THE HISTORY OF EDUCATIONAL LEGISLA-
TION IN OHIO FROM 1851 TO 1925
BY NELSON L. BOSSING, PH.D.
CHAPTER I
INFLUENCES AFFECTING EDUCATIONAL
LEGISLATION IN OHIO FROM
1851 TO 1925
The history of education in Ohio from
1851 to 1925
cannot be fully understood without a
knowledge of
those economic, social and political
factors, both con-
temporary and past, which determined
the trend of
educational movements within the state.
It is equally
important that the educational progress
of the state
prior to 1851 should be thoroughly
understood, since
much of the school legislation from
1851 to 1925 found
its originin the educational activity
of the preceding
fifty years.
Ohio became a state in 1803 as a result
of the open-
ing up of the Northwest Territory for
settlement. The
Northwest Territory embraced that vast
unsettled por-
tion of the country which lay west of
Pennsylvania, be-
tween the Ohio River on the south, the
Great Lakes
and the British Possessions on the
north, and the
Mississippi River on the west.
Virginia, Connecti-
cut, New York and Massachusetts
asserted their title
to much of this region by virtue of
charters, grants, and
purchases. Congress, in September 1780,
took steps
to open the Northwest Territory for
settlement. A
month later Congress adopted a
resolution which de-
(78)
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 79
dared that the Territory should be
disposed of for the
common benefit of the United States,
and should be
divided into sovereign states, of a
given area, on the
same footing with the original
thirteen.1
At the time of the organization of the
Northwest
Territory, colonization companies were
formed and
large tracts of land were sold to them
for settlement
purposes. A number of these
colonization companies
purchased tracts of land in that part
of the Northwest
Territory now included in the state of
Ohio. The two
most important purchases of this
character were the
Symmes Purchase and the Ohio Company
Purchase.
The Virginia Military Reserve, the
Western Reserve,
and the United States Military Lands
represent the
remaining principal land grants in the
Ohio region
which were devoted to colonization by
special groups
of settlers. Over 12,000,000 acres were
included in
these special land grants.2 The
remaining unclaimed
portions of the state, which amounted
to over 14,000,000
acres, were known as Congress Lands and
belonged to
the federal government.3
The Land Ordinance of 1785 provided
that the land
in the Northwest Territory which
belonged to the fed-
eral government should be divided into
townships six
miles square. The townships were then
subdivided into
1 Knight, G. W., "History and
Management of Land Grants for Educa-
tion in the Northwest Territory,"
The American Historical Association,
Papers, Vol. I, No. 3, p. 7.
2 Miller, E. A., "The History of
Educational Legislation in Ohio from
1803 to 1850," Ohio Archaeological
and Historical Society Publications, Vol.
XXVII, p. 69. Swift places the total
acreage in these grants at 11,009,847
acres. Swift, F. H., A History of
Public Permanent Common School Funds
in the United States, 1795-1905, p. 370.
3 Miller, E. A., op. cit., p.
72.
80 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
tracts of land one mile square which
were called sec-
tions. The sections of each township
were numbered
systematically from one to thirty-six.
The ordinance
specified that "there shall be
reserved from sale, lot No.
16 of every township for the
maintenance of public
schools within the said
township."4 In accordance with
this provision, Section 16 in each
township was set aside
for school purposes in both the Symmes
and the Ohio
Company Purchases. The plan was also
carried out in
the case of the smaller grants.
Commenting upon the disposition of the
school
lands in the remainder of the state,
Mr. Miller makes
this succinct statement:
When Ohio was admitted to the Union, the
provisions of the
Ordinance of 1785, concerning school
lands, were carried out as
fully as possible in the rest of the
state. In all of the Congress
Lands, Section 16 in each township was
permanently reserved for
the schools of the township. It was not
in the power of Congress
to grant Section 16 in such tracts as
the Western Reserve, the
Virginia Military Reserve, and the
United States Military Lands.
These Lands either did not belong to the
federal government or
there were prior claims and unsatisfied
land warrants that stood
in the way of any such granting of
specific sections. The United
States did not own the land on the
Western Reserve, and in the
case of the so-called Military Lands the
private ownership of
much of the land, through the taking up
of land scrip or bounties
by the soldiers of the Revolution, in
the service of the federal
government and Virginia, might conflict
in any township.5
For this reason the assigning of school
lands in the
Western Reserve, the Virginia Military
Reserve, and
the United States Military lands had to
take some other
form than that of reserving Section 16
in each town-
ship. Congress had formally committed
itself to the
4 Knight,
G. W., op. cit., p. 13.
5 Miller, E. A., op. cit., p. 74.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 81
policy of setting aside one
thirty-sixth part of the land
in the state for the use of the
schools. The federal
government, therefore, was obligated to
devise another
plan to satisfy the claims of these
three districts for
school land. In lieu of Section 16, the
Virginia Mili-
tary Reserve was allotted school land
outside of the
Reserve in the form of eighteen
quarter-townships and
three sections of land. These twenty-one
special tracts
were located in Congress Lands. Similar
provisions
were made for the Western Reserve and
the United
States Military Reserve from the unlocated lands
within the boundaries of the United
States Military
Lands. The unclaimed lands in the United
States Mil-
itary District comprised the remaining
portion of the
land which had been set aside by
Congress to pay the
bounties awarded to the soldiers of the
Revolutionary
war. After all bounty claims had been
satisfied, much
of the land which had been set aside by
the government
for bounty purposes still remained
unclaimed. These
tracts were used to satisfy the school
land claims.6
The school lands formed the basis of
school support
for the first fifty years of school
activity in Ohio. It is
probable that the idea of a
tax-supported universal
school system was retarded by the undue
expectations
of large returns from the sale or rent
of the school
lands. During the first half-century
the disposition of
school lands occupied the center of
attention in school
legislation. Over one-third of the
school legislation in
Ohio dealt with this problem.7
6 Miller, E. A., op. cit., Chap.
III. Here will be found a complete dis-
cussion of the subject.
7 Ibid., p. 54.
Vol. XXXIX--6.
82
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
It was assumed from the first that
Section 16 would
be preserved permanently for the use of
the township
in which the section was located. Where the school
lands were located at a distance from
the grants to
which they belonged, it was assumed,
also, that they
would be managed for the benefit of the
local townships
to which the lands were allotted. In
accordance with
this understanding, the new state
immediately passed
legislation which was designed to
control the issuing of
leases for school lands.8 From
that time forward al-
most a continuous series of legislative
measures were
enacted into laws in an endeavor to
cope with the situa-
tion. The leasing system did not prove
very remunera-
tive, whereupon the General Assembly
decided to sell
the land outright and establish a
permanent school fund
with the proceeds of the sale. The land
policy prior to
1850 was divided into four distinct
periods: "the policy
of temporary leasing, 1803 to 1817; the
policy of per-
manent leasing, 1817 to 1823;
preparation for selling
the lands, with temporary leasing, 1823
to 1827; and
the policy of selling the lands
outright, 1827 to 1850."9
The law gave the townships the right to
decide whether
they would sell the land or continue
the policy of leasing
the property. The management of the
land was in the
hands of the township trustees. There
was in vogue a
common practice which allowed the
holders of perma-
nent leases to surrender their leases,
and, by the pay-
ment of the first appraised value of
the land, receive a
8 Acts of Ohio, I,
61. Where subsequent references are made to Acts of
Ohio or Ohio Laws, as the session laws
of the state were subsequently
called, the abbreviation O. L. will be
used. Local Laws will be designated by
the abbreviation O. L. L.
9 Miller, E. A., op. cit., p. 78.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 83
deed in fee simple. The wholesale
sacrifice of school
land was stopped by legislative action
in 1838. In 1845
a general act stipulated that no school
land should be
sold below a minimum price of $5.00 per
acre.10 The
law was passed too late to be of much
value. A large
part of the land had been sold before
1845, and so much
of it had virtually been given away
that the receipts
for the school fund were but a fraction
of what they
should have been. The grants comprised
a total of
about twelve million acres.11 In 1905,
the fund from
the sale of the land amounted to less
than five million
dollars, with but a small acreage left
for sale.12 Had
the lease and sale of the land been
prudently managed,
the fund would have equalled several
times its present
amount.
The early settlers of Ohio came from
every section
of the country: New England, New
Jersey, Virginia,
Maryland, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and
other states
sending their colonists there.13 The
immigrants to the
new territory had no common background
of political
or educational experience. The early
settlers left the
impress of their former training,
habits, customs, and
modes of thought upon those sections of
the state in
which they lived. Governmental
practices were varied
among these local groups; and these
variations in prac-
tice later affected the general
policies of the state gov-
ernment.14
10 Ibid., p. 89.
11 Miller, E. A., op. cit., p. 69.
12 Swift, F. H., op. cit., p.
368.
13 Atwater, Caleb, A History of the
State of Ohio, Natural and Civil,
p. 351.
14 Miller, E. A., op. cit., p. 8.
84 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
There were eight centers of early
settlement, each
characterized by the peculiarities of
the respective pio-
neer groups. The different settlements
followed quite
closely the geographical boundaries of
the various
grants.15
The settlers in the Symmes Purchase
made Cincin-
nati the center of their colonization.
They came prin-
cipally from New Jersey, and were of
Swedish and
Dutch descent. Later their numbers were
augmented
by arrivals from Virginia, Maryland,
Pennsylvania,
New York, and the New England states.
The Virginia Military Reserve was first
settled by
the old Virginian soldiers who had
fought in the Revo-
lutionary war. Chillicothe was the
first settlement cen-
ter of these pioneers. "They were Episcopalians in
faith, anti-federalists in politics,
and had a leaning to-
wards slavery."
The Ohio Company's Purchase, with
Marietta as
the colonization center, was in the
southeastern corner
of the state. The first settlers in
this grant were from
Massachusetts.
The tract known as "the Seven
Ranges" was located
on the eastern side of the state next
to Pennsylvania
and on the northwest border of West
Virginia. This
territory was settled principally by
colonists from Penn-
sylvania who were of German, Scotch,
Irish, and
Scotch-Irish descent.
The United States Military Lands were
settled by
a miscellaneous group of settlers from
a number of
15 Ibid., p. 9; also Orth, S. P.,
The Centralization of Administration in
Ohio, p. 164.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 85
older states. New York, Pennsylvania,
and the middle
states furnished the majority of these
immigrants.
The Connecticut immigrants made their
settlement
along the south shore of Lake Erie.
Cleveland became
the commercial and political center for
these people.
This settlement was in the territory of
the Western
Reserve.
A number of small grants received
settlements of
various kinds. The two principal groups
consisted of
the Moravians and the French. A small
tract located
on the Tuscarawas River was given to
the Moravians.
The French had come to Ohio as a result
of a swindle.
They had purchased land from some
swindlers who had
gone to Europe and who had represented
themselves to
be in possession of a large tract of
land adjoining the
Ohio Company Purchase on the west. When
the immi-
grants arrived from France, they found
their deeds
worthless. The United States government
gave the
French immigrants a tract of 24,000
acres of land
known as the French Grant, and sold
them additional
property. They settled around
Gallipolis and along the
Ohio River.16
The Congress Lands were settled by
heterogeneous
groups of colonists. The Germans made
up a goodly
portion of the immigrants to these
lands after 1830.17
The wide divergence of social,
political, religious
and educational viewpoints of these
settlers profoundly
influenced the educational development
of the state.
That the environment and conditions of
early pioneer
life accentuated rather than lessened
the differences be-
16 Atwater, Caleb, op. cit., p.
159.
17 Orth, S. P., op. cit., p. 165.
86 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
tween these groups is clearly reflected
in the following
statement:
These centers were completely isolated
by the dense forests
that covered the entire territory. Means
of communication were
imperfect. Each little group developed
along the lines of its
previous training and traditions. The differences in religion,
early education and ideas of local
self-government were great.
There were Episcopalians, Lutherans,
Presbyterians, Congrega-
tionalists, Moravians and Roman
Catholics, each left alone in
isolated areas. They fostered two different ideals of public
education,--the parochial school and the
free school. Later this
led to considerable opposition in the
legislature in behalf of public
education. For a number of years the
state catered to the foreign
element, allowing the study of German in
the public schools as a
substitute for English; and parochial
schools in some of these
areas remained until the middle of the
century the only schools
open to the youth.18
The two principal causes for the
general decentral-
ized condition of the school system
throughout the first
one hundred years of Ohio's statehood
centered in these
differences of ideals, and the
unfortunate experience of
the people with an autocratic
territorial government.
The experiences of the past prevented
the early settlers
from favoring a highly organized
government. Vir-
ginia had been organized on the county
basis. New
York and Pennsylvania were dominated by
the "theory
of township and county
amalgamation." The New
England states were almost irrevocably
committed to
the practice of township or district
autonomy. "This
early independence is shown by the
action of the
Western Reserve, which preferred to
obey the laws of
Connecticut rather than those of the
territorial govern-
ment. It was not until Connecticut
renounced all sov-
ereignty over the Reserve, in 1800,
that its settlements
18 Ibid., p. 165.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 87
voluntarily recognized the territorial
acts."19 Evidence
of this variety of political ideals was
further revealed
in the early establishment of academies
and colleges in
each of the group centers. These
schools reflected the
ideals of their founders.
The traditions of the State had been
from the first
against centralization. The first
Constitution was
formed shortly after the bitter
political struggle between
Jefferson and Adams. At this time
feeling was run-
ning high against the territorial
Governor, St. Clair,
who had governed the territory in a
most autocratic
manner.20 The first
Constitution, therefore, stripped
the executive office of all authority
worthy of mention;
and the second Constitution adopted in
1851, reflected
this historic prejudice against
centralized executive
power. The Legislature assumed primary
authority in
all state affairs, and with extreme
caution delegated au-
thority to the several departments and
agencies of the
state government. The situation is
succinctly stated by
Rufus King: "Briefly stated, it
was a government which
had no executive; a half-starved,
short-lived judiciary;
and a lop-sided Legislature."21
The effect of this short-sighted policy
on the part
of the Legislature was obvious in
almost every phase
of the educational legislation before
and after 1850.
One gains the distinct impression from
a study of the
laws of that period that the
Legislature was afraid to
delegate any serious administrative
authority. More
19 Orth,
S. P., op. cit., p. 166.
20 Miller,
E. A., op. cit., p. 8.
21 Ohio, in
American Commonwealth Series, p. 291. For a more detailed
discussion of the influence determining
the formation of the two constitutions,
see Orth, S. P., op. cit., p. 167
ff.
88
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
than one-half of the school legislation
between 1851
and 1900 was devoted to the enactment
of special acts
which granted authority for the most
trivial matters of
school administration. When a school
district desired
to make more than the usual school
building repairs, a
special act of the Legislature was
necessary. When a
school district contemplated a bond
issue to build a new
schoolhouse, the district was obliged
to get a special
dispensation from the Legislature to
proceed. The dis-
trict usually found that the minutest
details of the
bond issue had been carefully worked
out for them by
the Legislature, even to the size of
the bonds, the time
within which these bonds should be paid
in full, if not
the exact date of the payment of each
bond, the interest
rate, the method of numbering and
keeping a record
of them, and the names that should
appear on the bonds
on behalf of the district.22 Thousands
of dollars were
expended in prolonged sessions of the
Legislature for
the purpose of transacting business
that could have been
handled more efficiently through
properly co-ordinated
executive channels.
Local autonomy in school and other
affairs became
a habit in the life of the early
pioneer. He became
jealous of his voice in school matters.
Every effort to
systematize school authority and
enlarge the units of
school administration was met with
determined re-
sistance. For this reason the district
remained the unit
of control in fact if not in name,
during the greater part
of the nineteenth century. When an
attempt was made
in 1853 to unify the schools by making
the township the
22 Ohio Laws, LXIII, 213; Ohio Local Laws, XCIII, 435.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 89
unit of control,23 the local
districts set up a cry of "one
man power," nullified the act, and
forced a recasting of
the law in favor of district control.24
The semblance
of an effective county and state system
of school control
still remained an unrealized dream of a
few leaders of
education in the State, until near the
close of the first
quarter of the twentieth century.
The growth in population from 1800 to
1925 was
very rapid. From a scattered group of
settlements with
a population of 45,365 people in 1800,
Ohio had in-
creased its population to 1,980,329 in
1850, to 4,157,545
in 1900, and to approximately 6,321,000
in 1925.25
This meant a decided breaking up of
isolated community
life. The rural districts were very
largely transformed
into settled farming communities. For
the first fifty
years most of the increase in
population was absorbed
into the agricultural regions. Only
151,375 or 7.6 per
cent of the population, had settled in
urban centers by
the middle of the century. Almost 88
per cent of this
urban population was found in two
cities.26
This development of the agricultural
life of Ohio
prior to 1850 made the school problem
of that period
essentially a rural one. The
legislation between 1803
and 1850 dealt primarily with the
district school organi-
zation. The isolated community life, so
characteristic
of the formative days of statehood,
gradually disin-
tegrated under the impact of the great
increase of popu-
lation which crowded in from every
side. But the trans-
23 O. L., LI, 429.
24 See Chapter II, pp.
35-45. (This will be a different figure on
page-
proof).
25 The World Almanac and Book of
Facts, 1926.
26 U.S. Census, 1900.
90 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications formation was a slow process. The rapidity of the transformation was moderated by the influx of foreign- born, and the continued immigration from the older states. These groups tended to keep alive the diversity |
|
of educational ideals and practices of the older inhab- itants. The rural districts felt these influences in a lessening degree from 1851 to 1925. The most marked change in the growth of popula- tion following 1850 was in the direction of urban de- |
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 91
velopment. The increase in population
in the rural dis-
tricts was very slight between 1850 and
1890. There-
after it declined steadily. The static
condition of the
rural situation is evidenced by the
fact that the farm
acreage showed but a slight increase
from 1850 to 1900,
while the loss in farm acreage between
1910 and 1920
alone aggregated 589,820 acres. The
number of farms
under cultivation had shown a steady
though slight in-
crease from 1850 to 1900. Between 1910
and 1920
a sharp decline of over 15,000 farms
was experienced.
A glance at the following table will
show the develop-
ment of the urban population in
comparison with the
population of the entire state from
1810 to 1920.
TABLE I--COMPARATIVE GROWTH OF URBAN AND
STATE
POPULATIONS 1810-1920--27
Subject 1810 1830 1850
1870 1890 1900
1910 1920
Population of
State
.......230,760 937,903 1,980,329
2,665,260 3,672,329 4,157,545
4,767,121 5,759,394
Total urban
population .... 2,540 42,831
151,375 517,909 1,159,342
1,599,840 2,279,447 3,288,164
Total rural
population ....228,220 895,072 1,828,954
2,147,351 2,512,987 2,557,705
2,487,674 2,471,230
Percent urban
population .... 1.1 4.5
7.6 19.4 31.6
38.5 47.8 57.1
Cities with over
8,000 population ..
1 4 16
29 38 62
64
The increase in the urban over the
rural population
from 1850 to 1920 amounted to 1609 per
cent. If we
consider the increase in the number of villages and
towns having a population of 500 to
4,000 during this
27 Prior to 1900 the Census Bureau
classified as urban as distinguished
from rural that part of the population
which resided in cities or towns of
8000 inhabitants or more. This basis of
division between urban and rural
communities was used in the Census of
1900 for comparative purposes with
previous census reports. To make the
statistical data comparable for the
period 1810-1920 in the above table, the
census data for 1910 and 1920 have
been reduced to the basis of division
for urban and rural populations used
in the previous census reports. Since
1910 the Census more properly has
designated as urban that portion of the
population residing in cities and other
incorporated places having 2,500
inhabitants or more,
92 Ohio
Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
same period, we find the actual farming population in
1900 to have remained almost identical with that in
1850 and to have decreased noticeably by 1925. There
were less than 80 villages and towns with a population
of 500 to 4,000 in 1850, while there were about 370
such
villages and towns in 1900.
The situation is strikingly illustrated from the com-
parative data presented in the Census of 1920. Here
the total rural population for 1910 is placed at
2,101,-
978, of which 452,030 lived in incorporated places of
less than 2,500 inhabitants, leaving a total
population in
farming or unincorporated territory of 1,649,948. In
1920 the total rural population is placed at
2,082,258, of
which 472,754 lived in incorporated places of less
than
2,500 inhabitants, leaving a total in open or unincor-
porated territory of 1,609,504. This would indicate
that
the entire gain in population for the seventy-five
year
period from 1850 to 1925 was absorbed into the urban
or semi-urban communities with an actual and
accelerat-
ing decrease in the farming and unincorporated village
population of the rural districts as we near the close
of
the period. The following table, based upon the
classifi-
cation as urban of those incorporated centers of popu-
lation of 2,500 inhabitants or more, will show more
clearly the urban trend of the State's population from
1890 to 1920.
