of $1,000 in 1825.114 No further gifts from the

Legislature were received until 1867.115 Thereafter ap-

propriations were made for the University at every ses-

sion of the Legislature.116 Miami University received no

money gifts from the State prior to 1850117 and appar-

ently none before 1885,118 when it appears among the

110 O.L., LXX, 107.

111 Cope, Alexis, op. cit., p. 59.

112 Ibid., p. 130.

113 See Chapter IV of this volume for detailed statement.

114 O. L., XXIII, 19.

115 Ibid., LXIV, 3.

116 Peters, W. E., op. cit., p. 272 ff.

117 Miller, E. A., op. cit., p. 111.

118 O. L., LXXXII, 186.

• 159
 

382       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

beneficiaries of the yearly State appropriation.119 Ohio

State University received aid from the beginning of its

history. From 1872 to 1891 Ohio State University had

received a total of $349,110.90 in legislative appropria-

tions. For the year 1900 the legislative appropriation

amounted to $185,000.00 for the University,¹²⁰ and in

1925 reached the staggering figure of $4,024,031.00.121

Similar aid was extended to Wilberforce University after

1888.122  When once the Legislature became converted

to the idea that the State was responsible for these in-

stitutions, appropriations became a valuable source of

revenue. The State appropriations to Ohio State Uni-

versity for 1925 plus all other sources of income to the

University brought the total receipts to $6,129,292.46.123

The most important source of support from the

standpoint of the institutions was taxation. This form

of aid the State had been slow to recognize. The begin-

nings of a policy of tax support for these institutions

came with the law which required a tax on all property

under lease from the Ohio University. The tax when

collected was to be paid to the University in lieu of

rents.¹²⁴

After a long period of tireless effort, the Ohio State

 

119 Ibid., LXVII, 3. (A law of 1870, appropriating money for the pay-

ment of tuition of soldiers at state universities, would seem to include

Miami University, since there were only two institutions that might be so

classified at that date, namely, Ohio University and Miami University.)

120 Ibid., XCIII, 28.

121 Data from a letter to the writer by Carl E. Steeb, Business Manager,

Ohio State University, July 9, 1928.

122 O. L., LXXXVI, 392.

123 Superintendent of Public Instruction, Seventy-second Annual Report,

p. 280.

124 O. L., LXXXII, 115.

• 160
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  383

University secured the first direct tax levy from

the Legislature in 1891. This law gave the University a

tax on the property of the State of one-twentieth of a

mill.¹²⁵ In 1896 a similar tax levy was obtained by Ohio

and Miami Universities.¹²⁶ The law provided for an

annual tax levy of three one-hundredths of one mill on

the taxable property of the State, when the Legislature

failed to specify the levy at its regular sessions. In such

a contingency seven-twelfths of the levy was to go to

Ohio University and five-twelfths to Miami University.

Thereafter the three state-controlled universities de-

pended primarily upon taxation for financial support.

The universities supported by the cities of Toledo

and Cincinnati were more fortunate in securing tax sup-

port at an earlier date. As early as 1870 the principle

was recognized in the legislation for these cities.¹²⁷

Tax exemption of grounds and buildings was one of

the earliest forms of state aid given to colleges and uni-

versities.¹²⁸ This had become so fixed in the policy of

the State that it was taken for granted as an assumed

right. For costly state institutions this was in reality no

small item of saving in their revenues.

III.--Miscellaneous Aids.--Gifts and donations were

important factors in the revenues of colleges and univer-

sities. The nature of these ranged all the way from

library collections to gifts for buildings at Ohio State

University.129 Tuition or fees from students, and rentals

on school property also made up an item of income of

125 Ibid., LXXXVIII, 159.

126 Ibid., XCII, 40.

127 Ibid., LXVII, 86; LXXV, 133.

128 Ibid., XLIX, 58.

129 Cope, Alexis, op. cit., pp. 347 and 430.

• 161
 

384      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

some importance in these institutions. Ohio State Uni-

versity, in 1891, received $12,000 in tuitions from stu-

dents, and from rentals of residences on university

ground, $2,200.130 From tuitions alone in 1925 Ohio

State University received the sum of $499,025.00.