TABLE II--COMPARATIVE GROWTH OF URBAN AND STATE
POPULATIONS 1890-1920
Subject
1890 1900 1910 1920
Population
of State..............3,672,329 4,157,545 4,767,121 5,759,394
Urban Population ...............1,504,390 1,998,382 2,665,143 3,677,136
Rural Population
................,167,939 2,159,163 2,101,978 2,082,258
Percent Urban Population........ 41.0 48.1 55.9 63.8
Percent Rural Population ........ 59,0 51.9 44.1 36.2
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 93
A brief survey of the industrial life
of Ohio from
1850 to 1920 reveals a unique situation
in the state.
Ohio, in 1920, held fourth place as to
population in the
family of states; fourth in rank in the
importance of its
agricultural products; and fourth in
rank in its manu-
factured products. Ohio was
conspicuously an agricul-
tural state prior to 1850, ranking
first in the production
of cereals. Agriculture gradually
receded after that
date from its position of first
importance until in 1920
it shared with the manufacturing
industry fourth rank
among the states. In 1810 the value of
the manufac-
tured products for the state was a
trifle more than
$2,000,000. In 1840 manufacturing was
assuming a
position of importance, with a
production value of ap-
proximately $31,500,000. In 1900 the
value of manu-
factured materials had risen to
$832,000,000 and in
1920 to $5,100,308,728. This was within
a few million
of the value of the manufactured
products of Illinois
which state ranked third in this
industry.
A comparative valuation of the products
of agricul-
ture and manufacture for Ohio in 1920
shows the manu-
facturing industry predominating. The
value of agri-
cultural products was given at
$607,037,562, while the
value of manufactured goods was given
at many times
that amount, as indicated above.
It is not surprising, therefore, to
discover that after
1850 the center of interest shifted
from the rural to the
urban and city problems. The country or
rural portion
of the state was undergoing changes,
but these changes
were very slow, oftentimes almost
imperceptible. The
urban development was very rapid and
wholly new in
the experience of the people after
1850. Widely varying
94
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
conditions of life with their natural
degree of isolation
and independence, made the solution of
rural problems
seem less imperative. The new
conditions in the more
crowded, interdependent and artificial
village and city
mode of life, and a solution of the
problems incident
thereto, not only needed attention but
imperatively de-
manded it. Health, sanitation,
transportation, and not
least of these, education, demanded
immediate and
special attention. The General Assembly
was looked
upon as the agency for the solution of
all these difficul-
ties. A mass of legislation ensued
which attempted to
grapple with a highly complex problem.
The larger
cities presented special problems in
themselves. The
same seemed to be true in lesser degree
of the smaller
cities and towns.
The framers of the Constitution,
foreseeing the pos-
sibilities of an endless and hopelessly
involved system
of special municipal charters, provided
that cities should
be chartered by general laws.
Article XIII, Sec. 6, of the
Constitution of 1851
reads: "The General Assembly shall
provide for the
organization of cities, and
incorporated villages, by gen-
eral laws, and restrict their power of
taxation, assess-
ment, borrowing money, contracting
debts and loaning
their credit, so as to prevent the
abuse of such power."
Sec. I, of the same article states:
"The General Assem-
bly shall pass no special act
conferring corporate pow-
ers." Article II, Sec. 26,
required a uniform application
of all general laws.
To avoid this evident intent of the
law, special legis-
lation was enacted under cover of
general laws which
History of
Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925 95
stated the limits of
population within which the law ap-
plied. These limits
were so fixed as to include only the
locality in whose
behalf the law was framed. The en-
abling act of the
following law28 gives the general proce-
dure in such cases:
"An act to provide for the election
of the board of
education in cities of the second class
and fourth grade,
having a population at the federal
census of 1890 of
not less than 7,130 and not exceeding
7,160."
Hundreds of laws of
this kind were passed from
1851 to 1900,
although shortly thereafter some adverse
court decisions put
a stop to the practice. To further aid
in such
circumlocution of the Constitution, a highly
classified system of
municipal corporations was created.
CITIES
Class I
Grade 1
......... .........Over 200,000
inhabitants.
Grade 2
......................From 90,000 to
200,000 inhabitants.
Grade 3
.....................From 31,500 to 90,000 inhabitants.
Grade 4
......................Those promoted from Class II.
Class II
Grade 1
......................From 30,500 to 31,500 inhabitants
Grade 2
..................... From 20,000 to 30,500 inhabitants.
Grade
3......................From 10,000 to 20,000 inhabitants.
Grade 3a.....................From
28,000 to 33,000 inhabitants.
Grade
3b.....................From 16,000 to 18,000 inhabitants.
Grade 3c
.....................From 15,000 to 17,000 inhabitants.
Grade 4
......................From 5,000
to 10,000 inhabitants.
Grade
4a.....................From 8,000
to 9,500 inhabitants.
INCORPORATED VILLAGES
Class I From
3,000 to 5,000 inhabitants.
Class II From 2,000 to 3,000 inhabitants.
HAMLETS
All villages under
2,000 inhabitants.29
This unusual
attention given to the cities and towns
reflected the
central interest which the General Assem-
28 O. L. L., XCI,
511; also O. L., LXXXI, 92.
29 Orth, S.
P., op. cit., p. 16.
96
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
bly held in the legislation of the
time. This effort to
meet individual situations was
abundantly evidenced in
the school legislation. The educational
problems were
entirely new in the state. Each local
school situation
seemed to the Legislature to require
special laws. The
magnitude and importance of the urban
situation, as
reflected in the development of its
population and in-
dustries, was expressed in the mass of school
legisla-
tion enacted at this time which almost
frantically at-
tempted to meet the needs of these
groups of concen-
trated populations. The villages with a
population of
500 or over, and especially those which
had reached the
1,000 mark, found their educational
needs and prob-
lems more closely associated with the
city than with
the rural districts. The outstanding educational ad-
vance from 1851 to 1925 was made in
village and city
school legislation.
CHAPTER II
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
School District Organization
Prior to 1851, legislation concerning
school districts
was limited in scope and fragmentary in
character. The
principal legislation of this period
centered about the
organization and finance of the local
district. The first
general school act of Ohio, passed in
1821,1 provided for
the laying off of school districts in
townships and for
the support of schools in those
districts. The next act
of importance was passed in 1825.2 This
law made very
1 O. L., XIX, 51.
2 Ibid., XXIII, 36.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 97
little change in the district
organization. It did attempt
to insure the districting of each
incorporated township
by withholding from recalcitrant or
negligent townships
their portion of the revenues which
were collected from
school lands and by taxation. The
Legislature nullified
the true force of this law by
subsequent local legislation
which extended the time within which
the districting of
the township had to be accomplished,
and exempted
various townships from the operation of
the law. The
most significant result of the
legislation of 18383 was
the creation of a nominal state system
of school organi-
zation. The township clerk was made the
superintend-
ent of schools for the township, the
county auditor had
the duties of the county superintendent
attached to his
office, and the state superintendent
stood at the head of
the entire system for the state. The
duties of the town-
ship clerk and the county auditor
consisted largely in
providing the channels through which
the state super-
intendent was enabled to secure school
data from the
districts and in turn distribute
circulars and other infor-
mation from his office to the local
schools. Theoretically,
the schools were provided with a system
of organized
supervision; in practice, the plan was
so ineffective that
beyond a half-hearted response to the
requests of the
state superintendent for school data,
there was little su-
pervision attempted. The last important
legislation of
this period occurred in 1847, with the
passage of a spe-
cial act which provided for the
organization of schools
in the city of Akron.4 This
law, known as the "Akron
Act" was made general the
following year and applied
3 Ibid., XXXVI, 21.
4 O. L. L., XLV, 187.
Vol. XXXIX--7.
98 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications to all incorporated towns. Organization under the act re- mained optional with the towns eligible under its pro- visions. At the close of the first fifty years of school history in Ohio, we have found the organization of the school |
|
system to have been loosely held together and to have been concerned almost wholly with the district. Even the district organizations were not identical in form, for a large per cent of the districts were special in character. The situation at the close of 1850 has been described as follows: |
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 99
Up to this date, then, there existed
three varieties of districts.
First, the special act districts, depending upon
special legislation.
These comprised about one-third of the
districts of the State.
Their forms of administration were as
various as their number.
Second, the School Board districts,
organized under the Akron
Law. These comprised about one-half of
the incorporated towns
and a few unincorporated ones, for in 1849 the act was
extended
to all villages of two hundred
inhabitants or more. Third, town-
ship or director districts. These
included mostly the rural dis-
tricts, as well as many towns that had
failed to take advantage
of the "Akron Law" and were
not organized as special districts.
The "original surveyed"
townships may be included in this group.5
The Secretary of State, in his annual
report to the
Legislature in 1851,6 declared that a
revision of the
school laws was imperative. In the
revision that fol-
lowed, some changes in the district
organization were
made.7 Trustees of
incorporated townships, after due
notice, were to meet and divide the
township into dis-
tricts where this had not been done
already. Further,
upon the written request of five
free-holders, the town-
ship trustees were empowered to change
or abolish dis-
trict boundaries. This law was made to
apply to dis-
tricts composed of two or more
townships. Where the
change or abolition of joint township
districts was in-
volved, the trustees of the townships
concerned met and
settled the issues in question. The
district officers con-
sisted of a clerk, treasurer, and board
of directors. The
directors, three in number for each
district, were elected
at the annual meeting of the district
and held office for
three years. The directors of these
districts were given
5 Orth, S. P., The Centralization of
Administration in Ohio, p. 37.
6 King,
Henry W., Annual Report of the Secretary of State, on the Con-
dition of the Common Schools, to the
Fiftieth General Assembly of the State
of Ohio, for the Year 1851, p. 20.
7 O. L., XLIX, 27.
100 Ohio
Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
corporate powers and general
supervision of the schools
and school property. They were
constituted "A body
politic and corporate, in law, with
power to contract and
be contracted with, sue and be sued,
plead and be im-
pleaded in any court of law or equity
in the State." The
district directors had the power to
subdivide districts;
repair school buildings; provide
supplies for the schools;
cause to be assessed and collected all
taxes voted by the
Annual Meetings; appropriate and spend
all moneys of
the district for school purposes;
employ, pay and dis-
miss all teachers; select sites and
erect school buildings;
establish rules governing the schools
of the district not
inconsistent with those provided by
law; and perform
all other necessary duties in
connection with the schools
which were not specifically delegated
to some other au-
thority. Since very little of the
control of the schools
was delegated to others, the local
district became almost
autonomous and the power of the local
officers almost
complete.
An attempt was made in 1853 to unify
the schools
of the township by creating a single
township district
under a township Board of Education,8
with sub-dis-
tricts under the management of local
directors. The
township board did not have
jurisdiction over cities or
incorporated villages within the
township. The town-
ship clerk, ex-officio the clerk
of the Board, with the
power to vote only in the case of a
tie, and the clerk of
each sub-district in the township
composed the person-
nel of the Board of Education. Where
there were only
two sub-districts in a given township,
the directors of
8 O. L., LI, 429.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 101
the two sub-districts together with the
township clerk
comprised the Board of Education. The
sub-districts
remained under the control of a board
of directors who
were elected as provided in the law of
1851.
In the effort to unify the schools
under the township
unit of control, the powers lodged with
the local di-
rectors were almost completely
transferred to the town-
ship Board of Education. So drastic was
the legisla-
tion in this respect that the local
directors became sim-
ply figure-heads from the standpoint of
authority. It is
difficult, from a survey of the laws of
this period to
determine just what authority the local
directors did
possess other than that delegated to
them by the town-
ship board. The township board had
control of all
school property, paid out all school
moneys through the
township treasurer, possessed the
powers of a corporate
body, and exercised full power of
control over education
in the township. This board employed
the teachers, de-
termined their salaries, made the rules
governing the
schools, dictated the curriculum to be
taught, the text-
books to be used, and changed the
sub-district bound-
aries at will. They were under one restriction
here,
namely, they could not form a
sub-district with less
than sixty pupils, although this
limitation was nullified
by permitting exceptions when in the
judgment of the
board such exceptions were desirable.
To render this
control more complete the township
board was given
the power to "appoint one of their
number the acting
manager of the schools, for the board
may prescribe in
relation to the management and
supervision of the dif-
ferent schools, and the educational
interests of the town-
102
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
ship, and may allow him a reasonable
compensation for
his services."9
This same act provided for the
management and con-
trol of all central high schools in the
townships by the
township boards. It had been hoped that
through this
provision many townships would avail
themselves of
the opportunity to provide secondary
education for their
children in the community. This phase
of the law proved
to be a disappointment; very few high schools
were or-
ganized under this act.
The hope of the effectiveness of this
legislation, the
objective of which was the unification
of the schools of
the township, was destined to
disappointment. It was
more than could be expected that bodies
of local di-
rectors would passively consent to
holding figure-head
positions where such important matters
as public edu-
cation in the community were involved.
The school
system in effect had two boards to
conduct the same
business. The State School Commissioner
reported to
the Legislature that "the constant
conflict of authority
between the members of the Board of
Local Directors
and the Township Boards was a constant
annoyance and
hindrance to effective work in the
schools."10 Inasmuch
as the township board was composed of
some of the
local directors and the township clerk ex-officio,
it was
not long before the local directors
began to assume more
and more authority. By tacit agreement,
if not other-
wise, the local directors of each
district found it pos-
sible to govern their own affairs with
almost complete
9 Ibid., 429. The
language of the law was "They may appoint one of
their number." This optional
feature seems to have been little used.
10 Orth,
S. P., op. cit., p. 38.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 103
freedom, using the township
organization as a perfunc-
tory body to give legal sanction to
their activities.
The legislation concerning the township
and sub-
districts for approximately the next
forty years cen-
tered about the authority vested in the
officers of these
two boards. A hint of the necessity of
further defini-
tion of authority may be observed in
the powers granted
to the township board in 1858,11 and
reaffirmed in 186712
and 1868.13 When in the judgment of the
township
board, any of the local districts or
sub-districts had not
borne their proportionate share of the
taxes for school
purposes, the board was granted power
by the above
laws to make an estimate of the cost of
school sites or
buildings and to assess taxes to cover
the same against
the offending sub-districts. From 1853
to 1880 there
was little legislation of importance on
the subject. Most
of the early opposition to the law had
apparently sub-
sided.14
It must not be assumed, however, that
after the first
few years of opposition to the system,
everyone became
reconciled to a law that inherently
contained elements
calculated to cause friction. We have
indications in this
period of a state of unrest and
continual bickering be-
tween the two boards. W. D. Henkle, in
his report for
1869, gives special attention to this
difficulty:
To our present system of township
boards and local directors,
there are grave objections. A large
proportion of the legal ques-
tions arising in the operation of the
school law, grow out of the
11 O. L., LV, 155.
12 Ibid., LXIV, 22.
13 Ibid., LXV, 34.
14 State
Commissioner of Common Schools, Fourth Annual Report,
p. 11.
104 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
conflict of local directors with
township boards. There is scarcely
a day that the State Commissioner is not
called upon to decide
such questions. The sub-districts often
array themselves against
each other, instead of moving along in
harmony and taking pride
in the success of all the schools in the
township. It is believed
that the present mongrel system should
give place to the purely
township system, in which all the
schools of a township should be
under the exclusive control of a board
of education, chosen by
the electors of the township.15
This attitude is given expression in
varying degrees
by every State School Commissioner from
1869 to the
beginning of reform legislation in
1883. Charles S.
Smart comments upon this situation in
his annual report
for 1875:
The 31,299
local directors are frequently at war with
the
1,337 members of the township boards of
education, making con-
fusion and bad work generally.16*
Further on in his discussion of the
question, Mr.
Smart advocates the abolition of the
sub-districts and
joint sub-districts, and making the
township the unit of
control under a township board:
The 32,000
local directors and 13,000 members of
township
district boards, almost constantly in
some conflict as to authority
or duty, would give place to 8,000
members of township boards
of education, whose duties could be as
well-defined and as free
from complication as are the duties of
the city or village district
board of education.17*
15 Ibid., Sixteenth Annual Report, p.
5.
16 Ibid., Twenty-second Annual
Report, p. 14.
17 Ibid., p. 16.
* These figures are correctly quoted but
some of them are inconsistent
and incorrect, two of them almost
ridiculously so. The number of sub-
district members 31,299 is evidently
correct. The number of members of
township district boards is incorrect in
both instances. The figures should be
10,433. In some way the number of township
clerks in the state, 1337,
has been substituted for the number of
members of the township district
boards in one instance. ED.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 105
Beginning with 1883, there were
indications of an
awakening interest in the subject of
the powers of town-
ship boards. In the law of 188318 the
school boards
were declared to be bodies politic and
corporate with all
powers belonging thereto. This law was
reaffirmed in
1888.19 The right to build and repair
schoolhouses,
rent, and make all necessary provisions
for schools, was
given to the sub-district directors when
these functions
were exercised under the direction of
the township
boards. The township boards were made
responsible
for all contracts entered into by the
sub-district directors
when the authority to make contracts
had been so dele-
gated by the township boards to the
sub-district di-
rectors.20 The powers that
could be exercised by the
sub-district directors under this law
were further de-
fined at the next session of the
Legislature.21 These at-
tempts to clarify the relationships between
various
groups of school officials became
increasingly important
as the need of a clearer definition of
powers and duties
became more apparent. The situation is
clearly set
forth by the State Commissioner of
Schools in his report
of 1885:
With the exception of the comparatively
few township dis-
tricts in which superintendents or
principals are employed, the
condition of the schools in these
districts is in most cases far from
being satisfactory . . . The meager progress of the coun-
try schools of the State is not chargeable to school
officers, teach-
ers, or pupils, but to the lamentable deficiencies of
that part of the
Ohio school system which relates to
schools in township districts.
Under the present law no township board
of education has suffi-
18 O. L., LXXX, 36.
19 Ibid., LXXXV, 133.
20 Ibid., LXXXII,
86.
21 Ibid., LXXXIII, 84.
106 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications cient authority to enforce the rules and regulations for the govern- ment of the schools under their control, which they have sworn to prescribe. . . . The law should be so modified and im- proved as to define clearly the relations existing among teachers, directors in sub-districts, and township boards of education. Re- sponsibility in school management should be fixed somewhere.22 |
|
ANSON SMYTH State Commisioner of Common Schools, 1857-1863 Matters quickly came to a climax during the years 1890 and 1892. In the legislative session of 1890 a law was passed which definitely committed the control of the schools of the district to the township boards of ed- 22 State Commissioner of Common Schools, Thirty-second Annual Re- port, p. 3. |
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 107
ucation, subject only to the provisions
of section 4018 of
the school laws, which specified that
contracts with
teachers shall not be entered into for
a certain period
after the term of office of the members
of the board ex-
pires.23 This was followed
by another law in 1892 abol-
ishing the sub-district directors'
organization and plac-
ing complete power in the hands of the
township
boards.24 The law provided that each sub-district
should elect one of its qualified
electors as a director on
the second Monday of April, 1893. These
directors
were to be divided into three equal
classes, by lot, hold-
ing office for one, two, and three
years respectively.
Upon subsequent elections the directors
were to hold of-
fice for three years. Under this plan
each sub-district
was represented by one director who was
a member of
the township board which had the sole
jurisdiction of
the schools in the sub-districts of the
township. Under
the new law the board had the power to
appoint a super-
intendent and assistant superintendent
of schools, to
employ the teacher, and to provide for
all the other
employees of the school.25
The Workman Law, as the revised law of
1892 con-
cerning township boards was called,
proved very suc-
cessful for several years. It received
much favorable
comment and certainly did eliminate the
confusion of
dual control through the abolition of
the sub-district
board of directors. Nevertheless, the
law removed from
the immediate control of the
sub-district electorate some
of their cherished powers. From every
quarter arose
23 O. L., LXXXVII, 372.
24 Ibid., LXXXIX, 93.
25 Ibid., XCI, 113.
108 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
the cry of "one man power"
and "the rights of the
people." The Commissioner of
Schools, in his report for
1895, found it necessary to undertake a
defense of the
law, so prevalent seemed the criticism
against it.26
No surprise is experienced, therefore,
when we find
the Legislature providing that in the
April school elec-
tions of 1898, a modified reversion to
the sub-district
director organization should be consummated.27
Under
this law, the township board
organization stood as it did
under the Workman Law of 1892. The
modification
of the law is expressed in the
provision for the election
of two additional sub-district
representatives known as
sub-directors. These sub-directors
could never become
directors by virtue of their office. To
them was given
the authority to pass upon the
curriculum, text-books,
and in general, the election of the
teachers.28
The township board was required under
this law to
organize three standing committees: one
on text-books
and teachers; another on buildings and
grounds; and a
third on supplies. The power of these
committees was
limited to making recommendations, and
their recom-
mendations became binding only upon the
approval of
the Board of Education. The township
school organi-
zation had, to a considerable extent,
gone back to a dual
system of board control.
26 State Commissioner of Common
Schools, Forty-second Annual Report,
p. 6 ff.
27 O. L., XCIII, 45.
28 Bonebrake, Lewis D., Commissioner of
Schools, gives his opinion on
the legal rights of the sub-directors to
elect the teachers, thus--"Section 4017
places the final election and employment
of teachers in the hands of the
township board of education." Ohio
School Law in Force, April 16, 1900,
p. 54.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 109
The next session of the Legislature
provided for cen-
tralized township schools.29 This
law defined "centrali-
zation" in this connection as
"a system of schools in a
township providing for the abolishment
of all sub-dis-
tricts and the conveyance of pupils to
one or more cen-
tral schools." The board of
education consisted of five
members who were elected from the
township at large
and who held their office for three years,
with the town-
ship clerk and township treasurer as ex-officio
members.
The old township board was supplanted
by this board
and the laws relative to villages were
made to apply
to the government of these centralized
township schools.
The law provided that the pupils should
be conveyed to
these centralized schools at public
expense. A graded
course of instruction was required, and
a two-year high
school was authorized as a minimum.
In 1904 the township districts which
had not sup-
ported centralized schools were
definitely centralized in
control. The boards of education in
such townships
were made to consist of five members
elected at large.
The sub-districts thenceforth elected
one director who
became simply "the organ of
communication between
the inhabitants and the township board
of education"
and the local overseer of the
sub-district school under
the explicit direction of the township
board.30
An extensive reorganization of school
districts took
place during the years 1914-1915. The
change in
191431 of the township district to a
rural school district
with limited duties, the establishment
of the county dis-
29 O. L., XCIV, 317.
30 Ibid., XCVII, 344.
31 Ibid., CIV, 133.
110
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
trict with extensive authority, and in
191532 the prac-
tical elimination of the sub-district
as a factor in de-
termining school policy, brought to a
close the long
struggle to retain local control of the
schools.
Joint sub-districts were the cause of
much trouble
during the latter part of the
nineteenth century. The
School Commissioners' reports for that
period reveal a
constant friction between joint
sub-districts and the
townships of which they formed a part.
Matters of
control, taxation, where to make
reports, etc., caused a
never-ending source of trouble, which
is reflected in the
legislation that attempted to clarify
the duties and pow-
ers both of the joint sub-district
directors and the town-
ship officials immediately concerned.
There was no im-
portant legislation concerning the
joint sub-districts
prior to 1900. In 1904,33
with the existence of the gen-
eral tendency to larger unit control,
the joint sub-district
was abolished and the territory of
these districts re-
stored to their proper townships.
In contrast with the township or rural
school district
is the special school district, one of
the unique features
of the Ohio school system. These
districts owed their
existence to special legislation which
created them as in-
dependent districts. During the period
from 1851 to
1900 there was a mass of legislation
passed which cre-
ated special school districts in the
State. Prior to 1850
there seem to have been but few such
districts. The
State School Commissioner, in his
report for 1854, gives
the following estimate of the number of
special school
districts in Ohio:
32 Ibid., CVI,
396.
33 O. L., XCVII, 334.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 111
There are 1,514 Boards of Education in
the State, of which
104 may be termed special districts,
consisting of cities, towns
and villages, with a population exceeding three
hundred.34
These special districts were
independent of the town-
ship or other regularly classified
types of district. They
were responsible to the State School
Commissioner
alone, as the supervisory officer of
the entire state school
system.35 They were,
however, subject to certain penal-
ties that could be imposed upon these
districts by the
county auditor. The county treasurer
could not pay out
school moneys to the special school
districts until the
county auditor had certified that the
local officers had
complied with the law which provided
for the return
of school statistics to the state
commissioners' officer.
Usually there were some distinct
provisions govern-
ing each special district created.
Beyond these special
provisions, each district was governed
by the general
laws applicable to the type of district
organization which
the special district might choose to
adopt. The chief ad-
vantage of the special district lay in
its power to or-
ganize around a chosen unit of
interest. Where terri-
tory was sparsely settled, it became an
advantage to
certain groups to organize a school
unit around a settled
community or small village rather than
to organize on a
mechanical geographical or political
unitary basis. No
doubt, under the conditions that
existed in the Ohio
school system of this period, the
comment of LeRoy D.
Brown concerning special school
districts gives the most
potent factors in the popularity of
this type of organiza-
tion:
34 State Commissioner of Common
Schools, Annual Report, 1854, p. 4.
35 O. L., LI, 429, Sec. 67. Also Ohio School Laws, 1865,
p. 83.
112 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
Special school districts have usually
been created either to
avoid the payment of school tax to be
expended in part by ad-
jacent schools, or to secure better
school accommodations and
privileges than are possible under the
double-headed or no-headed,
sub-district-director-township-board
system.36
Special school districts, prior to
1873, remained very
indefinite as to their nature,
organization and powers.
This fact is made very clear by a
canvass of the legisla-
tion on the subject. Most of the acts
creating special
districts seem primarily concerned with
boundaries. In
the Fourth Edition of the Schools
Laws of Ohio, 1865,
the Commissioner in his
"Opinions" tries to define the
terms "separate" and
"special" as applied to districts.
His remarks add light on the school
practice of the time
both in legislation and administration:
By Section 32, a city or incorporated
village organized as a
school district under the general school
law, is called a "Separate
School District"; and by Section
67, a school district organized
under any special law is called a
"Special School District." This
distinction is not, however, preserved
in other sections and acts,
the terms "separate" and
"special" being used indiscriminately to
denote any school district other than a
township, whether organ-
ized under a general or special law.37
This explanation clarifies the current
practice, in
school reports of the time, of dividing
the schools into
two classes, namely, township schools
and separate
schools.
A re-definition and classification of
the school dis-
tricts was undertaken in 1873.38 The
principal benefit
of this law was to define "special
school districts" by a
careful definition of the other types
of districts which
36 State
Commissioner of Common Schools, Thirty-second Annual Re-
port, p. 3.
37 Ohio
School Laws, Fourth Edition, 1865, p.
6.
38 O. L., LXX,
195.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 113
were created under the new law, and to
provide a dis-
tinct body of laws governing these
districts. The actual
meaning of a "special
district" is not clear, as is evident
from the law. Section 3891 under this
law reads:
Any school district now existing, other
than those mentioned
in sections
. . . which has been established by a vote of the
people in accordance with any act of the
general assembly, or
which has been established by a general
or local act of the general
assembly, shall constitute a school
district to be styled a special
district; and such districts may be
established as provided in
chapter five of this title.
Three things, however, stand out
clearly as a result
of this legislation. The "special
district" is made to
include everything not specifically
brought within the
definition of the other five classes of
school districts
mentioned.39 Further, there is provided a definite
method by which to proceed in
establishing special dis-
tricts. Finally, for the first time
these districts were
given a definite code of laws by which
to govern them-
selves, in addition to those laws which
belonged to them
by virtue of the special acts of the
General Assembly
creating these special school
districts.
The law of 1873, which provided for the
government
of special districts, underwent no
important change for
over a quarter of a century. The law
was closely mod-
eled after the legislation governing
the city districts of
the second class, and village
districts; frequent option
being given to adopt the provisions
that governed these
in respect to certain sections of the
law. The board of
39 The School Commissioner, giving his
opinion on this section defining
the "special district"
concluded, "the terms 'separate district,' 'independent
district,' 'union school district' are
here shown to be obsolete." Ohio School
Laws, 1880, p. 7.
Vol. XXXIX--8.
114 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications education was elected for a period of three years and consisted of three members. Except where six members were desired, provision was made for their election in the same manner as in the city districts of the second |
|
class, and village districts. The board of education was vested with complete authority within the district, sub- ject to the general statutes which governed education in the State, and not conflicting with the special privi- leges that had been conferred upon the district by legis- lative act. |
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 115
The special school district proved to be a very popu-
lar form of school organization. In
1872, the year be-
fore the above law went into effect,
there were 549 sep-
arate school districts.40 The
large amount of special
legislation on the subject did not
become noticeable until
after 1890. In 1881 the number had
increased to 693
city, village, and special districts.41
Certain abuses of
the law were becoming noticeable at
this time and pro-
voked considerable attention. State School Commis-
sioner, D. F. DeWolf, commenting upon
the loose inde-
pendent school organization, declared:
These difficulties are also aiding to
promote another serious
evil, the growing desire for carving
special districts out of the
more populous and wealthy parts of the
townships, thus leaving
the sub-districts disconnected, often
poor, and for all time incapa-
ble of any common interest. In some
cases townships are cut
across, or even diagonally, in this way.
Cases have even occurred
where all but a single poor sub-district
were absorbed in special
districts. The law now renders this
disintegration easy, and the
evil is becoming so serious as to
demand careful consideration.42
This abuse of the law resulted in a
Supreme Court
decision which declared that the law
providing for the
creation of special districts was in
violation of Section
26, Article II of the Constitution, and
thus unconstitu-
tional.43 Following this
decision few new districts were
organized, but most of the old
districts disregarded the
decision.44
In February, 1889, the Supreme Court
reversed its
40 State Commissioner of
Common Schools, Nineteenth Annual Report,
p. 7.
41 Ibid., Twenty-eighth Annual Report, p. 11.
42 Ibid., 39.
43 38 O. S., 54.
44 State Commissioner of Common Schools,
Thirty-second Annual Re-
port, p. 3.
116 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
decision and declared special school
districts were not in
violation of the Constitution.45 The
result was a mass of
special acts during the nineties which
created special
districts. There were 1,067 such school districts re-
ported in 1900, of which number 62 were
designated
city districts.46 However,
the special school district
continued to be looked upon with
disfavor. In 1906
the Court of Common Pleas and the
Circuit Court de-
clared in an action which involved
special districts that
they were unconstitutional.48 The
Supreme Court also
declared that a special school district
created by "a
special act" was unconstitutional.49
When the reclassi-
fication of school districts occurred
in 1914 the special
school district as such was abolished.
It thenceforth
became a rural school district under
the reorganized
school district system. The new law
read as follows:
"The present existing township and
special school dis-
tricts shall constitute rural school
districts until changed
by the county board of education."50
The legislation of 1914-15 which
reorganized the
basic unit of district control stands
out as the most sig-
nificant and far-reaching of the period
on this subject.
The law of 1914 reclassified the school
districts;
"styled, respectively, city school
districts, village school
districts, rural school districts and
county school dis-
tricts."51 The two
types of districts met with for the
45 46 O. S., 275.
46 State Commissioner of Common Schools,
Forty-seventh Annual Re-
port, p. 42.
48
State Commissioner of Common Schools, Fifty-third Annual Report,
p. 9.
49 73 O. S., 54.
50 O. L., CIV, 138.
51 Ibid., CIV., 133.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 117
first time are the rural school
district and the county
school district. As has been suggested
previously, when
the special school district with its
unusual privileges
was abolished it became a rural school
district with the
same status as the former township
school district which
by the same law changed its name to
that of rural school
district.
However, the rural school districts
ceased to retain
autonomous control of the schools
within their borders.
The important unit of school control
brought into being
by the legislation of 1914 was the
county school dis-
trict. At last the advocates of a
larger unit of school
control had won. By the provisions of this act all
school territory, excepting city school
districts and vil-
lage school districts with a population
of three thousand
or more which by vote had indicated a
desire to remain
without the jurisdiction of the county
district, were to
be included in a county school
district. The county
school district was placed under the
control of a county
board of education composed of five
members, elected
by the presidents of the various
village and rural boards
of education in the county school
districts. At least one
member of the county board of education
was required
to be a resident of a village school
district when such
comprised a part of the county district
unit and at least
three of the board were required to
represent the rural
districts. All school districts, other
than city or village,
within a civil township were entitled
jointly to one vote
in the election of the county board of
education.52 The
method of election was changed in 1921.53
Thereafter,
52 Ibid., CIV, 136.
53 Ibid., CIX, 242.
118 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications nominations were made by petitions signed by at least one per cent of the qualified electors of the county dis- trict. The election took place at the same time and in the same manner as the regular election of other boards of education. |
|
The powers conferred upon the county board of edu- cation were extensive. These powers made possible ef- fective control of education within the county unit. The board was given unqualified authority and was com- manded by law to survey existing school conditions; "ar- |
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 119
range the schools according to
topography and popula-
tion in order that they may be most
easily accessible to
pupils"; disregard township lines
when the reorganiza-
tion best served the purpose of school
efficiency; and
made this possible simply "by
resolution at any regular
or special meeting to change school
district lines and
transfer territory from one rural or
village school dis-
trict to another."54 The
arbitrary power to change dis-
trict boundaries without regard to the
sentiment of the
districts concerned was modified by the
Legislature the
following year.55 The county
boards, thereafter, were
required to file notice with the local
district boards con-
cerned, of such proposed change. Unless
the local dis-
tricts filed a written remonstrance
signed by a majority
of the qualified electors within thirty
days of the notice
given, the action of the county board
became effective.
To insure larger rural districts and
guarantee proper fi-
nancial support for the schools, the
county board was re-
quired to see that all districts
created contained not less
than fifteen square miles, and as far
as possible to pro-
vide that all districts were equal in
property valuation.
Further, the county board was
authorized to prescribe
a minimum course of study for the
village and rural
schools with the advice of the county
superintendent.56
Educationally, the two most significant
aspects of
the county district system were, first,
the provision for
a county superintendent, and second,
the creation of
district superintendencies within the
county district.
The county superintendent, appointed by
the county
54 Ibid., CIV, 138.
55 Ibid., CVI, 396.
56 Ibid., CIV, 140.
120 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
board of education, was made the
executive officer of
the county board, charged with the
general oversight
of the county school district,57 and
authorized to recom-
mend nominations of district
superintendents for
election by the supervisory districts
of the county.58 He
was further required to meet regularly
with the district
superintendents to counsel and advise
them, visit and
inspect schools, assume direct supervision
of the train-
ing of teachers in the county, spend
part of his time in
actual teaching in teacher training
schools,59 and issue
eighth grade certificates.60 The
qualifications for the
office of county superintendent were
reasonably high
when the extent of this centralizing
movement is taken
into consideration. High standards of
experience and
training were insisted upon with the
emphasis directed
toward college and professional
training.61 During the
next decade no change of moment
occurred in the office
of county superintendent.
The division of the county into
supervisory districts
with district superintendents resulted
in a very superior
grade of educational work in the
schools of Ohio. As
previously suggested, the county boards
were required
to divide the county districts into
supervisory districts
of about equal proportions when such
factors had been
taken into consideration as topography,
road conditions,
number of teachers employed, as well as
the amount of
57 Ibid., CIV, 142.
58 Ibid., CIV, 140-141. By a majority vote of the village and
rural dis-
trict representatives, as provided by
law, district superintendents might be
elected without nomination by the
county superintendent.
59 Ibid., CIV, 144.
60 Ibid., CIV, 126.
61 Ibid., CIV, 143.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 121
consolidation and centralization
present in any part of
the districts concerned. The proposed
supervisory dis-
trict had to include not less than
twenty teachers, nor
more than sixty. The election of the
district super-
intendent was effected by joint vote of
the representa-
tives of the several rural or village
districts included in
the supervisory district, from the
nominees suggested
by the county superintendent.62 The
district superin-
tendent became the executive officer of
the several boards
of education which comprised his
supervisory district;
made the nominations of teachers to the
district boards
for election; was required to devote
three-fourths of his
time in actual classroom supervision;
to classify and
control the promotion of pupils; to
assemble the teach-
ers of his district together for
conference and instruc-
tion; to assist in matters of
discipline and school man-
agement; to suggest to the boards
suitable texts and
courses of study; and in general to
discharge the duties
necessary to the welfare of the schools
under his charge.
He was in general chargeable to the
county superintend-
ent. As in the case of the county
superintendent the
qualifications of district
superintendents were reason-
ably high. Considerable emphasis was
placed upon ad-
ministrative experience and training.63
The tendency toward a more complete
county unit
of school control was evidenced by the
legislation of
1921.
The district superintendency plan underwent
drastic modification. The purposes and
duties of these
62 Ibid., CIV,
140. By a majority vote of the representatives of the
rural and village districts, a district
superintendent might be elected though
not nominated by the county
superintendent.
63 Ibid., CIV, 143.
122 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications
supervisory superintendents seems to
have remained
much the same, but these officials were
placed directly
under the control of the county
superintendents, and
their scope of activities made more
flexible. The name
was changed from district
superintendents to assistant
county superintendents. These
assistants were elected
by the county board of education upon
the nomination
of the county superintendent. As appointees
they were
placed under the direct supervision of
the county su-
perintendent and could be assigned to
any type of work
required of the county office at the
discretion of the su-
perintendent.64 By this
change jurisdiction of the local
schools passed from the control of the
rural districts to
the county district, and in a large
measure to the county
superintendent. Thus the dream of many
Ohio school
leaders of a county unit of
organization and control in
education became a reality. Closely
allied with the dis-
cussion of the special district should
be the consideration
of the more general laws concerning
incorporated vil-
lages and cities. Much of the special
legislation between
1850 and 1925 concerned the city units
of school organ-
ization. There is so much of the
legislation so distinctly
applicable to the cities alone that it
has seemed the better
plan to consider the village and city
legislation as a unit.
Much of the more general legislation
applicable to all
districts has been considered already.
There remains for
our consideration at this point, then,
a brief survey of
the legislation of this period which
provided for a more
detailed classification of school
districts.
There were three types of school
districts in Ohio at
64 Ibid., CIV, 243.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 123
the close of the first fifty years of
the State's school his-
tory.
As a matter of policy, school districts were
treated, during this period, as
consisting of only two
types, namely, special districts and
township district
organizations.64a This is further
evidenced by the con-
sistent policy of school commissioners
to make only two
classifications in their annual
reports. With the legisla-
tion of 1873,65 the state began a
policy of school-district
classification that bordered upon the
absurd before its
complete development was checked. The
legislation of
1873 divided the schools of Ohio into
the following dis-
tricts:
1 -- City districts of the first class,
population 10,000
or more.
2 -- City districts of the second
class, population
under 10,000.
3 -- Village districts.
4 -- Township districts.
5 -- Special districts.
With the rapid growth of population in
the State,
and the development of villages and
cities, this classifi-
cation served a very useful purpose.
Another classifi-
cation of school districts was made in
the legislation of
1887. By the classification of this
date, the five districts
enumerated in the law of 1873 remained
unchanged.
City growth during this period had been
phenomenal.
The need was felt of superimposing upon
the classifica-
64a Ohio School Laws, Fourth
Edition, 1865, p. 5. The State School Com-
missioner in his Opinions and
Instructions makes only two classifications of
school districts. He includes
city, village and special districts, technically
so
considered, within one group.
65 Ibid., LXX, 195.
124 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
tion of 1873 two additional classes of
districts to pro-
vide for the rapidly expanding cities
whose population
and school system had outgrown the
provisions of
previous district legislation. The
additional districts
were styled:
(1)
City districts of the first grade of the first
class, having a population of 250,000
or more.
(2)
City districts of the second grade of the first
class, having a population of 150,000
or more, but less
than 250,000.66 The high water mark in
school district
classification was reached eleven years
later. The Leg-
islature in 189867 made the
classification of school dis-
tricts as follows:
City Districts
First class, first grade, cities with
population of
250,000 or more.
First class, second grade, cities with
population of
150,000 to 250,000.
First class, third grade, cities with
population of
100,000 to 150,000.
First class, cities with population of
10,000 to
100,000.
Second class, cities with population
under 10,000.
Village Districts.
Special Districts.
Township Districts.68
66 Ibid., LXXXIV, 184.
67 Ibid., XCIII, 165.
68
Sub-districts and joint sub-districts are sometimes erroneously classi-
fied as districts in giving a list of
different school districts in Ohio. School
Commissioner's Opinion, Ohio School
Laws, 1900, p. 17. "A sub-district or
joint sub-district is not a school
district within the meaning of the law."
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 125
With the rapid increase in city
populations, this in-
tricate and meaningless policy of
classification on a
population basis became hopeless. A
simplification in
the methods of classification became
imperative. The
classification of school districts as
it affected the cities
particularly, was reorganized by the
law of 1904.69 By
this law, school districts were
classified on a much sim-
pler basis. A comparison of the
following table which
gives the classification for 1904, with
that of 1898 will
show this drastic change:
1 -- City School Districts.
2 -- Village School Districts.
3 -- Township School Districts.