 

 

CHAPTER IX

 

GENERAL TENDENCIES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF EDUCATIONAL

LEGISLATION AND ADMINISTRATION

A careful survey of the administration of the school

system of Ohio and the accompanying legislation from

1851 to 1925 reveals a number of outstanding develop-

ments and significant tendencies in school practice. It is

but natural to expect that in a period of such rapid transi-

tion from a pioneer state to a more stable form of social

and political life in the commonwealth, the schools

should experience an equally radical change in their de-

velopment.

A distinct tendency toward centralization of ad-

ministration of the district schools into township units

and finally into county units was evident in rural com-

munities during this period. The unit of organization

from the beginning of Ohio's school system had been

the district.¹ The first move in the direction of central-

ized township control occurred in 18532 with the creation

of a single township school district under a township

board of education. The sub-districts remained under

the nominal control of the directors who were elected.by

 

130 Ibid., p. 57.

1 Miller, E. A., op. cit., p. 25.

2 O. L., LI, 429.

• 162
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  385 these districts. The district clerks with the township clerk composed the board of education of the township. The township board exercised almost complete control over the schools. To further insure unity of township

administration the board "may appoint one of their num- ber the acting manager of the schools of the township, who shall do and perform all such duties as the board may prescribe in relation to the management and super- vision of the different schools, and may allow him a rea- sonable compensation for his services." Vol. XXXIX--25.

• 163
 

386        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

The anticipated centralization of the school organ-

ization into a unified system under township control,

proved to be more theoretical than real. The local direc-

tors, although robbed of authority, did not submit meekly

to the township board of education. Consequently, fric-

tion and confusion arose in the management of the

schools under this double-headed organization. The

Commissioners of Schools recognized the evil and

pleaded for a thorough-going system of township con-

trol.  Mr. Smart advocated the abolition of sub-districts

and joint sub-districts, and the adoption         of a single

township unit of administration.

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

township district boards, almost constantly in some con-

flict 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 boards of

education.³ Mr. Harvey strongly recommended the

abolition of sub-districts and the establishment of cen-

tralized township schools.⁴

This incessant appeal on the part of school leaders

for a more thorough centralization of school adminis-

 

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

port, p. 16.

4 Those best acquainted with these schools have little hope of their im-

proving, to any great extent, so long as the sub-district system is con-

tinued . . . . The remedy for the evil of too small schools is to be found

in the adoption of the township system of school administration. Sub-dis-

trict boundaries ought to be abolished, pupils permitted to attend the schools

nearest to their homes, and township school affairs conducted in nearly the

same manner as in towns and cities. (Twenty-first Annual Report of the

State Commissioner of Common Schools, pp. 45-46.)

• 164
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  387

 

tration in the township unit, was answered in 18905 and

1892,6 by legislative action. The sub-district organiza-

tion was abolished and the township boards were given

complete power over the schools. The law was finally

modified by partially restoring the sub-district plan.⁷

Centralization of township school administration was

being agitated further between 1890 and 1925.         The

township of Kingsville, Ashtabula county, had attempted

to abandon the sub-district schools and transport the

children to a central school. Special legislation was se-

cured which authorized the abandonment of all district

schools and the education of the children in one central

township school.⁸ The plan proved so successful that

in 1896 the Legislature extended the privilege of such

organization to three counties.⁹ Two years later a gen-

eral law extended this opportunity to all townships in

the State.¹⁰ In 190011 the centralization of schools in

the township was made compulsory upon a majority vote

of the school electorate of the township.12 In 1902 there

were forty-five townships in nineteen counties reported

as operating under the plan of centralized township ad-

ministration.13 In the general reorganization of Ohio

 

5 O. L., LXXXVII, 372.

6 Ibid., LXXXIX, 93.

7 See the full discussion of this subject in Chapter II of this contribu-

tion.

8 O. L. L., XCI, 632.

9 Ibid., XCII, 697.

10 Ibid., XCIII, 85.

11 Ibid., XCIV, 317.

12 For an interesting discussion of this plan of centralized control of

township schools, see Report of a Visit to the Centralized Schools of Ohio,

October, 1900, by O. J. Kern.