4 -- Special School Districts.
This less complicated type of district
classification
was still in vogue in 1925. In that
year the following
five-fold classification of school
districts was used:
1 -- City School Districts.
2 -- Exempted Village School Districts.
3 -- Village School Districts.
4 -- Rural School Districts.
5 -- County School Districts.
Some slight modifications of this
classification
were recognized to care for the needs
of certain cities
under 50,000 population, between 50,000
and 150,000,
and for cities in excess of 150,000
population.
SUMMARY
The school district organization
underwent a radi-
cal change during the last seventy-five
years of the
69 Ohio
School Laws, 1904, p. 14. See also O. L., CIX, 552.
126
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
State's history. The middle of the
nineteenth century
found the school districts of the state
organized about
the rural schools, with independent
district control, and
with the township or portion of the
township forming
the district unit. The law of 1853
attempted to make
the township the unit of control, with
the sub-district
subsidiary. After shifting back and
forth for almost
a half a century between the township
and sub-district
as the major unit of administration,
the township was
made the basis of administration for
the rural schools
in 1900, and the county became the
dominant adminis-
trative unit after 1914. The radical
change in the city
school district organization occurred
during the years
from 1870 to 1905. This change was
occasioned by the
rapidly developing city and village
life in the State. In
1850 Ohio had very few cities and a
small urban popu-
lation. In 1925 the State had a large
number of mu-
nicipalities, with almost two-thirds of
her population
urban in character. To provide adequate
school ad-
ministration for this situation, the
Legislature, about
1870, began to develop new types of
district organiza-
tion. A number of new district organizations
were
created to meet the needs of the city.
The peak of this
movement was reached in 1898 with the
development of
five new types of school district
organizations, unknown
prior to 1873. In 1904 a simpler type
of city school
district classification was adopted.
School Officers
The school officers in 1850 consisted
of three direc-
tors for the local district, one of
whom was chosen as
clerk and treasurer. The board of
district officers was
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 127
changed in 185170 to consist of three
directors, a clerk,
and a treasurer. These officers
constituted the usual
district organization prior to 1900,
with some changes
to meet the township and sub-district
modifications.*
The law of 1838 created the offices of
township and
county superintendents. These offices
were ex-officio
and the duties of the holders were
attached to those of
the township clerk and the county
auditor respectively.71
In 1848 the office of county
superintendent of schools
became optionally a separate and
elective office where
the electorate chose to have the same a
separate office.72
Few counties chose to have an active
superintendent.
Permanency and authority were given the
office of
county superintendent in 1914.73
The office was made
compulsory. Also, associates, styled
district superin-
tendents, and later called assistant
county superintend-
ents, were added to the county
organization at this time.
The Secretary of State, in 1850,
performed the du-
ties of a state superintendent. The act
of 185374 re-
stored the office of State School
Commissioner which
had been abolished in 1840. This office
since its restora-
tion has steadily developed more power
and influence
over educational policies in the State.
70 Ibid., XLIX,
27.
* Details of these changes have been
quite fully discussed in the treatment
of the district. A duplication of that
discussion will not be undertaken.
Our interest at this point is primarily
to give some indication of outstand-
ing changes that affect the school
system at large. The organization of the
city, while more elaborate, follows a
fundamental principle which character-
ized all district officers in Ohio
School Districts.
71 O. L., XXXVI, 21.
72 Ibid., XLVI, 86.
73 Ibid., CIV, 133.
74 Ibid., LI,
429.
128 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications School Property School property was the cause of much legislation in this period, especially following the Civil War, as the State became more thoroughly populated. In the expansion of the school system, one of the natural prob- |
|
lems which confronted school boards was the selection of proper school sites for buildings and grounds. This problem arose early in Ohio's school expansion. The law of 186075 took cognizance of this fact by authorizing 75 Ibid., LVII, 9. |
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 129
boards of education forcibly to acquire
for school pur-
poses property of private owners when
the owners
would not "listen to reasonable
terms." The law pro-
vided that this might be done by an
appeal to the probate
judge for condemnation proceedings. The
provision
for the appropriation of property for
school purposes
was carried further in the legislation
of 1894.76 Through
this law municipalities and villages
were enabled to ap-
propriate property for colleges and
universities upon
the recommendation of the boards of
directors of these
institutions. But this privilege could
be exercised only
when the boards of directors were the
appointees of the
villages or municipalities desiring to
make such prop-
erty appropriation. This privilege was
also conceded
to various corporations in relation to
school property,
as in the case of railroads condemning
school property
for right of way purposes.77 The
right of corporations
to appropriate property, however, was
carefully limited
in favor of the schools. The law
exempting school
property to the amount of four acres
from sale or ex-
ecution was of this general tenor.78
If there were more
than four acres in the school property,
then the school
board was given the right to specify
what portion of
the property comprising four acres
should be exempted.
School property used for school
purposes was uni-
formly exempt from taxation. The law of
185179 speci-
fied that school buildings, grounds,
furniture, etc., were
exempted from taxation. This law
provided that the
76 Ibid., XCI, 213.
77 Ibid., LI, 487; LXIX, 88.
78 Ibid., LI,
429.
79 Ibid., XLIX, 58.
Vol. XXXIX--9.
130
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
property of colleges and other
educational organizations
which were devoted exclusively to
educational purposes
should be exempted from taxation when
the charter
provisions of these institutions so
specified, or when
the value of the property did not
exceed $10,000. The
next year this law was modified to
exclude from tax
exemption leasehold estates and real
property held un-
der the title of any university or
college of the state.80
In 186481 tax exemption was extended to
cover lease-
hold and other property when used by a
municipality,
village or school district for the
exclusive purpose of
furthering free education. This law
paved the way for
exemption of endowments of
state-supported institu-
tions. There was a mass of legislation
from 1850 to
1925 reaffirming the freedom from
taxation of property
used exclusively for school purposes.
This did not al-
low exemption from taxation, of school
and ministerial
lands, nor other property held under
lease by scientific
or benevolent societies for periods
exceeding fourteen
years which was not subject to
revaluation.82 School
property could not be assessed for
public improvements
such as sidewalks, street paving, etc.83
There were some general laws passed
during this
period to further facilitate the sale,
leasing and trans-
fer of school property. These laws
generally provided
that this authority should be exercised
by the boards of
education. They could sell school property,84
exchange
84 O. L., LIII, 185.
80 O. L. L, 135.
81 Ibid., LXI, 39.
82 Ibid., LXXVIII, 32.
83 Case of Board of Education vs.
City of Toledo, 48 O. S., 83. Ohio
School Laws, 1900, p. 86.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 131
lots when the interests of the school
demanded,85 trans-
fer school territory from one district
to another by mu-
tual consent,86 or lease
school buildings and property
when in their judgment such procedure
was for the best
interests of the schools. Judging from
the mass of
special acts passed relating to these
questions, very few
school boards felt at liberty to act in
these transactions
without special legislative permission.
The legislative
documents prior to 1900 are literally
cluttered with these
special acts granting individual
authority to boards of
education to lease school property,87
build or repair
buildings and borrow money.88
The same care of school property appearing
in the
legislation cited above has also been
exhibited in the
protection of school property against
damage. For the
destruction of school property a fine
of $100 or a jail
sentence not to exceed ninety days, was
imposed.89 Six
years later, 1866, the law was amended
to provide for a
fine of $100 and a jail-sentence until
the fine was paid,
for injuring or defacing buildings,
books, or fixtures
belonging to the schools.90 Evidently
this legislation
was not deemed drastic enough, for in
1877, the fine
was increased to $300 plus a term of
sixty days im-
prisonment.91 The law was
amended later to make the
entering of a school building by day or
night, with in-
85 Ibid., LXX, 193.
86 Ibid., LXXXIX, 68.
87
O. L. L., LXXXVI, 423.
88 O L. L., LXXX, 349.
89 O. L., LVII,
86.
90 O. L., LXIII, 175.
91 Ibid., LXXIV, 240.
132
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
tent to commit a felony, punishable by
imprisonment in
the penitentiary.92
While the State was careful to protect
the schools
from damage, it did not recognize the
practice of using
school buildings for other than school
purposes until
late in the 'eighties. This is true
from a purely legal
standpoint. The law gave the school
boards almost
complete authority over the schools,
but did not specify
their use for other than routine purposes.
The school
commissioners, however, do recognize
the use of school
buildings for other than school
purposes. In the
Opinions given with the Ohio School
Laws, Fourth
Edition, 1865, p. 18, the Commissioner
ruled that school
boards might permit the use of
buildings for "any ob-
ject of social or moral improvement
which the local
directors of the inhabitants may
sanction and desire."
He indicated some of the desirable
objects for which
the school buildings might with profit
be used, as--re-
ligious meetings, Sabbath-schools,
lectures or other lit-
erary endeavors. This Opinion is
sustained by the
Commissioner in the Ohio School
Laws, 1880, p. 53;
except that he ruled that if one
elector objected, the
building could not be used for
religious purposes.
A local act in 188693 granted the right
to the school
boards of Wheelersburg Special School
District and of
Porter Township, Scioto County, to rent
their school-
houses for the use of Teachers'
Institutes and Select
Schools. This was followed by a general
act in 1889
giving school boards the right to allow
the use of school
buildings for any purpose which in
their judgment
92 Ibid., LXXVIII,
28, C, 5.
93 O. L. L., LXXXIII, 384,
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 133
would be of benefit to the children, so
long as such a
privilege did not interfere with the
regular work of
the school.94 A number of
minor changes were made in
this law at every session of the
Legislature for the next
five years. In 1894 an important
amendment to this
law was passed, which gave the boards
of education
full authority to permit the use of the
school buildings
for the ordinary purposes previously cited
in the several
laws on the subject, and "for any
other lawful pur-
poses."95 This law
received numerous additions and
modifications between 1894 and 1925,
but the spirit of
the act of 1894 has been maintained
throughout.96
Education, Free and Universal
The germ of free and universal
education was pres-
ent in the first Constitution adopted
by the State of
Ohio.97 There was no
definite provision made for edu-
cation in this State charter. A
somewhat general decla-
ration in Article Eight of the
Constitution recognized
the principle of universal educational
suffrage. Indeed,
it was not until some years later that
Ohio enacted a
law which attempted to make an
expressed principle of
the Constitution concrete and effective
in the life of the
people.98 The general
tendency of the legislation for
the first half-century of Ohio's
history seems to have
been that of providing the machinery
for universal edu-
cation and then depending upon the
local initiative of
94 O. L., LXXXVI, 11.
95 Ibid., XCI, 44.
96 Ibid., CVI, 552; CVII, 449, 607.
97 Ohio Constitution, Art. 8,
Sections 3, 25, 27.
98 O. L.,
XIX, 51.
134 Ohio
Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
the several communities to make this
machinery effec-
tive.99
Ohio's second Constitution, adopted in
1851, indi-
cated a long step forward in educational
thought from
the Constitution of 1803. In the Bill of
Rights, it is
declared that:
Religion, morality, and knowledge,
however, being essential
to good government, it shall be the duty
of the General Assembly
to pass suitable laws, . . . and to
encourage schools and the
means of instruction.100
Then, instead of stopping with this
lofty declara-
tion, the Constitution provided that
"the General As-
sembly shall make such provisions, by
taxation, or
otherwise, as . . . will secure a
thorough and
efficient system of common schools throughout the
State."101
The law of 1849 was amended in 1870,
making the
constitutional provisions for free
education more spe-
cific. This amendment specified that
children, wards,
and apprentices of actual residents of
Ohio were enti-
tled to free admission into the common
schools of the
State.102 Three years later
the principle of universal
education was further emphasized by the
passage of a
law which declared that the schools of
each district
should be free to all youths between the
ages of six and
twenty-one who were children, wards, or
apprentices of
residents of the State. Some option was
given to the
school boards regarding admittance of
those of the
99 Miller, E. A., op. cit., p. 8.
100 Ohio Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 7.
101 Ibid., Art. VI, Sec. 2.
102 O. L., LXVII, 101.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 135
above group or those under six years of
age, on a tuition
basis. Children residing in another
district could be
admitted to the schools of any district
in which part of
the property of the parent or guardian
was located.103
A number of laws followed which
strengthened these
general provisions for free and
universal education.
The idea reached its fullest expression
in the law of
1900.104 This law declared that:
For the purpose of affording the
advantages of a free educa-
tion to all the youth of the state,
there shall be levied annually a
tax on the grand list of the taxable
property of the state, which
shall be collected in the same manner as
other state taxes, and the
proceeds of which shall constitute
"the common school fund";
and for the purpose of higher,
agricultural, and industrial educa-
tion, including manual training, there
shall be levied and collected
in the same manner, a tax on the grand
list of taxable property of
the state, which shall constitute
"the Ohio State University Fund."
Compulsory School Attendance
Compulsory school attendance
legislation marked
one of the most important forward steps
in Ohio's
school history. It was inevitable that
this step should
be taken sooner or later. The
declaration of the Con-
stitution, pronouncing free and
universal education as
an ideal particularly when combined
with public taxa-
tion to make this ideal possible, in
time suggested the
problem. For some time compulsory education
had
been a fact in Europe, especially in
parts of Germany.105
Massachusetts had adopted a compulsory
attendance law
in 1852.106
103 Ibid., LXX,
195.
104 Ibid., XCIV, 81.
105 State Commissioner of Common
Schools, Fourth Annual Report,
p. 20.
106 Deffenbaugh, W. S. "Compulsory
School Attendance." U. S. Bureau
of Education, Bulletin, 1914, No.
2, whole No. 573, p. 10.
136 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications The subject had received attention in many other quarters. Added to this was the school situation in Ohio, where a large number of the children were not receiving an education. In 1857, the Commissioner of Schools reported that the enumeration returns indicated |
|
THOMAS W. HARVEY State Commissioner the enumeration returns indicated a total school population in the State, of 838,037, while the number of children enrolled in the schools was but 603,347, leaving over 234,000 children who had not at- tended any school during the year. These figures did not indicate the worst phase of it, however. The Com- missioner held the opinion that a considerable number |
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 137
had been counted twice, both for the
summer and win-
ter schools. The average daily
attendance was reported
as slightly above 350,000, which left
an average of over
487,000 children who apparently had
attended no
school.107 This was a
serious situation and might well
have led the more thoughtful to
question the success of
a free and universal tax-supported
school system that
did not benefit the majority of the
youth of the State.
Under these circumstances, it is not
surprising to
find a serious discussion of the value
of compulsory at-
tendance legislation set forth in the
annual report of
Mr. Smyth, Commissioner of Schools, for
1857.108
In
this report Mr. Smyth came out boldly
in advocacy of
compulsory school laws. The school
situation was can-
vassed very thoroughly, and the
experience of other
countries as well as that of the State
of Massachusetts
was made the basis of his argument for
similar legisla-
tion in Ohio. Agitation was not absent
in other quar-
ters on behalf of compulsory
legislation. In the session
of the Legislature for 1857, Mr. Brazee
had introduced
a resolution providing for the
appointment of a com-
mittee to consider the advisability of
compelling public
school attendance for a specified
period each year.109 The
resolution was not adopted. It did
serve to call atten-
tion to a grave evil in the school
system, and indicated
a recognition of the need of remedial
legislation by
others than school officials.
A clarion call was not sounded again on
the subject
107 State
Commissioner of Common Schools, Fourth Annual Report, 1857,
p. 20.
108 Ibid., 19 ff.
109 Ibid., 22.
138
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
by school commissioners for more than
two decades.
Nevertheless, the subject apparently
had been receiving
serious consideration during the
intervening years
from 1857. In the Senate Journal for
1874 we find
this interesting bit of light on the
attitude of the General
Assembly towards enforced school
attendance. The
Senate had before it House Bill No.
418, sponsored by
one Mr. Richards, entitled, "To
secure to children the
benefits of an elementary
education,"--a bill which pro-
vided for compulsory school attendance.
This bill had
been passed by the House and sent to
the President of
the Senate with the request that it be
passed by that
that body.110 After considerable
discussion the Senate
finally voted against the measure by a
close vote of
eighteen to thirteen.111
The first legislation brought before
the legislative
bodies failed of passage by a very
close vote. Under
these circumstances, it was a little
surprising to find that
the State School Commissioner, in the
report he made
a few months later, proceeded very
cautiously as he
broached the question of legislation on
this subject. He
argued very carefully concerning the
theoretical prin-
ciples involved and drew the conclusion
that enforced
school attendance was clearly justified
in principle. He
was not so sure that the people were
ready to give un-
questioned obedience to such a law if
it were placed
upon the statutes.112
The following year Mr. Smart assumed
much the
110 O. S. J., 1874, p. 357.
111 Ibid., p. 589.
112 State
Commissioner of Common Schools, Twenty-first Annual Re-
port, p. 47 ff.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 139
same cautious approach to the subject.
According to
his report, there were in 1875 a total
of 985,947 youth
of school age in the State. Of this
number, approxi-
mately 712,000 were attending the
public schools and
10,000 were enrolled in private
schools. The average
monthly attendance in the public
schools was a trifle
above 532,000, while the average daily
attendance was
approximately 435,000. The per cent of
daily attend-
ance, on the basis of this enumeration,
reached the low
mark of 45.68.113
On the basis of these figures, Mr.
Smart recognized
that something approaching compulsory
school attend-
ance was necessary:
However much the condition of the
schools may be improved by com-
pelling the attendance of all youth
between the ages of, say, seven and
fourteen; whatever right the people in
their collective capacity may have
to compel such attendance; whatever
necessity of the State for its preser-
vation, or of society, for its welfare,
may seem to demand coercion in this
matter of education, a law compelling
school attendance may not be wise;
that is, the State may not do wisely to
compel school attendance for any
term of years of all youth of school
age; but the wisdom of some suitable,
proper education as a preventative to
vicious education or idleness, and as
a preparation for honorable usefulness,
is apparent, and the State should
not only provide for this, but enforce
it.114
In spite of the labyrinths of doubts in
which these
school leaders found themselves, the
legislators appar-
ently did not share their general
confusion. Out of the
grist-mill of legislation in 1877, came
Ohio's first com-
pulsory school-attendance law.115 Ohio thus became
the sixteenth state of the Union to
adopt such a law.116
This law provided that any person
having charge or
113 Ibid., Twenty-second Annual Report, p. 25 ff.
114 State Commissioner of Common
Schools, Twenty-second Annual Re-
port, p. 66 ff.
115 O. L., LXXIV, 57.
116 U. S. Bureau of Education, Bulletin,
op. cit., p. 10.
140
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
control of children between the ages of
eight and four-
teen years, should send such children
to a common
school for a term of at least twelve
weeks in each school
year, six weeks of which should be
consecutive. There
were a number of exceptions
incorporated in this law
which tended to lessen its value. If
the child had al-
ready acquired branches of learning
ordinarily taught
in the schools; or if he were deemed
physically and
mentally incapacitated for school work;
or, if the neces-
sities of indigent parents, brothers or
sisters required
that the child should labor, then the
school board was
permitted to excuse him from attending
school; or, if
the child resided a distance of over
two miles from the
school of the district in which he
lived, then he auto-
matically was excused from the
operation of the law.
The law also provided that employers
should not employ
children of school age during school
hours, unless the
children were lawfully excused for the
reasons set forth
in the law. Adequate penalties were
framed to make
the obedience of the provisions of the
law reasonably
sure. Evidently the law did not draw
forth much re-
sponse. One would expect to turn to the
School Com-
missioner's annual report for the next
year and find
some discussion of the law, but this
did not appear. For
the next dozen years these reports were
conspicuously
silent regarding a law that should have
provoked in-
tense interest and debate. The obvious
conclusion is
that this law remained for the most
part inoperative.
Especially does this seem evident in
the light of the in-
terest created by subsequent
legislation on the question.
Ohio popularly dates the beginning of
compulsory
education in the State with the passage
of the compul-
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 141
sory school attendance law in 1889.117
Mr. Hancock,
in his annual report the following
year, revealed some-
thing of this general impression when
he enthusiasti-
cally declared:
The most striking advanced step in
school legislation, made in Ohio
within the last quarter of a century,
was the enactment last winter of the
Compulsory Education Law . . . That a
bill so wise and beneficent
in all its features should have passed
both branches of the Assembly by a
unanimous vote is a matter for
congratulation; and that it is receiving a
vigorous support from the people speaks
well for thir intelligence.118
Of this there can be no doubt,--Ohio
took her Com-
pulsory School Law seriously from this
date onward,
for scarcely a commissioner's report
thereafter failed to
devote considerable space to the
consideration of the
law. Scarcely a session of the
Legislature from 1889
to and including the session of 1925
failed to pay at-
tention to some phase of the question,
providing either
changes or additional sections to the
Compulsory School
Law.