13 State Commissioner of Common Schools, Forty-ninth Annual Report.

p. 13.

• 165
 

388      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

school system of 191414 the county supplanted the

township as the unit of school control. The county unit

is now the established form of school administrative

control.

Another characteristic of school development from

1851 to 1925 was the rapid development of an efficient

city school system. In 1850 the city was an unimportant

part of the school problem. The district school was the

center of attention. With the rapid development of the

cities this emphasis upon the school gradually shifted

to the city. Something of this change of emphasis must

be apparent when it is seen that while the rural popula-

tion remained practically static during this period, the

city population gained between 500 and 600 per cent.

The population development of Ohio between 1851 and

1925, was distinctly a city movement.¹⁵

The Akron Law and the legislation which generalized

its provisions for villages and cities constituted the prin-

cipal legislation governing cities for the first two decades

of this period with respect to public schools.   Some

special laws had been passed to care for the needs of the

larger cities. In the school law revision of 187316 an

attempt was made to meet the varying needs of the dif-

ferent cities by classified legislation.  From this time

forward the burden of school legislation was to solve

the perplexing problems of city schools. The classifica-

tion of cities was carried out to an absurdity.¹7

In spite of the phenomenal growth of the city and

14 O. L., CIV, 133.

15 See Chapter I and Chapter II, for a full discussion of this population

trend from the rural districts to the city.

16 O. L., LXX, 195.

17 Orth, S. P., op. cit., p. 40.

• 166
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  389

the school problems involved, efficient school adminis-

tration was secured. The boards of education were

generally composed of men of at least average ability

who delegated the actual administration of the school

to superintendents and school directors. The Director

ordinarily gave oversight to the business side of the city

school, while the Superintendent of Instruction had the

supervision of school-room activities. The latter was

usually a man specially trained for his task. By this

system of centralized authority efficient administration

was possible.¹⁸ It was in the cities that the best high

school organizations¹⁹ and the best trained teachers were

found.²⁰ The pension law applied only to city dis-

tricts until near the close of the period when a scien-

tifically constructed "Retirement Fund" was created.

This in all probability attracted the higher grade teach-

ers. It is equally true that only an efficient, centralized

administrative system could make such a fund effective.

Making all due allowance for the social and economic

factors which contributed to the development of efficient

city schools, much of it must be attributed to a highly

centralized administrative system that made the city

school outstanding during the years from 1875 to the

present.

A marked characteristic of the period from 1851 to

1925 was the tendency to depend upon taxation as the

principal source of school support, and the recognition

of the principle of taxation for schools as a just obliga-

 

18 See Chapter II for a detailed discussion of the functions of boards,

directors, and superintendents.

19 See Chapter III.

20 See Chapter VI.

• 167
 

390      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

tion upon the community. State and county taxa-

tion had been generally established before 1850. Oppo-

sition to a general tax for school support was so strong

in 1847 that the required county tax was made op-

tional.²¹ The public was slow to recognize taxation for

schools as a justifiable universal procedure.  Shortly

after the beginning of the middle of the century, town-

ship and district taxation was accepted by legislative

enactment for the support of the schools. Various

means were adopted to enforce the principle of local

taxation for the support of education. So thoroughly

had the principle of local as well as state taxation for

school purposes been accepted before 1875 that no op-

position is recorded in the literature on the subject. The

tax rates began to increase rapidly. Toward the last of

the century the Legislature seems to have been con-

cerned with checking the community enthusiasm against

excessive and unreasonable local taxation for specific

school purposes. Even then certain communities were

authorized to levy as much as ten mills for their schools.

A mass of special legislation which enabled school dis-

tricts to exceed the legal maximum tax rate, bespeaks

the general acceptance and general dependence of com-

munities upon the local tax to support public education.²²

The graded school was in its infancy in 1850. The

Akron Law had introduced the idea into the Ohio

schools. Its development was a feature of this period.

Legislation opened the way in 1853 for graded schools

 

21 Miller, E. A., op. cit., pp. 45, 47.

22 The subject is discussed in a more general manner in Chapter II, pp.

96-126 and Chapter VIII, pp. 371 ff.