The legislation of 1889 on this subject
was much
more extensive than that of 1877. The
act involved
fourteen sections covering a comprehensive
scheme for
compelling school attendance. The law
was changed
slightly in 1890,119 by amendments to
sections 1, 3, 4, 6,
7, 8, 11 and 13. These amendments were
more in the
nature of minor corrections of the law.
It is the law,
as thus amended, that we will discuss.
The act specified
that all persons having charge of
children must instruct
them, "or cause them to be
instructed, in reading, spell-
ing, writing, English grammar,
geography, and arith-
117 O. L., LXXXVI,
333.
118
State Commissioner of Common Schools, Thirty-sixth Annual Report,
p. 2.
119 O. L., LXXXVII, 142.
142
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
metic." When these children were
between the ages of
eight and fourteen years, those
responsible for them
were required to see that they attended
a public or
private school in city districts for a
period of at least
twenty weeks out of the year, ten weeks
of which were
to be consecutive and to begin within
the first four
weeks of the term. In other districts
the attendance
requirement was placed at sixteen weeks,
with eight
weeks' consecutive school work
demanded. The only
exceptions allowed to these provisions
were in case of
physical or mental disability or when
the child was re-
ceiving home instruction by one whose
competence was
recognized by the school authorities.
The law further
provided that children between the ages
of eight and
sixteen, not regularly employed, should
attend school
for the full period of the school term.
Heavy penalties
were provided for the parents or
guardians as well as
for the children who failed to comply
with the provi-
sions of this act. In the case of
minors over fourteen
and under sixteen years of age, who
could not read and
write, the law specified that they
should attend school
one-half of each day or attend night
schools, where
such schools were organized in the
district. The law
was made more effective by forbidding
employers to
employ children of school age during
the school term
unless the children could produce
proof, which the em-
ployer must keep on file, that they had
completed the
course of instruction offered in the
primary and gram-
mar grades of some public or private
school. For
minors over fourteen it was necessary
to demand proof
that they could read and write simple
English sentences
before the employer could engage their
services. Fur-
History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925 143 ther safeguards to make this law effective were provided in the form of special school officers designed "truant officers." Both in the cities, special, village and town- ship districts, one or more truant officers were ap- pointed with police powers, with the right to enter |
|
places of business and demand the facts concerning the minors employed there. In cities these officers were re- quired to make daily reports to the superintendent of public schools, and in the other districts to the clerk of the board of education. It was the business of these officers to examine all cases of school absences with full |
144
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
authority to compel obedience to the
school law. These
were the essential elements of the
compulsory attend-
ance law. The unusual degree to which
this law had
been minutely worked out, is attested
by the subsequent
legislation on the subject. No basic
changes were made
in the law for a quarter of a century.
When the law
was subjected to the acid test of
application, minor
weaknesses of enforcement became
apparent. To rem-
edy these and to make the application
of the law more
effective, became the burden of
subsequent legislation on
this question.
The effectiveness of the compulsory
attendance law
may be judged by the attitude of the
people towards it.
A year after the compulsory law had
gone into effect,
the Commissioner of Schools, Mr.
Hancock, sent out a
circular to school superintendents
asking five questions
bearing on the operation of the law.
Three of these
questions are of interest in this
connection.
1 -- What have been the results of the
enforcement
of the law in your own field of labor?
2 -- What is the feeling of the
community towards
the law?
3 -- If any opposition has manifested
itself against
the law, what is the source of that
opposition?
There were 94 answers to this general
circular sent
out to superintendents. In 13 out of
the 96 commu-
nities represented in the reports, no
action had been
taken to render the law operative. From
the 83 locali-
ties where the boards of education had
appointed truant
officers, 57 reported.that the
enforcement of the law was
satisfactory; two answered entirely in
the negative con-
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 145
cerning the operation of the law; seven
reported the
youth of their communities all
attending school and
the law quite superfluous in their
present circumstances;
while the remainder made no reply to
the question. The
second question was answered by 75, who
declared the
law had been favorably accepted in
their communities;
one reported that it had been received
with disfavor;
while seven were non-committal on the
subject. The
third question revealed that 32
communities had re-
ported no opposition to the enforcement
of the law.
There was opposition of one kind or
another in a num-
ber of places. Some reported opposition
from the more
reactionary element in the community,
others found the
factories and other industrial agencies
opposed to the
law because it robbed them of child
labor.120
If these superintendents properly
represented the
consensus of opinion in their
localities, then indeed the
enacting of this legislation marked the
most advanced
educational step in Ohio's school
history for more than
a quarter of a century. Mr. Corson, in
1895, reported
that "the compulsory law is
bringing into the schools
each year hundreds of boys and girls who
would other-
wise receive no education at
all."121
The struggle during the nineties to
make compul-
sory education effective slowly
overcame the opposition
naturally awakened by such a drastic
innovation in edu-
cational practice. The next quarter of
a century saw
advances in compulsory attendance
legislation un-
dreamed of by the most ardent
educational leaders of
the pioneer period.
120
State Commissioner of Common Schools, Thirty-seventh
Annual Re-
port, p. 8 ff.
121 Ibid., Forty-second
Annual Report, p. 10.
Vol. XXXIX--10.
146
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
The changes in the compulsory law that
took place
in the earlier part of the next
twenty-five-year period
represent a cautious advance. In 1900
the age limit
for the employment of children in the
mines was raised
from fourteen to fifteen.122 The
law of 1902 required
children between the ages of eight and
sixteen, not reg-
ularly employed, to be in attendance
upon some school.123
Those children between the ages of
fourteen and six-
teen "who cannot read and write
the English language
shall be required to attend
school."124 In the case of in-
digent children, the legislation of
1908 and 1909 (Re-
vised Statutes, Sec. 4022-9) provided
that financial aid
should be given them from the
contingent fund of the
local school district. Acceptance of
such aid and at-
tendance upon the regular session of
the school was
made mandatory. The next significant
advance was
heralded in the law of 1910.125 By this
law those who
desired exemption from compulsory
school attendance
must be able to pass an educational
test equivalent to
that required for completion of the
fifth grade. This,
of course, applied only to those who
felt the necessity
of employment. Previous to this the only
requirement
was ability to pass certain tests in
reading, writing, spell-
ing, grammar, geography and arithmetic.
No stand-
ards were fixed; the rigidity of the
tests imposed was
left to each local school officer to
determine. This edu-
cational attainment was again raised in
1913 to the
sixth grade standard.126
122 O. L., XCIV, 180.
123 Ibid., XCV, 615.
124 Ibid., XCV, 617.
125 G. C., 1910, Sec. 7766.
126 O. L., CIII, 864.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 147
In the legislation of 1913 three
additional advances
were made. One raised the age
requirement for school
attendance from fourteen to fifteen.127
This law was
modified in 1914 so that the compulsory
attendance age
for girls was raised to sixteen.128
The second raised the
employment age to sixteen for boys and
eighteen for
girls.129 The third made it
mandatory upon all em-
ployed minors who had not completed the
eighth grade
"to attend school not to exceed
eight hours per week
between the hours of 8 A. M. and 5 P.
M. during the
school term," whenever boards of
education in such
districts established part-time day
schools for employed
youth.130
The crowning achievement in drastic
compulsory
attendance legislation was attained in
Ohio in 1921
with the passage of the now famous Bing
Act.131 This
law at one stroke raised the compulsory
attendance age
to eighteen for both sexes and thereby
virtually required
high school graduation of the average
child. A brief
synopsis of the Bing Law was given by
the Attorney
General the year following the passage
of the law,
which, because of the unusual
significance of the Act,
will be quoted in some detail:
The ages for compulsory school
attendance are six to eight-
een years, but a local board of
education may by resolution change
this to seven to eighteen years. A
child who is six years of age
(or seven in case the board sets the
age at seven), after the be-
ginning of a semester, may not be
required to attend until the be-
ginning of the following semester--A
child may be released from
127 Ibid., CIII, 864.
128 Ibid., CIV, 225.
129 Ibid., CIII, 864.
130 Ibid., CIII, 864.
131 Ibid., CIX, 379.
148 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
school on an age and schooling
certificate after reaching the age
of sixteen, unless he has failed to
complete the seventh grade by
that age. It is only during employment,
however, that the child
is excused from school (Section 7766),
but a graduate of a first
grade high school need not attend school
further (Section 7764-2).
Children whose bodily condition does not
enable them to attend
school may be excused by the
superintendent, but the disability
must be fully proved and when able the
child must enter or re-
turn to school. A child can be excused
on the ground of physical
or mental disability only by the
superintendent of public schools
(or person designated by him) (Section
7763). However, all
children who are blind, deaf or
crippled, or who are of defective
mentality, should be sent to schools
suited to them (Section
7763-5). Children may be assigned by the
juvenile court to suit-
able institutions (Sections 7780 and
7781). In case a child is
supposed to be of seriously defective
mentality, the services of
the State Bureau of Juvenile Research
should be asked that ad-
vice as to his education and care may be
secured. Children need
not be admitted at five, though the
school census includes children
from five to eighteen years of age
(Section 7794). This con-
templates kindergartens for those five
years of age. However,
the schools are required by law to be
free only to those from six
to twenty-one years of age (Section
7681). Children must at-
tend the entire year, for the law
provides that a child must enter
within the first week of the school term
or within one week from
the date of his moving to the district.
The attendance must be
for the full time the school attended is
in session (Section 7763)
. . . . The board of education may aid
an indigent child (Sec.
tion 7777), the intent being that no
child should be deprived of
education because of poverty. The
obligation that a child shall
attend school rests primarily on the parents of the
child and prose-
cution for failure of a child to attend
school is primarily instituted
against the parents (Sections 7762, 7763,
and 7773), but if a child,
contrary to the directions of his
parents, fail to attend school, he
may be prosecuted as a delinquent child
(Sections 7762-6 and
7774) . . . . The completion of the
grades does not excuse the
child from further school attendance for
he may be assigned by
the superintendent to further study in
the elementary school or
to a high school. If there is no high
school in a given rural dis-
trict, the child may be assigned to a
high school within four miles
in another district, and the board of
education must pay his tui-
tion. The same is true if the high
school is in another district
and more than four miles distant from
his residence, except that
the child may not be required to attend
the high school in that
case unless his transportation or board
in lieu thereof is provided
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 149
(See Sections 7764, 7749-1 and 7749-2).
If high school training
is not thus provided any child, the
board in his district must pro-
vide work in high school branches in
connection with some ele-
mentary school, or otherwise within
four miles of the child's resi-
dence (Section 7764-1).132
No changes of importance in the
compulsory at-
tendance law occurred in the subsequent
years which
bring to a close the first quarter of
the twentieth cen-
tury. In 1925, Section 7762-7 was added
to the law
which gave the department of education
of the State
the right to prescribe proper standards
and psychologi-
cal tests by which the mental ability
of the child should
be determined as a basis for excuse
from the require-
ments of the compulsory attendance law.
Previous to
this, excuses for mental incapacity
were left to the
direction of the local school
superintendent.
The Bing Law represented one of the
most drastic
pieces of attendance legislation since
the introduction
of the compulsory attendance idea in
1889. Neverthe-
less, so thoroughly had the idea of
compulsory school
attendance come to be accepted by the
people that com-
pliance with the law was all but taken for granted.
Some minor opposition133 was
manifested against the
law and in the 1927 session of the
Legislature an effort
was made to modify the law but without
success.
Length of School Year
The legal requirement of six months as
the length
of the school year was theoretically in
force at the be-
ginning of 1851. The law which made the
school year
132 Attorney General, Opinion of, No.
2949, March 28, 1922.
133 See reference to the scathing
denunciation of the Bing Law in a
pamphlet entitled "Sanctified
Squander" quoted in the Elementary School
Journal, Vol. XXVIII, December, 1927, 249-252.
150
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
six months in length was passed in
1838,134 and re-
mained unchanged at the close of the
year 1850.135 The
revised State Constitution, and the new
code of school
laws adopted in 1851, still held up as
an ideal a school
term of not less than six months. The
township clerk
was required, upon demand, to estimate
the amount of
money needed to continue the operation
of schools for
a period of six months, over and above "the
several
school funds furnished by law."136
The length of the
school year was more ideal than actual
at this time. The
annual reports of the School
Commissioner's office prior
to 1854 make it rather difficult to
determine just what
the average length of the school year
was at the time.
The school statistics suggested that
many districts had
considerably shorter sessions than six
months. The
Commissioner's report for 1854 stated
that the winter
schools were taught for an average of 3
36/100 months,
and the summer schools were taught for
an average of
262/100 months. He gave the total
average for the
year at 5 98/100 months. It is
difficult to see how these
figures were obtained. Nowhere in the
published statis-
tics did he give the figures by which he
arrived at these
results. There was an evident
assumption that the win-
ter and summer schools were one and the
same schools,
with different sessions. This
assumption is open to
serious question as is the indirect
inference that the
same pupils attended the two
sessions.137
If the inference was meant as suggested
above, the
134 O. L., XXXVI, 21.
135 Miller, E. A., op. cit., p.
43.
136 Ibid.
137 State Commissioner of Common
Schools, Annual Report, 1854, p. 4.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 151
tables he presented later in his report
did not support
him, for in some instances schools were
taught in the
winter but not in the summer.138 It
seems perfectly ob-
vious that the six months' term of
school was largely a
dream indulged in by a large percentage
of the small
district schools, at least. Under a
different classifica-
tion, the Commissioner's report for the
following year
shows the average school term for common
schools to
have been 6.1 month.139
The law underwent a revision in 1861.140 By this
change the length of the school year
was fixed at thirty
weeks for the minimum period and
forty-four weeks for
the maximum term. This apparently did
not prove feasi-
ble, for four years later the minimum
school term was
again set at twenty-four weeks as a
basis for participat-
ing in state school funds by school
districts.141 That a
thirty-week term should have been
proposed for the
schools just at a time when war shadows
were impend-
ing, is a little surprising. The
failure to secure a longer
school term, in practice, at such an
unfavorable moment,
was to be expected. In 1904, the
minimum length of the
school year was placed at thirty-two
weeks and the
maximum term at forty weeks.142 No
further attempt
to lengthen the school year was made
during the period.
Most of the legislation between 1865
and 1925 which
dealt with the school year, was
directed toward enforc-
ing the law. Even as early as 1864 the
school month
138 Ibid., 75.
139 Ibid., Third Annual Report, p. 4.
140 O. L., LVIII,
26.
141 Ibid., LXII, 62.
142 Ohio School Laws, 1904, p. 94.
152
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
was defined as consisting of four
weeks.143 The legisla-
tion of 1873144 and 1875145 reaffirmed
the school month
as consisting of four weeks. The school
week was de-
fined as consisting of five days. These
definitions re-
mained without change throughout the
period. The law
of 1868 was framed with the purpose of
making a re-
ality of the long-expressed ideal of a
six months' school
term.146 This law provided
that where boards of edu-
cation failed to provide suitable means
of sustaining a
school for a term of at least six
months, the County
Commissioners were authorized and
instructed to do so
for them. Financial difficulties prevented many dis-
tricts from continuing their schools
for the required six
months. As early as 1853 this problem
was recognized
and legislation introduced to equalize
the school funds
between the weak and strong
districts.147 A portion of
the township tax was set apart for the
continuation of
schools and was used to supply school
funds for those
districts whose sources of revenue were
not sufficient to
maintain the schools for the same
length of time as the
others. In 1873 it was provided that
this fund should
be set aside out of the contingent fund
of the town-
ship.148 It was in the rural
districts, for the most part,
that such funds were necessary.
Nevertheless, with all
these legislative supports to make
possible an ideal, we
find that ideal far from attainment
within but a decade
143 O. L., LXI, 31.
Ibid., LXX, 215.
145 Ibid., LXXII, 181.
146 Ibid., LXV, 148.
147 Ibid., LI, 429.
148 Ibid., LXX, 195.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 153
of the close of the century. The
Commissioner of
Schools, Mr. Hancock, reports in 1889
as follows:
In the year 1887-88 there were 31
counties, having 81 de-
linquent townships, which contained
altogether 177 sub-districts
in which the schools were continued less
than twenty-four weeks.
In 1888-89 there were 30 counties,
having 80 delinquent town-
ships, with 170 delinquent
sub-districts.149
The difficulty, he pointed out, was not
primarily one
of insufficient financial resources,
because in 1887-88,
out of the 81 delinquent townships,
only 11 had reached
the limit of their tax levy; and of the
80 townships de-
faulting the next year in reaching the
law requirement,
only 11 had reached their taxation
limit for school pur-
poses. As late as 1905 the Commissioner
of Schools
in his annual report advocated the
establishment of a
special school fund by the State to
make possible the
continuance of all public schools for
the minimum period
of thirty-two weeks as required by law.
The unequal
distribution of wealth in the various
school districts
made it necessary for some districts to
exceed the legal
tax levy for school support if they
complied with the
legal school year. How extensive was
the difficulty he
did not indicate.150
Private Elementary Schools
Private elementary schools never held a
very influ-
ential place in Ohio's educational
system. Their num-
ber was always small and their
enrollment was never
large. The majority of the private
elementary schools
were under religious control. The
legislation in refer-
149 State
Commissioner of Common Schools, Thirty-sixth Annual Re-
port, p. 15.
150 Ibid.,
Fifty-second Annual Report, p. 11.
154 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
ence to this type of school was wrapped
up almost en-
tirely in the fortunes of the legal
rights and limitations
governing private secondary schools and
institutions of
higher education, which will be
considered in the next
chapter. They were required to make
annual reports to
the office of the State School
Commissioner.151 After
the advent of compulsory education,
more supervision
was exercised over the children of
these institutions, es-
pecially regarding attendance.
The statistics concerning private
schools during the
early part of this period are very
meager. In 1870 there
were 10,500 pupils in private
schools.152 This report
also shows a total of 238 teachers for
these schools. The
average length of the school term for
townships was
given as eighteen weeks, and twenty-six
weeks for sep-
arate districts. The annual report of
the School Com-
missioner for 1900 reveals an
enrollment in private ele-
mentary schools of approximately
15,000, with a teach-
ing staff of 355, and a total
graduation list during the
history of the schools of a little more
than 2,000. There
were 80 private schools, 78 of which
were under the
influence of religious bodies, representing
five denomi-
nations. One noticeable change in the
private schools
from the conditions reported in 1870
was the longer
school term enjoyed. Only two schools
reported a term
of less than 32 weeks, while more than
50% indicated
a school term of 40 weeks or more. Most
of the private
schools were confined to the larger
cities and towns.153
151 O. L., LI, 429; LXXIII, 225.
152 State Commissioner of Common
Schools, Seventeenth Annual Report,
p. 22.
153 Ibid., Forty-seventh Annual Report,
p. 296.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 155
No data were given by the State
Superintendent of
Schools for 1925 relative to the number
of pupils in
private elementary schools in Ohio.
Evening Schools
Evening schools were practically
unknown in Ohio
for the first fifty years of her
statehood. During those
years her people were largely engaged
in the pioneer
business of cultivating the land and
settling unoccupied
regions. It was not until an urban
population began to
develop that a widespread need of
evening schools came
to be felt. Near the beginning of the
second fifty years
of Ohio's history, her urban population
began to in-
crease rapidly. It was at this time
that the first legisla-
tion appeared which made provision for
those who were
unable to attend the regular day
schools. The Akron
Act was amended in 1839154 requiring
towns, cities and
boroughs to provide evening schools for
the male youth
over twelve years of age who could not
attend the day
schools. The law of 1853 gave the
boards of education
authority, at their own discretion, to
provide evening
schools for those over twelve years of
age who were
prevented, by work, from attending day
schools.155 No
change was made in the law for twenty
years. Then
additional legislation was enacted in
1875 which placed
a limitation on the money that might be
appropriated
for evening schools. The appropriations
that could be
made by school boards were limited as
follows: cities
of the first class were limited to an
appropriation of
$300; cities of the second class to
$150; and all other
154 O. L., XXXVII, 61.
155 Ibid., LI,
429.
156
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
districts to $75.156 This law
remained without change
until 1893. The new law set no
limitation upon the
amount that might be appropriated for
the support of
evening schools. It did give more power
to the electorate
to initiate action, and to force the
school board to es-
tablish such schools. Parents or
guardians were given
the right to petition boards of
education to establish
evening schools. The petition was
required to contain
the names of at least twenty-five
youths who would at-
tend the school, who for sufficient
reasons were pre-
vented from attending day school. In
case the number
of pupils fell below a monthly average
of twelve, the
board of education was privileged to
close the school.
Persons above twenty-one years of age
were given the
opportunity to attend evening school
upon the payment
of tuition.157 The law of
1893 was amended in 1914,158
and again in 1921159 to make it
technically applicable to
the various district reorganizations
which had taken
place but the essential features of the
law remained un-
changed. It is impossible to gauge the
popularity of
this law. The chief sources of our
information of a sta-
tistical character concerning the schools
are the annual
reports of the State School
Commissioner. The Commis-
sioners were almost uniformly silent
upon both the need
and operation of the law. That evening
schools became
an ever-increasing factor of importance
in the cities is
quite evident from the attention given
to them in the
compulsory school attendance
legislation. Where chil-
156 Ibid., LXXII, 29.
157 Ibid., XC, 116.
158 Ibid., CIV, 230.
159 Ibid., CIX, 553.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 157
dren could not conveniently attend the
day-school, for
the reasons accepted as legitimate by
the compulsory
act, this same law permitted attendance
upon an evening
school as a possible substitute.160
The Graded Schools
The graded school had been made a
possibility in
Ohio through the provisions of the
Akron Act.161 This
law made it possible to organize the
elementary schools
into two divisions, namely, a primary
section which of-
fered the general subjects usually
taught in primary
schools, and a grammar school where
more advanced
phases of these subjects as well as new
but essential
courses might be offered. The law
provided for a fur-
ther grading of the schools as the
local situation might
warrant. In 1850 this law, with some
slight modifica-
tions, was extended to embrace
townships and special
villages with five hundred inhabitants
or more. The ac-
ceptance of the law was optional with
the townships and
districts, and required a majority vote
of the electors.162
The law of 1853 gave the township
boards of education
the right "to establish in their
respective townships
such number of graded schools, or such
modifications
of them, as the public may
require."163 They were fur-
ther charged with the duty of
classifying the children in
the graded schools. Graded schools
could only be estab-
lished, however, by vote of the
township electors.
Graded schools at this time were only
in their in-
fancy. They were few in number and
oftentimes so
160 Ibid., LXXII, 29; R. S., 1910, Sec. 4012;
O. L., CIX, 553.
161 O. L. L.,
XLV, 187.
162 O. L., XLVIII, 40.
163 Ibid., LI,
429.
158 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
meager in form as to render
questionable the justifica-
tion of their name. The investigator
was often con-
fronted with the apparent lack of
definition in the legis-
lation as to what constituted a
"graded school." Some
indication of this state of affairs may
be gleaned from
the school Commissioner's report for
1854:
A graded school is a classified or Union
School, consisting of
two, three, four, or five departments, to
each of which the pupils
are distributed according to their ages
and attainments, and
placed under teachers adapted to each
grade. These departments
or grades are generally denominated,
primary, secondary, inter-
mediate, and high school. The graded
system in large cities usu-
ally comprises five departments; in
small cities, four departments
--the intermediate schools being omitted; in towns and
incorporat-
ed villages, three departments--the
secondary and intermediate
schools being omitted; and in populous
neighborhoods, two de-
partments, viz.: the primary and grammar
school.164
From the foregoing definition, graded
schools might
have a wide range of variation. In the
very nature of
the case, a high school was likely to
be graded within
itself because it was more often
established in those en-
vironments which made more than one
room possible
for the schools. As will be noted later
on in the dis-
cussion, grade schools were
statistically recorded, in
part, on the basis of a school
comprising more than one
room.
We are here primarily concerned with the for-
tunes of the elementary school. The
facts as to the
number of schools of the graded type in
the 'fifties are
not easy to determine. There is no
possible means of
arriving at the number of graded
elementary schools
for this period, for the high schools
and elementary
schools are listed together.
164 State Commissioner of
Common Schools, Annual Report, 1854, p. 58.
History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925 159 The first record we have concerning the number of graded schools in Ohio is found in the State School Commissioner's Reports for 1870. The Commissioner assumed that all separate districts, with a population of 500 or above, maintained graded schools. According to |
|
his report there were 112 such school districts. This type of a report leaves out all reference to graded schools in the townships or in separate districts and vil- lages with a population of less than 500. Mr. Henkle admitted that there were school districts with a popula- |
160 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
tion of less than 500 which maintained
graded schools,
but he insisted that the number was
small.165
It is difficult to understand why
township districts
are not listed in the reports, for
legislation on the sub-
ject continued to be passed until the
close of the century.
Some explanation for this apparent
omission in the
State School Commissioner's annual
reports may be
found in the law of 1873. This law gave
to the town-
ships the privilege of being governed
by the law which
related to village districts.166 It is possible that these
new districts were reported under their
new classifica-
tion. No State School Commissioner took
the pains to
make that notation in the reports,
however. The annual
report for 1880 gave the graded
districts with an
enumeration of 300 or above. There are
216 graded
schools in this list. But again it is a
list including high
schools as well as elementary schools.167
The State
School Commissioner in 1884 pointed out
that of the
five classified school districts in
Ohio, all but the last
class were carefully graded. This
statement is seem-
ingly substantiated by consulting the
State School Com-
missioner's report for 1890.168 Only
two of the village
and special districts reported a single
building with one
room. The complete number of graded
districts, includ-
ing cities, reported at this time was
773. The report
for 1900 shows the number of these
districts to have
165 Ibid., Seventeenth Annual Report,
pp. 22, 28.
166 O. L., LXX,
195.
167 State Commissioner of
Common Schools, Twenty-seventh Annual Re-
port, p. 126.
168 Ibid., Thirty-seventh Annual Report, p. 63.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 161
reached 839. Districts having but one
teacher were
not included in this report.169
The State School Commissioners in their
annual re-
ports for 1911 and 1920 do not present
the school data in
such a manner as to make possible a
comparable statis-
tical study of the growth of graded
districts for these
decades.
Graded schools, however, were destined
to make
their way into the township districts
and to be accepted
quite generally. In 1893, a local law
was passed grant-
ing to townships with a population of
between 13,489
and 13,500 in counties whose population
was between
18,235 and 18,250 by the 1890 census,
the right to es-
tablish and maintain one or more graded
schools.171 The
general law of centralization, passed
in 1900, made the
adoption of the graded school system
compulsory upon
the townships.172
Curriculum
The importance of the curriculum for
the elementary
schools was not greatly appreciated for
nearly three-
quarters of a century by Ohio
schoolmen. The earliest
legislation which specified any
particular subject of in-
struction seems to have been the
provision that boards
of education in some cases might
provide instruction in
German for pupils who desired to study
either the Ger-
man language or the German and English
languages
together.173 The law of 1853
gave to the boards of edu-
cation the authority to determine the
school books to be
169 Ibid., Forty-seventh Annual Repart, p. 108.
171 O. L., XC, 184.
172 Ibid., XCIV,
317.
173 Ibid., LI, 429.
Vol. XXXIX--11.
162
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
used and the courses of study to be
followed. This law
remained in force for over thirty
years. In 1865 the
State School Commissioner, in his Opinions
and In-
structions, gave as his interpretation of the law that
only the Board had power to sanction a
course of study
for the local school and to determine
the school books to
be used. The teachers were required to
use the courses
and texts as outlined. Sub-district directors did not
have the power of choice either of
text-books or of
courses to be offered. The teacher was
recognized as
having the sole authority of
classification of the pupils
in the proper courses.174 The
law of 1873 did not change
the law of 1853 in its essential
features.175 This law
provided more definite procedure in the
selection of the
curriculum by the boards of education.
By the pro-
visions of this law a majority vote
decided the courses
to be offered and the texts to be used,
which courses and
texts were not to be changed for a
period of three years
after their adoption. Prior to 1889,
there was no gen-
eral legislation prescribing the
courses of instruction to
be offered or the books to be used in
the class-room. In
1886176 and 1887177 legislation
which was enacted espe-
cially for the benefit of Cleveland
provided for a City
Farm School for that city, and offered
a unique course
of study for special groups. The law
further provided
for the introduction of Manual Training
and Domestic
Science in the public schools of the
city. The next indi-
cation of a growing interest in the
curriculum appeared
174
Ohio School Laws, Fourth Edition, p. 31 ff.
175
O. L., LXX, 195.
176 Ibid., LXXXIII, 89.
177
Ibid., LXXXIV, 92.
History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925 163
with a law enacted in 1888,178 which provided that in-
struction should be given on the baneful effects of
alco-
hol and narcotics, in connection with the courses in
Physiology and Hygiene. This law was made effective
by a provision requiring all teachers who were granted
certificates after the first of January, 1890, to pass
a
successful examination on this subject; and further
pro-
vided that all teachers, principals, superintendents,
and
other school officials who would not comply with the
law
should be dismissed.
Our chief source of information concerning the cur-
riculum practice of this period is found in the annual
reports of the State. A table found in the annual re-
port for 1851 gives some indication of the existing
prac-
tice. This report, given in the form of a table, is
that of
the Auditor of Ashtabula County to the Secretary of
State when the latter was performing the duties of
State
School Commissioner or State School Superintendent.179
TABLE III--NUMBER OF PUPILS PURSUING EACH OF THE
FOLLOWING STUDIES
Subject
Number Subject Number
Alphabet .............. 124 Algebra ............... 70
Orthography ..........2,174 Chemistry ............. 6
Reading
...............6,005 Geology ............... 0
Mental Arithmetic ......1,684 Astronomy ............ 26
Written Arithmetic .....2,214 Analysis .............. 126
Geography .............1,248 Vocal Music ........... 589
English Grammar ....... 934 Bookkeeping ........... 8
History of U.
S......... 49 Botany
............... I
Penmanship ...........2, 168 Drawing .............. 31
Composition .......... 757 Mapping .............. 117
Physiology ............ 54 General History ........ 63
Philosophy
............ 112 Latin ................ 3
French ................ 1
178 Ibid., LXXXV,
213.
179 Secretary of
State, Annual Report, on the Condition of the Common
Schools, p. 55,
164
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
This table is not to be accepted as of
great impor-
tance in itself. It becomes valuable as
it is interpreted
in the light of later reports where the
data are more
carefully explained. The table does
indicate that these
subjects were taught at this date in
Ashtabula County
with approximately the enrollment
indicated after each
subject. It is significant that the
subjects generally ac-
cepted as elementary had the largest
number of students
pursuing them, while most of the
subjects generally con-
sidered, in the very nature of the
case, as advanced
studies, had the smallest number of
students engaged in
their study. If Vocal Music were placed
in the first
column, the History of the United
States and Physi-
ology in the second column, it might
reasonably be sup-
posed we had before us an indication of
the curricula
of the elementary and high schools of
this period in the
first and second columns. The report of
the State
School Commissioner for 1854180
suggested the correct-
ness of the assumptions made concerning
the data above.
In this report the number of pupils and
the studies pur-
sued were given as follows:
Pupils
able to read
and write ........394,456
Number studying Orthography
...............385,912
Number studying Arithmetic
.............. 226,289
Number studying Grammar
.................. 61,027
Number studying
Geography................ 93,384
Number studying Algebra .................... 5,776
Number studying Geometry
.................... 1,037
Number studying Chemistry
.................... 1,033
Number studying Philosophy
.................. 4,729
Number studying
Astronomy.................. 845
Number studying Surveying
................... 494
Number studying History
.....................6,805
180 State
Commissioner of Common Schools, Annual Report, 1854, p. 4.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 165
The number of high schools in the State
was given at
57, with 134 teachers, while the number
of elementary
schools was given at approximately
14,000. These facts
are representative of all the reports
of this part of the
period canvassed. The conclusion,
therefore, seems en-
tirely valid that Reading, Penmanship,
Orthography,
Arithmetic, Grammar and Geography made
up the sta-
ple subjects of the elementary
curriculum at this time.
That the remaining subjects listed
above were exclu-
sively high school curriculum subjects
is not so clear,
although they undoubtedly were the
staples of that cur-
riculum. A variety of subjects were
taught in the dif-
ferent schools. This would be expected
with each board
of education acting as the sole arbiter
on the question
of the curriculum. The range of school
subjects in
1858181 included Declamation, Rhetoric,
Trigonometry,
Zoology, Greek and Philosophy which was
divided into
Moral Philosophy, Mental Philosophy and
Natural
Philosophy. Not much change was evident
in the va-
riety of subjects taught for the next
twenty years. The
curriculum, as shown in the school
reports for 1880, in-
dicated a few additions, but for the
most part remained
much the same as to the relative number
of students
pursuing each subject. The curriculum,
as given in the
reports, is listed here on a descending
scale on the basis
of the number of students pursuing
these courses. Spell-
ing, Reading, Writing, Arithmetic,
Geography, Oral
Lesson, English Grammar, Vocal Music,
Composition,
Drawing, Alphabet, Map Drawing, German,
United
States History, Physical Geography,
Algebra, Latin,
Physiology, Natural Philosophy,
Geometry, Botany,
181 Ibid.,
Fifth Annual Report, p. 23ff.
166
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
Bookkeeping, General History,
Trigonometry, Rhetoric,
Chemistry, Astronomy, Geology, Natural
History,
Greek, Mental Philosophy, French,
Surveying, Logic,
and Moral Philosophy, representing in
order the sub-
jects studied in the schools. The
variation in the num-
ber of students studying these subjects
revealed a spread
of from 648,972 students registered for
Spelling to 134
students enrolled in a study of Moral
Philosophy. The
first eleven subjects had a range of
from approximately
100,000 to 650,000 pupils engaged in
their study. The
first fourteen subjects carried an
enrollment of over
31,000 pupils engaged in the study of
each.182 The same
report showed the high school
enrollment to be slightly
under 30,000.183 The
conclusion seems warranted that
the first fourteen subjects were taught
in the elementary
schools, or that elementary pupils were
enrolled in the
study of these subjects.
.. The curriculum soon began to assume
some mini-
mum standards for the elementary
schools during the
eighties. With the advent of the
compulsory school at-
tendance laws came also a new interest
in what these
children were compelled to study. The
law of 1889184
enumerated the subjects which should be
universal in
the curricula of Ohio's elementary
schools. This mini-
mum essentials curriculum included
Spelling, Read-
ing, Writing, English Grammar,
Geography, and Arith-
metic. We have previously noted that Physiology
was
a required subject, particularly a
study of the effects of
alcohol and narcotics upon the human
system. In 1892
182 Ibid., Twenty-seventh Annual Report, p. 113 ff.
183 Ibid., pp. 17, 18.
184 O. L., LXXXVI,
333.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 167
the law required the board of school
examiners to ex-
amine candidates for graduation from
the elementary
schools in the subjects specified as
part of the curricu-
lum by the compulsory attendance act of
1889, and in
addition included Physical Geography,
United States
History and Physiology.185 Provision
was made in 1900
for school boards to employ teachers
and provide equip-
ment for instruction in vocal music
when they deemed
such instruction wise.186 Cities
of the second grade of
the first class were compelled, in
1892, to add Physical
Culture including Calisthenics to their
curriculum.187
The school report for 1900 shows little
change in the
variety of the subjects offered in the
schools. Some ad-
ditions seem to have been made, such as
Language Les-
sons, Literature, Science of
Government, and Political
Economy. On the basis of the numbers of
students en-
gaged in the study of these subjects,
it seems evident
that Language Lessons were an integral
part of the
average elementary school curriculum
while the latter
three subjects belonged to the high
school curriculum.188
No change was made in the legally
required subjects of
the elementary school until 1919, when
a course in
American Government and Citizenship was
added. It
was further required that a
thirty-minute-a-week period
in each grade be devoted to the subject
of "Thrift."189
In 1923 the teaching of a course which
dwelt upon the
"United States Constitution and
the Constitution of
185 Ibid., LXXXIX, 123.
186 Ibid., XCIV,
377.
187 Ibid., LXXXIX, 276.
188 State
Commissioner of Common Schools, Forty-seventh Annual
Report, p. 86 ff.
189 O. L., CVIII,
Pt. I, 542; CVIII, Pt. II, 1283.
168 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
Ohio" was made mandatory upon
schools.190 Further,
elementary schools in rural districts
were required to
offer Agriculture.191
We have previously noted that before
the com-
pulsory school law of 1889 was enacted,
the power of
determining the curriculum and the
text-books to be
used in the schools belonged to each
district board of
education. Except as the law specified the subjects
which every school was required to
teach, the power
still remained with the boards of
education to determine
what additional subjects they might
wish to offer. That
phase of the law relating to the
text-books did undergo
some radical revision. The law of 1873
required the
boards to decide the courses and the
text-books by a
majority vote, which decision must not
be altered for
three years. The next law on the
subject, passed in
1885,192 required the Boards' decisions
on matters of
text-books to be final for five years,
except that by a
three-fourths vote of all board members
the previous
decision of the board might be
reversed. The school
boards were further empowered to deal
directly with the
publishers and to furnish schoolbooks
to the pupils at
cost price. A new era in text-book
selection was intro-
duced with the passage of the School
Book Law in
1890.193 This law provided that a
committee consisting
of the Governor, State School
Commissioner, Superin-
tendent of Printing, and two others
appointed by the
Governor, representing each of the two
leading political
190 G. C., Sec. 7645-1.
191 Ibid., Sec. 7648.
192 O. L., LXXXII, 142.
193 Ibid., LXXXVII, 377.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 169
parties--one practical educator, and
one business man--
should comprise the State Schoolbook
Board. Thirty
days after the passage of the act, the
State School Com-
missioner was required to secure a copy
of the latest
and best edition of the school
text-books in use in the
State. Sixty days later the book
committee was to se-
lect the texts to be used and fix the
price at which each
might be sold; the price of the books
was not to exceed
eighty per cent of the lowest price at
which the publish-
ers sold to dealers. The Commissioner
was to notify
the publishers of the Committee's
decision, and if the
publishers agreed to furnish sufficient
quantities of the
texts at the price indicated for the
period of five years,
the Committee was authorized to meet
and make a final
selection of school text-books. From
the books accepted
for school purposes, lists were to be
made and sent to
the local boards of education. The
boards at their next
regular meeting were to adopt their
course of study and
the text-books. Text-books could be
sold for ten per
cent above the publisher's price to the
pupils, and in case
of indigent pupils, the boards might
furnish text-books
free to them. This law was amended in
1891 specifying
the Governor, the Secretary of State,
and the State
School Commissioner as the personnel of
the State
Schoolbook Board, of which board the
State School
Commissioner was the secretary.194
The publisher's
maximum price on schoolbooks was
reduced to seventy-
five per cent of the sale price to
dealers. The law fur-
ther provided that children leaving the
district could sell
their books to the board of education
and the board
could re-sell them the same as other
books. In 1894 a
194 Ibid., LXXXVIII, 568.
170 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications
law was passed which made the
furnishing of free text-
books for the pupils optional with each
board of edu-
cation.195 Two cities, namely, Toledo
and Tiffin, took
advantage of this law at once. The
superintendents of
both of these cities reported that the
law was very fa-
vorably received and had demonstrated
its economic
and practical value.196 The School Book Commission,
in 1896, was deprived of its power to
select text-books.197
The Commission was limited to fixing
the price at which
books might be sold to boards of
education. Any pub-
lisher who would file copies of his
text-books with the
State Commissioner of Schools, and
agree to the price
set by the Commission upon the same,
could sell the
books to any school willing to adopt
it. This placed the
final responsibility for the selection
of the text-books
upon the various boards of education.
Thus it remained
for the next thirty years. No
significant change in the
text-book law was made for another
generation.
The Enfranchisement of Women
When Ohio adopted her constitution in
1803, man-
hood suffrage was almost the universal
rule in this coun-
try. Men only could vote and hold
office. The majority
of the states had recognized women in
some measure
in their school legislation prior to
the year 1890. It is a
little surprising that such a
progressive state as Ohio
should so long have been backward in
this respect.
Finally, among the late comers, Ohio
passed a law which
granted to women the right of equal
suffrage with men
195 Ibid., XCI, 260.
196 State Commissioner of Common Schools, Forty-first
Annual Report,
p. 8.
197 O. L., XCII,
282.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 171
in school affairs. This law was passed
in 1894.198 By
its terms women could both vote and
hold office when
the same related to the public schools.
A majority of
the states which were conservative in
their attitude on
the question of equal rights of women
in school affairs
were found south of the Mason-Dixon
line. Practically
all of the states surrounding Ohio had
passed equal
rights legislation for women in school
affairs years be-
fore.199
Health and Morals of Pupils
The protection of the health and morals
of the pupils
received considerable attention from
the legislators dur-
ing the last fifty years of this
period. The first ap-
proach was made through consistent
efforts to insure
the safety of school buildings against
fires. The first
law on the subject, passed in 1868200
made it unlawful to
use school buildings without proper
means of hasty exit.
In 1889 the law was made more stringent
by making it
unlawful for boards of education,
architects, engineers
or builders to make plans for a
building that was unsafe
or dangerous to health.201
The law goes into much de-
tail on general building plans, and
penalties for the vio-
lation of these legal requirements.