• 168
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  391

in townships, special districts, villages and cities.²³ As

might be expected, the development was most pro-

nounced in the villages and cities where the larger

school population made grading feasible and often nec-

essary. In 1925 many of the townships and counties

had adopted the graded school plan, while the system was

almost universal in the larger villages, and without ex-

ception was the rule in the cities.²⁴

An outstanding achievement of this period was the

adoption of a compulsory school law. Free and uni-

versal education had found its germinal expression in

the constitutions of 1803 and 1851. Not until the close

of the century, however, did free and universal educa-

tion become a legislative fact and a matter of school

practice. The development of the idea of universal com-

pulsory taxation could not long exist without some rec-

ognition of the just obligations of society to receive the

benefits purposed by the tax. Increasingly the rights of

society at large began to be recognized in this matter.

Public agitation demanded compulsory school attend-

ance for the public good. Nearly 200,000 children of

school age were out of school entirely and barely more

than one-half of those enrolled were in daily attendance

upon the schools in 1875.25 Legislation was passed in

187726 and 1889,27 which required children of school age

to attend school. From that date until 1921 every ses-

sion of the Legislature added something to the law in

an attempt to make the compulsory education law ef-

23 O. L., LI, 429.

24 See Chapter II.

25 See Chapter II.

26 O. L., LXXIV, 57.

²7 Ibid., LXXXVI, 333.

• 169
 

392      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

fective.²⁸ The final major step in drastic compulsory

attendance legislation came in 1921 with the famous

Bing Law.²⁹ This law required those under eighteen

years of age to attend school unless released through

graduating from a first-grade high school.

The quality of teaching and the standards which

governed teaching underwent a decided improvement

from 1851 to 1925. Certification of teachers became

thoroughly organized with a graded classification of cer-

tificates which were awarded on the basis of educational

prerequisites.  County Teachers' Institutes became a

regular event of the year. The attendance of teachers

at these institutes became popular. The institute move-

ment had a pronounced growth from 1851 to 1925, when

it began a noticeable decline due to the number of teach-

ers who attended summer sessions at various Normal

Schools, Colleges and Universities. The opportunity to

do work under college and university direction proved a

popular attraction. In 1928, nearly half of the counties

of Ohio had abandoned or were contemplating the aban-

donment of the institute. The training schools were at-

tended during the summer by teachers and prospective

teachers.

City districts often conducted special classes or nor-

mal schools for the training of teachers during the reg-

ular school year. The tendency during this period was

decidedly in the direction of raising the quality of the

teaching staff of the Ohio public schools.

Looking at the schools as a whole, the outstanding

characteristic of the Ohio system until the last decade

28 Ibid., 22.

29 O. L., CIX, 379.

• 170
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  393

 

of the period was its supervisory and administrative

decentralization. There was a constant demand for

more supervisory and administrative organization.

There was a lack of coordination between the township,

county, and state. At the top of the system, theo-

retically, stood the State Commissioner of Schools. The

principal function of his office was the collection of data

and the issuing of school reports. He had no effective

way of supervising or controlling the administration of

the schools. He did have charge of certain state school

funds, and by law could force both a minimum school

term and the return of the school statistics from the

county and district school officers by withholding the

district portion of these funds. The townships were

given supervision through the township clerk, who was

made the superintendent of schools in 1851.30 The chief

administrative function of his office seems to have been

that of filling vacancies in district directorships and

making the annual statistical report to the county au-

ditor. Later in the period townships were permitted to

elect township superintendents. However, this was not

done generally.