Later, inspection of
school buildings was provided for by
the chief fire en-
gineer of city or village corporations
where such were
maintained, otherwise by the mayor and
two council-
men.202 Finally, the duties
of inspection were lodged
198 Ibid., XCI, 182.
199 State Commissioner of Common Schools, Forty-first
Annual Report,
p. 9 ff.
200 O. L., LXV, 179.
201 Ibid., LXXXVI, 381.
202 Ibid., XC, 3.
172 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications
with the Chief Inspector of Workshops.203
Instruction
in fire drills, regularly, was required
by law in 1908.
Penalties were provided for teachers
and administrators
who failed to insure adequate
instruction in this sub-
ject.204 Something of the
development of public senti-
ment with regard to pupils' health and
safety may be
gained by a study of the building code
reform of 1911.205
Nearly fifteen pages of the 1915 edition
of the Ohio
School Laws are required to record the
legislation of
1911, which covers a range of topics
from the location
of the school building to the
dimensions of rooms, the
equipment, and the nature of the
material used in the
construction of the various parts of
the building. Little
change in the building code occurred
prior to 1925.
Then an extensive revision took place.
Most of this
legislation concerned the health and
protection of the
children.206
The earliest law recorded on school
vaccination in
Ohio occurs in 1872.207 Vaccination
against smallpox
was made compulsory at the instance of
the board of
education, and the township trustees
were required to
furnish the means of vaccination at the
township's ex-
pense, upon the demand of the board of
education.
Three years later a fine of from three
to ten dollars was
imposed for violation of health
regulations relating to
"smallpox or any infectious or
loathsome disease."208
203 Ibid., XCIII, 34; XCIX, 232.
204 Ibid., XCIX,
231.
205 Ibid., CII, 586.
206 See Section 12600-45-91 G. C. of Ohio, as
constituted in the legis-
lation of 1925.
207 O. L., LXIX, 22.
208 Ibid., LXXII, 178.
History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925 173 Boards of Health were given power to enforce vaccina- tions and disinfections where these were necessary. Considerable power was placed in their hands for the protection of health; they were required to make at least |
|
D. F. DEWOLFE State Commissioner of Common Schools, 1881-1884 two inspections of the sanitary conditions of the school each year, and when epidemics threatened they could order the schools closed and prohibit public gather- ings.209 To supplement the work of health protection against 209 Ibid., LXXI, 82. |
174
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
diseases, boards of education were
empowered, in 1913,
to employ both physicians and nurses to
inspect and care
for children, teachers, or janitors as
the case might re-
quire. Stringent regulations were
provided to insure
qualified medical aid for the schools.
Careful indexes
of all children and teachers examined
were required
upon uniform card forms prescribed by
the State.
Boards of education were expected to
certify to the
State by affidavit or otherwise, to
provide that the law
governing school physicians and nurses
had been com-
plied with.210
Frequently the laws passed with
reference to certain
of Ohio's public institutions or
educational system
touched upon the moral safety of her
children. Alco-
holic liquors and narcotics were placed
under the ban
repeatedly. In the study of the
curriculum it was found
that one of the first subjects
prescribed concerned itself
with the evil effects of alcohol and
narcotics. It is not
surprising, therefore, to find the sale
of intoxicating
liquors forbidden within two miles of
the State reform
institutions.211 A more
drastic piece of legislation dealt
with sex immorality. Any person over
twenty-one years
of age, employed as an instructor or
serving as a school
official, who had illicit intercourse
with a female under
his instruction or during his term of
office, even though
it had been with her consent, was
liable to a penitentiary
sentence of from one to ten years.212
The penitentiary
sentence for this offence was finally
changed to a term
of from two to ten years.213
210 Ibid., CIII, 864.
211
Ibid., LXXI, 82.
212 Ibid., LXXV, 142.
213 Ibid., LXXXIII, 92.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 175
City and Village Schools
Ohio only began to give attention to
her urban popu-
lation in the early fifties. Her early
development had
been largely rural in character. We
have already noted
the rapid growth in population and the
marked tendency
of this growth in an urban direction.
The growth and
development of the small villages,
towns and cities was
most rapid between the years 1850 and
1925. The in-
crease in the population of the State
was entirely ab-
sorbed by the villages and cities
during this period. In
1850 there were 80 villages with a
population of from
500 to 5,000; 3 cities with a
population between 5,000
and 10,000; two cities with a
population of 17,000; one
that had just passed the 10,000 mark;
and one that
boasted of a population of 115,000. The
shift in popu-
lation had been so rapid that by 1920
there were 404
villages ranging in population from 500
to 5,000; 44
cities with a population between 5,000
and 10,000; 41
cities with a population between 10,000
and 50,000; 2
cities with a population between 50,000
and 100,000; and
seven cities had populations in excess
of 100,000. Cin-
cinnati had passed the 400,000, and
Cleveland the
769,000 mark.214
When the cities and villages first
began to assume
individual importance, special school
legislation was
sought to meet their particular needs.
Prior to 1850 a
number of cities and towns had secured
special legisla-
tion for their own schools. Before 1850
this phase of
legislation had begun to give way to
general enactments
214 U. S.
Census Reports, 1850, 1860, 1870,
1880, 1890, 1900, 1920.
176 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
making special provision for village
and city schools.215
The Akron Act was the beginning of
school legislation
for cities and was destined to exercise
a profound influ-
ence upon all subsequent legislation
for villages and
cities for over a quarter of a century.
Because of its
influence upon the school life of a
later period, special
attention will be given to the Akron
law and the circum-
stances of its enactment.
In 1846 the Reverend Isaac Jennings, a
young Con-
gregational clergyman in Akron, became
very much in-
terested in the schools of his village.
The little village
with almost 700 school children found
its educational
facilities very inadequate and the laws
governing the
same, painfully antiquated. A group of
these children
held meetings in the back room of a
dwelling-house.
Another group met in very inconvenient,
temporary
rooms furnished them by a
generous-minded citizen.
Mr. Jennings interested himself in the
local school situ-
ation and secured a public meeting of
interested citizens
to discuss the matter. A committee was
appointed to
work out a comprehensive plan for the
better education
of the children, with Mr. Jennings as
chairman of the
committee.216 This committee
worked out a very thor-
ough plan for the government of the
schools in Akron.217
This plan was presented to the
Legislature, and in
215 For a complete discussion of
this early legislation for individual
cities, and for the beginning of the
more general legislation to meet the
needs of cities before 1850, see the
monograph of Edward Alanson Miller,
The History of Educational
Legislation in Ohio from 1803 to 1850, p. 45 ff.
216 Bryan, "Historical Sketch of the
Akron Public Schools," Historical
Sketches of Public Schools in Cities,
Villages, and Townships of the State
of Ohio, pp. 1-28.
217 Miller, E. A., op. cit.,
p. 50 ff.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 177
1847218
a law was enacted, henceforth known as
the
Akron School Law, which incorporated
most of the pro-
visions suggested by the committee. The
act, summar-
ized, authorized the following
provisions:
1--The election of a board of education
of six members,
which should have full control of school
property and school
funds.
2--The incorporation of the city into
one school district.
3--Six or more primary schools and one
central grammar
school to teach "subjects requisite
to a respectable English educa-
tion."
4--Free admission to all schools.
5--Examinations for promotion, and
teachers given the
power to classify pupils.
6--Assessment as a tax by the city
council of the amount
estimated by the board for erecting
schoolhouses and for con-
ducting the schools.
7--All school property vested in the
city council.
8--Three examiners appointed by the city
council.
9--Annual public examinations.219
The following year the Akron act was made
to ap-
ply to all incorporated towns and
cities of the State upon
the presentation of a petition signed
by two-thirds of
the qualified electors of the town or
city, who desired to
take advantage of the act.220 Numerous
objections were
raised to the provisions of the act
which generalized the
usage of the Akron Law. The two-thirds
requirement
was an insurmountable obstacle in the
way of many
localities that would otherwise have
taken advantage of
the Akron Law. The result was the
formulation of a
general law in 1849 which applied to
incorporated vil-
lages and cities of 200 inhabitants or
more.221 This law
218 O. L. L., XLV, 187.
219 Miller, E.
A., op. cit., p. 55 ff.
220 O. L., XLVI,
48.
221 Ibid., XLVII, 22.
Vol. XXXIX--12.
178
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
was largely a counterpart of the Akron
Act. By its pro
visions a majority vote cast at an
election called for the
purpose, was sufficient to secure the
benefits of the law
to any village, town or city.
From this time forward the law became
the center
of interest for amendment and change,
to meet the needs
of a new and rapidly growing type of
community life.
The township sub-district school units
had held and
were destined to continue to hold for
some years the
dominant attention of the school
legislation of the State.
But with the rapidly changing social
conditions ushered
in with the village or cityward trend
of population move-
ments, it was inevitable that
increasing thought should
be given to the well-being of the
schools of these new
social, political and educational
units. Something of this
trend is reflected in the act of 1850
which extended the
provisions of the village, town and
city law to townships
and special districts with a population
of 500 or above,
at the option of these districts.222
Districts with a popu-
lation of 500 generally contained a
village with a popu-
lation under 200 that served as a
social or political cen-
ter for the district, to which this law
would be well
adapted. The law could not be adopted
by the town-
ships or districts, however, unless
they contained an in-
corporated village or town, or parts of
the same.
Cities or incorporated villages of 300
inhabitants or
more, were created as separate school
districts in
1853223 unless they were organized
under the Akron Act
or some similar law previously in
effect. The board of
education, consisting of three members,
was elected in
222 Ibid., XLVIII, 40.
223 Ibid., LI, 429.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 179
the same manner and at the same time
that local di-
rectors of sub-districts were elected,
and these boards
exercised the same powers and had the
same duties as
those which devolved upon the township
boards of edu-
cation. The board was given power to
divide the village
or city into sub-districts, to
establish schools of differ-
ent grades, and with the consent of the
township boards
to receive for regular instruction the
pupils of the town-
ships in which the village or city was
located. An
amendment to the law in 1862224 made it
incumbent upon
the boards of education of cities and
incorporated vil-
lages to elect as clerk of the board,
at their first annual
meeting, one of their number who was to
perform all
the duties usually discharged by clerks
of township
boards of education. A change was also
effected in the
treasurership of the village and city
schools in certain
cases, abolishing the separate office
for these districts
and entrusting the duties to the County
Treasurer when
such village or city was in the
township in which, by
law, the office of county treasurer was
located.225
The several laws governing cities, towns,
or villages
had failed to require the treasurer of
the school board
to file a certificate of bond with the
county auditor, or
make an annual settlement with him, as
required of the
township and special district school
treasurer. The law
of 1864 remedied this situation by
requiring each treas-
urer of a village, town, or city school
district to file the
necessary bonds, make an annual
settlement, and deposit
an annual report of the receipts and
expenditures of the
224 Ibid., LIX,
61.
225 Ibid., LIX, 69.
180 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications
local district, with the auditor of the
county in which
said village, town, or city was
located.226
A radical change in the city and
village school dis-
tricts was brought about by the
legislation of 1873.227
By the terms of this legislation, a
sharp distinction was
made between cities and villages.
Cities with a popula-
tion of 10,000 or above were placed in
a class for special
legislation and were designated as
cities of the first class.
Cities with a population under 10,000
were designated
as cities of the second class, and
special legislation was
enacted for them. Village districts
included all incor-
porated villages. In city districts of
the first class, the
board of education consisted of two
members from each
ward who were elected for a term of two
years. One
member of the board from each ward was
elected at
each annual school election. The school
elections were
in charge of the regular judges and
clerks of city elec-
tions. Meetings of the board were held
every two
weeks, and special meetings were
authorized as the
needs might require. The board was
given authority to
fill all vacancies that might occur in
their number until
the next annual election.
City districts of the second class and
village districts
elected six members of the board of
education, who held
office for a term of three years, two
members being
elected at each annual election.
Provision was made for
ward representation where city
districts chose to be gov-
erned by a board of education so
composed. Under this
plan the election was biennial with the
odd- and evenly-
numbered districts electing their
representatives on al-
226 Ibid., LXI, 36.
227
Ibid., LXX, 195.
History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925 181 ternate years.228 There was very little difference in the government of the village and city districts under these laws. The principal difference centered about the com- position and election of the boards of education. With the mushroom growth of cities, new problems |
|
arose in the administration of the schools in these large and complex population units. The legislation at this time revealed a constant effort to adjust the laws to meet the rapid changes in the city school requirements. In 1885 Cleveland had passed the 150,000 mark in popu- 228 Ibid., LXXV, 53. |
182
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
lation, and her board of education was
becoming some-
what unwieldy. A general law applying
to cities of the
first class was passed, which limited
the board of edu-
cation to thirty-seven members in
cities with a popula-
tion in excess of 150,000.229 The law amended the fol-
lowing year provided for a limitation
of the board's rep-
resentation to twenty members.230
In 1887 city districts of the first
class were divided
into two grades. Cities of 250,000
population or over
were known as cities of the first grade
of the first class;
cities with a population of less than
250,000 but with
150,000 or more, were known as city
districts of the
second grade of the first class.231 City districts of the
first grade of the first class elected
one member of the
board of education from each ward.
These representa-
tives held office for two years. The
odd- and evenly-
numbered wards elected their representatives
in alter-
nate years. The law specified that the
board should
not exercise supervisory authority over
the schools
either through committees of its
members or by indi-
vidual members. The superintendent of
schools was
given complete authority to appoint all
teachers by and
with the consent of the board.
City districts of the second grade of
the first class
enjoyed little in the way of special
privilege prior to
1892. At that time legislation was
enacted whereby the
government of schools in these
districts was reorganized.
The new type of school government was
an innova-
tion.232 Under the new plan,
the ordinary school board
229 Ibid., LXXXII, 7.
230 Ibid., LXXXIII, 32.
231 Ibid., LXXXIV, 184.
232 Ibid., LXXXIX,
74.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 183
of the other districts gave way to a
group known as the
School Council and a School Director.
This council was
composed of seven representatives who
were divided
into two classes, of three and four
members each. These
classes were elected biennially in
alternate years, to
serve for a period of two years. The
council organized
each year by electing one of its number
as president; by
also electing a clerk, who was not a
member of the board,
to act as the council's clerk, whose
compensation was
not to exceed $2,000. The legislative
power and au-
thority of the school district was
vested in the council.
The council could not levy taxes until
the resolution
upon which it had been based was first
submitted to the
tax commissioners of the city. The
business of the
council was to be conducted by
resolution. All resolu-
tions involving purchase, sales,
leasing or transfer of
property, taxes, money payments,
contracts, and text-
books for the schools must first be
certified by the clerk
and presented to the school director
for his approval be-
fore the same could become effective.
If the director
disapproved of the resolution, he was
obliged to return
the same with his objections, before
the next meeting of
the council or before the resolution
became effective.
In case of the rejection of the
resolution by the director,
the council might pass it over his veto
by a two-thirds
vote. The council had the power to
appoint all teachers
and employees, prescribe their duties,
and fix their com-
pensation.
This law further provided for the
biennial election
of a director by the district. He
devoted his entire time
to the duties of his office, for which
he received an an-
nual salary of $5,000. All the powers
of a board of
184
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
education, not invested in the council,
were given to the
director. The director, with the
approval of the council,
appointed a superintendent of
instruction, who was
given an indefinite tenure, subject to
removal for cause
by the director. The superintendent had
sole power to
appoint and discharge all teachers and
assistants whose
employment was authorized by the
council. The su-
perintendent further was required to make
a report
annually or oftener to the director, of
his activities as
superintendent. The auditor of the city
was also the
auditor of the board of education, and
was responsible
for the discharge of all the duties
devolving upon that
office. The provisions of the law were
quite detailed
both as to the duties of the auditor
and to the letting
and making contracts by the board.
Two years later the law was amended to
provide
each member of the council with an
annual salary of
$260, payable monthly. The law further
required that
the council meet every Monday evening
during the
school year, and on every first and
third Monday of
the month during vacation.233
In 1894, city districts of the first
grade of the first
class came under the provisions of the
revised law, which
changed the term of members of the
boards of educa-
tion for those districts from two years
to three years.
The superintendent of public schools
was given the
power to appoint all teachers and
assistants in the city.
The functions of the board remained
practically as they
were under the old law.234 This
class and grade of dis-
233 O. L. L., XCI, 839.
234 O. L., XCI, 289.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 185
trict did not undergo any further
change of importance
prior to 1904.
The wholesale classification of school
districts in
1898235 did not mean a radical change
in the city school
districts. While these divisions were
general in state-
ment, they were in reality local in
character. Cincinnati
was the only city at this time ranked
as a school district
of the first grade of the first class.236
Cleveland remained
a city district of the second grade of
the first class al-
though surpassing Cincinnati in
population. Cleveland
was the only city under this division.237
Toledo ranked
in the third grade of the first class.238 Cities of this
grade and class were governed by a
board of education
consisting of five members, elected at
large in the dis-
trict, and who held office for five
years. The board had
the power to appoint, prescribe the
duties, and fix the
compensation of teachers and employees;
issue all bonds
necessary for school purposes, not to
exceed an aggre-
gate tax rate of two mills; and perform
all other duties
exercised by boards of education of a
district of this
class, which related to libraries and
universities. The
board was required to employ a superintendent
and
business manager at its first meeting
or shortly there-
after. The superintendent performed the
same duties
as were required of that office in city
districts of the
second grade of the first class. The
business manager
was the executive officer of the board
and was ex officio
a member of the board. He devoted his
full time to the
work and had charge of the business
administration of
235 Ibid., XCIII,
165.
236 Ohio School Laws, 1900, p. 20.
237 Ibid., 28.
238 O. L., XCIII,
485.
186
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
the schools under the direction of the
board. The city
treasurer was ex officio treasurer
of the board, for the
performance of which duties he was
entitled to such
compensation as the board might deem
just.
Some variations in the administration
of smaller
cities were in evidence at this time.
East Liverpool
secured special legislation whereby her
board of educa-
tion was made to consist of seven
members who were
elected at large by the district
electorate. They were
divided into two classes of four and
three members
each, elected on alternate years.239
Portsmouth had a
special law which permitted her to
elect three members
of the board at large for the district,
and to have one
additional representative from each
ward.240
It is significant that for almost
twenty-five years
the villages and smaller cities of the
second class re-
mained unchanged in their form of
school district ad-
ministration. The old Akron Law, with
some minor
changes, seems to have fitted the needs
of the small dis-
tricts. In the larger centers, the
legislation for this
period represents much experimentation
and no little
confusion in the attempt to meet
adequately the needs
of the larger city school districts.
In 1904 the Legislature tried to bring
order out of
confusion in the city school situation.
An attempt was
made to draw up a plan of school
government for cities
which would bring an element of
uniformity into the
management of city schools and yet
maintain a degree
of flexibility sufficient to satisfy
the demand of varying
situations. This seems to have been
accomplished in
239 O. L. L., XCIII, 505.
240 Ibid., XCIII, 622.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 187
an admirable fashion. City school
districts were legis-
lated for as a unit. School boards were
made to consist
of from two to seven members, elected
at large, and
from two to thirty members elected from
wards or sub-
districts. City districts of 50,000
population or over
were required to elect at least three
board members at
large. The re-districting of the city
and reorganization
of the school board representation was
made compul-
sory after each federal census. This
law further sug-
gested the method of school board
organization in pro-
viding for the election of a president
of the board and
the selection of a clerk for the board.
Village school
districts were required to elect five
members-at-large
for this board of education. These
board members held
office for four years. The board was
divided into two
classes, of three and four members
each, who were
elected alternately at the biennial
school election. The
law also provided for the customary
school officers.
Beyond these very general regulations,
the individual
city or village was left to work out
such details of or-
ganization as the local needs might
dictate.241 Minor
changes occurred in the number of members
in school
boards allowed for certain types of
cities and villages;
and more rigid demarcation of
population units for cities
became evident toward the close of the
period. In
1908242 the size of the board was
differentiated between
cities under 50,000 and those above
that population
number. A threefold classification of
city school dis-
tricts was made in the general school
reorganization of
1913. The population basis of
demarcation for cities
241 Ohio School Laws, 1904, pp.
19 ff, 28 ff.
242 Ohio Law Supplement, 1908, p.
6,
188
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
recognized under this legislation was:
cities under 50,000
population, cities between 50,000 and
150,000, and those
in excess of 150,000. Attention seemed
to be centered
chiefly on the question of size of
school boards for cities
of these three types.243 Sub-district
representation was
practically abolished in 1919, and the
size of the board
of education reduced.244
School Statistics and Reports
In the discussion throughout this
chapter and suc-
ceeding chapters, recourse has been and
will be made
to the official school reports for
information which con-
tributes to a more complete
understanding of the legis-
lation of this period. It is necessary,
therefore, to un-
derstand the legal requirements which
governed these
reports and the validity of the results
thus attained.