There was no county supervision in the true sense

of the word before 1915. The auditor of the county

was made the county superintendent, but his principal

duties consisted in receiving the township reports and

transmitting the same to the School Commissioner. He

also discharged certain other duties which related to

school funds over which he had practically no discre-

tionary power. Every district was a law unto itself,

 

30 Ibid., LXIX, 27.

• 171
 

394      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

with but the dimmest shadow of a relationship to a uni-

fied state system. The Commissioner of Schools in 1899

emphasized the situation thus: "The Ohio School Sys-

tem as a state organization is radically defective. It

lacks effective centralized power and authority. It is

home rule carried to excess. There is no power in it to

prescribe what shall be done relative to matters of the

greatest importance, and very limited power to collect

and publish the results of what the local authorities may

choose to do."³¹

Better correlation of the work of the schools

through better supervisory and administrative machin-

ery has been the burden of school leaders in Ohio for

years. In 1875 Commissioner Smart declared:

"For twenty-one successive years the school com-

missioners of Ohio have asked for and presented argu-

ments favoring county supervision. Indeed, scarcely a

year has passed since 1837 that some provision for

county supervision has not been recommended by the

head of the School Department, as a measure of econ-

omy and as a necessity to the proper management of the

country schools."³²

This demand for more uniformity in the school sys-

tem, through some form of supervisory power which

would involve the county unit, continued in practically

every State School Commissioner's report from that date

until 1914.

In spite of the glaringly evident decentralized state

of the Ohio schools for the larger part of the period, the

 

31 State Commissioner of Common Schools, Forty-sixth Annual Report,

p. 14.

32 Ibid., Twenty-second Annual Report, p. 55.

• 172
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  395 unmistakable tendency of the period was toward a more centralized administrative and uniform school system. This tendency was translated into fact with the complete reorganization of the school system in 1913-14. At that

time a unified, closely coordinated county system of schools was created. The office of State Superintendent of Public Instruction was made a vital factor in the state educational scheme. With a staff of supervisor inspectors clothed with authority through his office, edu- cation in Ohio took on the appearance of a state system

• 173
 

396      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

of education. It was quite thoroughly coordinated from

the top down.

Two very important developments of educational

policy took place between 1851 and 1925; namely: the

inauguration of the public tax-supported high school

and the assumption of state responsibility for higher

education. Secondary education had been confined to

private enterprise before 1850. The first high school

law was passed in 1853.³³ This law was permissive in

character, as were all subsequent laws for the next fifty

years which related to the establishment of high schools

in communities. The growth of the high school was

phenomenal. The number increased from fifty-seven

high schools reported in 1854 to 1275 in 1925. At the

close of the period the high schools had been well classi-

fied and their curriculum definitely formulated. In their

general organization they were much in advance of the

elementary schools.³⁴

The establishment of the Ohio State University, in

response to the Congressional Land Grant Act of 1862,

marks the beginning of a serious program on the part

of the State to encourage higher education.³⁵ In 186736

the General Assembly began to make appropriations to

Ohio University which were continued from that date

forward.  Ohio State University received appropria-

tions from the time the university was formally estab-

lished. Ohio State University, Ohio University, and

Miami University each were accepted as a part of the

 

33 O. L., LI, 429.

34 For a thorough discussion of the high school, see Chapter III.

35 See Chapter IV.

36. O. L., LXIV, 3.

• 174
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  397

State's responsibility and supported by general tax

levies and appropriations from the State treasury.³⁷

A conspicuous characteristic of the State's attitude

toward independent universities and colleges was the

continuation of the "laissez faire" policy with respect

to their control. Beyond the barest minimum essentials

demanded in charter requirements and annual reports,

as requested for the State Superintendent of Public In-

struction's office, little supervision was attempted.38

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

PRIMARY SOURCES

Annual Report of the Secretary of State, on the Condition of the

Common Schools of Ohio, 1851, 1852, 1853.

Annual Reports of the State Commissioner of Common Schools of

Ohio, 1854-1926. (A few recent reports carry title of State

Superintendent of Public Instruction.)

Eighth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of Ohio State

University.

Twenty-ninth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of Ohio

State University.

Census of the United States, 1850, 1860, 1870, 1880, 1890, 1900,

1910, 1920.

Census of the United States, Benevolent Institutions, 1904, 1910.

Constitution of Ohio, 1851. In Volume 50, Ohio Laws, 1852.

Laws of Ohio, 1851--1925.

Ohio Senate Journal, 1874.

Ohio School Laws, Third Edition, 1862.

Richard Nevins, State Printer, Columbus, Ohio, 1862.

Ohio School Laws, Fourth Edition, 1865.

Richard Nevins, State Printer, Columbus, Ohio, 1865.

Ohio Schools Laws, 1880.

Nevins and Myers, State Printers, Columbus, Ohio, 1879.

Ohio School Laws, 1893.

The Laning Printing Company, State Printers, Norwalk,

Ohio, 1893.

37 See Chapter VIII.

38 See Chapter IV for a full treatment of this question.

• 175
 

398       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

Ohio School Laws, 1900.

F. J. Heer, State Printer, Columbus, Ohio, 1900.

Ohio School Laws, 1904.

Springfield Publishing Company, State Printers, Springfield,

Ohio, 1904.

Ohio School Laws, 1906.

F. J. Heer Company, Columbus, Ohio, 1906.

Ohio School Laws, Supplement to, 1908.

F. J. Heer Company, Columbus, Ohio, 1908.

Ohio School Laws, Supplement to, 1909.

The Springfield Publishing Company, State Printers, Spring-

field, Ohio, 1909.

Ohio School Laws, 1912.

F. J. Heer Company, Columbus, Ohio, 1912.

Ohio School Laws, 1915.

F. J. Heer Company, Columbus, Ohio, 1915.

Ohio School Laws, 1919.

F. J. Heer Company, Columbus, Ohio, 1919.

Ohio School Laws (Advanced Sheets), 1923.

F. J. Heer Company, Columbus, Ohio, 1923.

Ohio School Laws (Advanced Sheets), 1925.

F. J. Heer Company, Columbus, Ohio, 1925.

The Revised Statutes of Ohio, 1880.

 

SECONDARY SOURCES

Atwater, Caleb. A History of the State of Ohio, Natural and

Civil. First Edition, Glezen & Shepard, Cincinnati, 1838.

Bryan, Judge Constant. "Historical Sketch of the Akron Public

Schools." Historical Sketches of Public Schools in Cities,

Villages, and Townships of Ohio.

Clark, Peter H. "The Ohio State University," Thirty-third An-

nual Report of the State Commissioner of Common Schools,

1886. Myers Brothers, State Printers, Columbus, Ohio,

1887.

Cope, Alexis. History of the Ohio State University, Vol. I.

1870-1910. The Ohio State University Press, Columbus,

Ohio, 1920.

Deffenbaugh, Walter S. "Compulsory School Attendance," U. S.

Bureau of Education Bulletin, 1914, No. 2, Whole No. 573,

of the State of Ohio. Government Printing Office, Wash-

ington, D. C.

Final Report of the Citizens' Committee on University Affairs,

Cincinnati, Ohio, 1900. Cincinnati, Ohio, 1900.

• 176
 

History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925  399

 

Knight, George W. "History and Management of Land Grants

for Education in the Northwest Territory," Papers of the

American Historical Association, Vol. I, No. 3. G. P. Put-

nam's Sons, New York and London, 1885.

Kern, Oily J. Report of a Visit to the Centralized Schools of

Ohio, October, 1900. Rockford, Illinois, 1900.

Miller, Edward A. The History of Educational Legislation in

Ohio from 1803 to 1850. Private edition distributed by the

University of Chicago Libraries, Chicago, Illinois. Reprint

from Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly, Vol.

XXVII, Nos. 1 and 2, January and April, 1918.

McMaken, J. J.    "Historical Sketch of Miami University,"

Thirty-third Annual Report of the State Commissioner of

Common Schools, 1886. Myers Brothers, State Printers,

Columbus, Ohio, 1887.

Orth, Samuel P. The Centralization of Administration in Ohio.

New York, 1903.

Peters, William E. Legal History of the Ohio University, Athens,

Ohio. The Western Methodist Book Concern, Cincinnati,

Ohio, 1910.

Studensky, Paul. Teachers' Pensions Systems in the U. S. D.

Appleton, New York, 1920.

Swift, Fletcher H. A History of Public Permanent Common

School Funds in the United States, 1795-1905. Henry Holt

& Company, New York, 1911.

University Education. A Book outlining the University Oppor-

tunities Offered by the City of Toledo in the Day Sessions

of Its University. Published by Toledo University, Toledo,

Ohio. 1921.

• 177