From the beginning of a state system of
schools,
some form of a report of a statistical
nature was asked,
if not required, of local districts. In
1851 the district
clerk was the school official upon whom
this duty im-
mediately rested. It was his duty to
keep a record of
the several schools under his care and
make a report to
the township clerk within twenty days
after the district
meeting. This report was supposed to
contain informa-
tion concerning the activities of the
directors; the num-
ber of schools taught and for what
length of time; the
number of male and female teachers
employed and the
amount of their salaries; the taxes
assessed and for
what purposes; school building and
improvements, and
libraries.245 The district clerk was
further required to
243 0. L., CIII, 275.
244 Ibid., CVIII,
Pt. I, 192.
245 Ibid., XLIX, 27.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 189
make an annual report to the township
clerk of the
number of unmarried resident youth
between the ages
of four and twenty-one years in
the district. In turn
the township clerk was required to file
a copy of this
information with the auditor of the
county.246 The
auditor of the county was compelled,
under penalty of
a fine of fifty dollars to make a
report to the State
School Commissioner of all the
information reported
to his office and incident to his
office concerning the
schools.247 This material
took final form in the office
of the State School Commissioner. The
law required
that he make an annual report to the
General Assembly
concerning the progress of the schools.248
There were
many minor changes in the law regarding
school reports
and their return to the School
Commissioner's office.
One of the most important of these
changes was the
law of 1890 which required other
institutions of an
educational nature in the state that
received state aid to
make annual reports to the School
Commissioner's of-
fice.249
School statistics and reports probably
caused more
trouble than any other phase of school
administration
during this period. Many of the
district and township
officials, especially, were indifferent
to the importance
of this aspect of their school duties.
Furthermore,
many of these officials were too
ignorant to make an
intelligent report. So many reports
failed to reach the
State School Commissioner's office
within reasonable
time, as prescribed by law, that a law
was passed under
246 Ibid., XLIX, 27.
247 Ibid., LXI, 31.
248 Ibid., LI, 429.
249
Ibid., LXXXVII, 193.
190 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
general legislation in 1861 extending
the time within
which these reports might be filed and
the negligent
districts receive their share of the
State school fund.250
With scarcely an exception, every State
School Com-
missioner's report began with a
lamentation on the
shortcomings of the reports filed in
his office and the
absence of many others. The Secretary
of State for
the year 1851 found it necessary to
make the annual
report for that year with the school
data from seven
counties entirely lacking and district
reports missing
in many others. He explains the
situation as follows:
Many of those received (referring to
reports) are, as usual,
quite defective. In some cases no returns whatever are
made for
certain townships; and in other cases,
information is not given on
all the subjects usually reported.
. .
. But the reports from
counties, wherein all the townships seem
to have made returns,
are still not necessarily full, because,
in some cases, the township
is not fully reported.251
Some of the statistical errors due to
ignorance or
indifference were also pointed out in
this report. Cler-
mont county reported an enumeration of
12,607 youth
of school age, while there were 13,345
reported as en-
rolled. The same serious discrepancy
appeared in the
report for Clinton county. There were
7,806 children
of school age according to the
enumeration returns, and
10,712 reported as enrolled in the
schools.252
A casual look at the Auditor's reports
appended in
summary form at the close of each
annual school re-
port reveals how difficult it was for
these officials to
250 Ibid., LVIII,
24.
251 Secretary of State, Annual Report
on the Condition of Common
mon Schools, p. 5.
252 Secretary of State, Annual
Report on the Condition of Common
Schools, p. 5.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 191
secure reports from the districts and
townships. The
situation was so bad that the State
School Commis-
sioner in 1875 felt called upon to
explain the inaccura-
cies of the school data as follows:
It is my duty to say to you that it is
my honest conviction
that a portion of the statistical
information collated in the follow-
ing tables is not so complete nor so
reliable as it should be. It is
the best that can be obtained,--something
more than the happy
guess of the several county auditors of
Ohio. . . . Not a
county of Ohio has made all its returns
to this office entirely cor-
rect. Fifty per cent of the Institute
Fund reports have been re-
turned to the proper county officer for
correction. . . Cer-
tainly seventy-five per cent of the
consolidated reports from
county auditors were materially
incorrect when sent to this office,
and these reports are more nearly comprehensible than
any other
returns sent to the School Department.
One county reported but
seven of its eleven districts; the
report from another county was
completely incomprehensible, and
scarcely correct in any single
feature of information required. One
county reported one hun-
dred and ninety-four per cent of
attendance, and, indeed, several
counties reported a pluperfect
attendance, and many of them have
returned an average daily attendance
greater than the whole num-
ber of pupils enrolled. Inaccuracies in
the financial statements of
the county reports, from thirty-one
thousand dollars down to one
dollar, are frequent.253
Some of these reports are highly
amusing and en-
tertaining even though tragic in the
revelation of the
deplorable school conditions which
existed. The State
School Commissioner in his report for
1884 gave some
examples of the condition in which many
reports reached
him. One township clerk reported an
enrollment of
139 different pupils in the schools,
and an average
monthly enrollment of 173. Another
reported the aver-
age daily attendance of boys 7; girls
9; total 96, and
the percentage of attendance, 14. Two
financial state-
253 State Commissioner of
Common Schools, Twenty-second Annual
Report, p. 5.
192 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society
Publications
ments
are worthy of note. The first shows the total
amount
of receipts as $1,823.27, when the amount
should
have totaled $1,729.27, and the amount of ex-
penditures
as $1,985.80, leaving a balance of $760.54.
The
second report taken from the school reports of
Madison
County will be reproduced in full to show how
absurd
it was:
RECEIPTS
Balance
on hand, September 1, 1883............... $3,515.26
State
tax....................................... 849.00
Irreducible school fund ........................... 57.00
Township tax,
etc ............................... 1,941.84
Total Receipts .............................. $4,192.51
EXPENDITURES
Whole
amount paid teachers ...................... $6,363.10
Amount
paid for fuel, etc ........................
662.50
Total
Expenditures .......................... $4,192.51
Balance
on hand September I, I88424 ..............
$2,170.59
The
facts presented above give us a very clear pic-
ture
of the conditions under which the State School
Commissioners
labored in producing their annual re-
ports.
The reports cannot be taken at their face value.
At
the very best they can but suggest the approximate
statistical
facts concerning the condition of the schools
for
which they have assumed to speak. Further, it must
be
borne in mind that these reports represent our most
authoritative,
and at many points our only available,
source
of information concerning the schools of the
periods
for which they speak. Particularly is this so
where
the legislation gives no indication of popular ex-
254
State Commissioner of Public Schools. Thirty-first
Annual Report,
p. 286
ff.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 193
pression concerning some of the school
problems. It
is with a full recognition of the
inadequacy of the
sources of the materials upon which
Ohio's school his-
tory depends that the following table
is presented, sug-
gestive of the general development and
growth of the
elementary school system from 1850 to
1925. It is, of
course quite necessary to point out
that there has been
a very rapid and wholesome change for
the better within
the past twenty years. We can accept
the statistical
data of the last decade or two with
considerable confi-
dence.
Vol. XXXIX--13.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 195
CHAPTER III
SECONDARY EDUCATION
The middle of the nineteenth century
occupies a
very unique place in the history of
secondary education
in Ohio. Independent academies and
seminaries reached
the peak of their rapid development in
1851. Shortly
thereafter, the influence of the
seminaries and acade-
mies began a steady decline which was
still in progress
seventy-five years later. The publicly-supported sec-
ondary school, or high school, was almost
unknown
prior to the middle of the century.
After the year 1850,
the interest in secondary education
began to center
about the public high school. This
institution developed
with astounding rapidity up to the year
1925, and even
now has not reached the peak of its
growth.
Academies and Seminaries
The earlier secondary schools then,
were independ-
ent academies and seminaries. These
institutions were
not supported by common taxation, but
were dependent
upon the initiative and interest of the
individual parent
or community for their existence and
sustenance. It
was to these schools that the children
had to look for
educational opportunities in advance of
the elementary
grades. The Constitution had made provision for
private groups to organize schools of
secondary rank.1
Beyond this constitutional provision
nothing had been
done by the State to encourage the
growth of secondary
education.
Generally, the academies and seminaries
were or-
ganized and incorporated by stock
companies. For the
1 O. L., I,
3, Art. 8, Sec. 27.
196
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
support of these schools, the stock
companies sold shares
in the corporation, which shares ranged
in price from
five to fifty dollars. The people of
the community who
desired better schools for their
children, as a rule, were
the stockholders in these companies.
The stockholders
elected a board of trustees who managed
the affairs of
the school. Rates and tuition were not
uniform. In
general practice, the amount of the rates
and tuition
was not specified in the articles of
incorporation.2
Charters for these institutions, by
Constitutional pro-
vision, were granted solely by special
act of the Legis-
lature.3 The early lawmakers
did not give much atten-
tion to the capital requisites of stock
companies.
By the provisions of the Act of 1839,
the capital
stock and properties of academies could
not exceed a
total valuation of forty thousand
dollars unless the
right to have a larger capital stock
was specified in the
article of incorporation.4
A law of unusual significance was
passed in 18175
which simplified the procedure for the
incorporation of
academies and institutions of learning.
By the pro-
visons of this law, a special act of
the Legislature was
unnecessary for the incorporation of
academies. Any
group or association of persons that
desired to incorpo-
rate was required to submit a copy of
the articles of
agreement to the "President of the
Court of Common
Pleas" of the circuit in which the
institution was to be
located. After the President of the
Court had approved
of the articles of agreement submitted,
they were sent
2 Miller, E. A., op.
cit., 94.
3 O. L., I, 3, Art. 8, Sec. 27.
4 Ibid., XXXVII, 49.
5 Ibid., XV, 107.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 197
to two judges of the supreme court for
inspection and
approval. If the articles of agreement
were approved
by these judges, they were filed in the
office of the county
in which the organization was located.
The organiza-
tion then became a body corporate.
Apparently the law
did not become operative. Academies and
seminaries
incorporated thereafter continued to
receive legal status
by special act of the Legislature.
In 1852, a rather comprehensive law was
passed to
govern the incorporation, organization
and administra-
tion of secondary schools.6 This
act required that there
should be at least five persons in an
organization that
desired to become a body corporate.
This organiza-
tion could become a body corporate with
perpetual suc-
cession, and could hold all kinds of
estate--real, per-
sonal, or mixed--which it might secure
by purchase,
donation, devise, or otherwise. The
trustees, consisting
of five or more persons, who
constituted the board of
directors, were elected from the
members forming the
corporation. When $500 of real or
personal property
had been acquired, the directors were
authorized to ap-
point a president, faculty, and other
necessary agents;
fix the salaries; determine the course
of study; and
make all necessary rules governing the
institution.
There was considerable freedom granted
in the kind
and amount of property which these
schools might hold.
The stock of the company could be
increased by the
simple procedure of having the
directors sign a certifi-
cate which set forth the amount of
additional stock and
for what purposes the extra stock was
needed. When
this certificate was filed in the
office of the county re-
6 0. L. L, 128.
198
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
corder, the company had a right to
increase its capita.
stock. Action could not be taken,
however, to increase
the capital stock of the company until
two-thirds of the
stockholders had consented to such an
increase, in a
properly called meeting of the
stockholders. This law
further provided that in case of debt,
the individual
stockholders were held liable for twice
the value of the
stock held. If, however, the institution
was not con-
trolled by individual stockholders, the
trustees or di-
rectors of the school were not
permitted to contract
debts; when the trustees or directors
did so, they were
held liable for the full amount of the
debt.
The significant part of this law
attached to the gen-
eral manner in which academies and
seminaries became
incorporated. We have mentioned the
fact that prior to
1852 these institutions received their
incorporation at
the hands of the Legislature through
special charter
enactments for each school. We have
observed that
the law of 1817 was a dead letter on
the statutes. The
law of 1852 provided that upon the
petition of five or
more persons of the county in which the
school was to
be located, the auditor of the county
was required to
appoint three disinterested freeholders
to appraise the
value of the property, estate or
personal, and return a
schedule of the same to him. If the
value of the hold-
ings was found to be sufficient, a
certificate of the fact
was given to the petitioners by the
auditor of the
county. The petitioners were then at
liberty to file
their incorporation papers and become a
legal corpora-
tion. There was an omission here that
apparently was
accidental. Nothing was said as to
where the incorpora-
tion papers from these institutions
were to be filed.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 199
The evident omission concerning the
filing of in-
corporation papers was corrected in an
amendment the
following year. The law provided that
the "certificate
of the facts" given by the auditor
to the petitioners
"shall be entered in a book of
records by them provided
for that purpose, which, together with
their corporate
name and the articles of association,
they shall cause to
be recorded in the recorder's office of
the county where
such institution is, or is intended to
be located, and they
shall thenceforward be a body corporate
and politic, ac-
cording to the provisions of this
act."7 This law made
incorporation of academies a local
county matter. There-
after, all private secondary schools
secured their in-
corporation under these laws or laws
similar in char-
acter. The last record we have of the
chartering of
secondary schools under the old
constitutional provision
was found in the legislation of 1851,
when ten schools
were chartered by special legislative
enactment.8 The
act of 1853 further required that the
total assets of the
corporation should amount to at least
$5,000 instead
of $500 before the school could open
for instruction.9
A law to govern specially endowed
schools and acad-
emies was passed in 1856.10 This
law provided that the
Court of Common Pleas should appoint
the five trustees
of the school. The trustees were to
hold office for a
term of five years, with the right of
perpetual succes-
sion. They were required to elect a
president, secre-
tary, and treasurer from among their
number. Fur-
ther, on the first Monday of September
of each year
7 O.
L., LI, 403.
8 Ibid., XLIX, See Index.
9 Ibid., LI, 393.
10 Ibid., LIII, 33.
200
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
the trustees were required to make a
full report of the
condition of the school or academy and
of the trust
estate to the Court. In general, these
trustees exer-
cised the same powers and performed the
same duties
as were required of the trustees of the
ordinary second-
ary school by the law of 1852.
In 1856, the question of income for
secondary
schools again came to the attention of
the Legislature.
Under the limitations of the former
laws, secondary
schools found expansion almost
impossible. The Leg-
islature corrected this evil by
permitting the total yearly
income of these schools to reach
$25,000.11 This re-
striction was removed entirely in 1893,
and incorporated
schools which were supported by
donations, devise, gift,
purchase, or gratuitous subscription,
were permitted to
hold property in unlimited amount.12
A general act passed in 1856 made it
possible for
private secondary schools to advance to
the rank of col-
leges and to confer the degrees of a
college. When
the reorganization of an academy,
seminary, or college
took place, the law required that the
papers of reorgan-
ization must be filed with the Secretary
of State before
the regulations of the new organization
could become
effective.13 This is our
first hint of a new phase of in-
corporation procedure for private
institutions of learn-
ing.
In 1872,14 an amendment to the act of
186915 was
passed, which made it necessary for all
secondary
11 Ibid., LIII, 170.
12 Ibid., XC, 71.
13 Ibid., LIII, 116.
14 Ibid., LXIX,
63.
15 Ibid., LXVI,
347.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 201
schools to file their incorporation
papers with the Sec-
retary of State. The law provided that
all schools
which were incorporated by special
enactment and whose
capital stock was not divided into
shares, might re-
incorporate with perpetual succession
by means of a
resolution entered upon the minutes of
a regular or
called meeting of the trustees for such
purpose. The
law required that a copy of these
minutes, duly signed
by the president and secretary of the
board of trustees
and authenticated by the corporation's
seal, should be
filed with the Secretary of State.
There appeared in the
Revised Statutes for 1880, a general
law which con-
ferred the privileges of corporations
upon institutions of
learning, incorporated for the purpose
of promoting
education, when such institutions had
property valued
at $5,000 and had filed a certificate
of incorporation
and a schedule of the property with the
Secretary of
State.16 From the year 1880
until 1925 all legislation
relating to the incorporation of
secondary schools pro-
vided for the incorporation of these
institutions through
the office of the Secretary of State.
In 1908 the amount
of capital necessary for incorporation was
increased
from $5,000 to $25,000. The intent of
the law was to
safeguard particularly institutions of
higher learning
although the law applied also to
private secondary
schools.17 A law was passed
in 1873, which permitted
colleges that were not supported by
voluntary contribu-
tion to change their locations and
maintain academies
as auxiliary institutions.18
The state-supported schools
16 O. R. S., 1880, I, 947.
17 O. L., XCIX, 262.
18 Ibid., LXX, 248.
202 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications
and a very few others could qualify
under this law. It
was not until 1876 that a law was
passed which required
private institutions to file annual
reports with the State
School Commissioner.19 Prior
to 1876 it was almost
an impossible task to learn what was
happening in the
field of private secondary education.
The annual school
reports thereafter revealed an
astonishing indifference
to the law. The State School
Commissioner had no ef-
fective way of forcing compliance with
the law. His
annual report for 1900 indicated that
only eighteen
academies were in existence. Twelve preparatory
schools were listed in the report. Some
of these were
shown to be auxiliaries of different
colleges and uni-
versities.20 One of the last
Ohio School Reports to in-
clude statistical information on this
subject is that by
J. W. Zeller, 1909, who reports but ten
private secondary
schools. Either the number had
decreased or many
failed to report.21
The influence of religious forces upon
private sec-
ondary education from 1850 to 1925 is
difficult to cal-
culate. Religious influences did not
play a very large
part in the domination of secondary
institutions of the
first half-century of Ohio's state history.22
It is more
difficult to determine the influences
which affected the
secondary private schools after 1852. A
canvass of the
charters of these schools would be
almost a necessity in
19 Ibid., LXXIII, 225.
20 State Commissioner of Common Schools,
Forty-seventh Annual
Report, pp. 288, 290.
21 Ibid., Fifty-sixth Annual
Report, p. 352.
Miller, E. A., op. cit., p. 102.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 203
order to discover whether religious
organizations were
responsible for the establishment of
any appreciable
number of them. Even that method would
yield but a
rough estimate. Since incorporation
became a county
matter after 1852, and later a detail
of the office of the
Secretary of State, such records would
be very difficult
to secure. At least fifty per cent of
the preparatory
schools and forty per cent of the academies
recorded in
the State School Commissioner's report
for 1900 were
under denominational influence.23
The curricula of these schools cannot
be definitely
determined. There was nothing in the
legislation of the
period which suggested the course of study
to be pur-
sued in private secondary schools. Some inferences
only are possible. Schools of the type
shown in the
school report for 1900 and 1909 were in
the nature of
college preparatory schools. Those
connected with
colleges or universities were avowedly
preparatory
schools in character. Their curricula
were made up
principally of the classical subjects.
Some of the acade-
mies were special technical schools of
secondary grade.
The Technical School of Cincinnati was
an academy of
this character.24 Other
independent academies, not
technical in character, were no doubt
classical both in
the type of subjects offered and in the
emphasis placed
upon the curricula; for it has been the
aim of most of
the private secondary schools to
prepare their students
to meet the general college entrance
requirements.
23 Ibid., op. cit., pp. 288, 290.
24 State Commissioner of Common Schools,
Forty-seventh Annual
Report, pp. 288, 290.
204
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
The Public High School
The story of the development of the
tax-supported,
free public high school in Ohio belongs
particularly to
the seventy-five-year period, 1851 to
1925. Its numeri-
cal growth has been most rapid since
1900. At the be-
ginning of the year 1851, Ohio had no
general law con-
cerning tax-supported, free secondary
schools. A few
of the more forward-looking communities
had under-
taken the establishment of high schools
by special legis-
lative action. The earliest high school
of this nature
was chartered in Elyria, February 22,
1830.25 The next
year the Woodward High School of
Cincinnati was in-
corporated.26 Between the time of the founding of the
Elyria high school and the year 1851,
only fourteen high
schools had been established in Ohio.27
Anson Smyth
declared that of the high schools there
were "not more
than twenty when our general school law
was enacted
in 1853."28 The
sentiment in favor of high schools
steadily gathered momentum from that
time forward.
Ohio's first general law which provided
for the es-
tablishment of high schools, passed
March 14, 1853,
was permissive in character. By the
terms of this law,
boards of education were authorized to
establish schools
of higher grade than primary, which
schools were to be
"known by the appellation of
central or high schools."29
More than one of these schools could be
established
where the school boards deemed them
necessary. When
25 O. L. L., XXVIII, 116.
26 Ibid., XXIX, 43.
27 Miller, E. A., op. cit., p. 96.
28 State Commissioner of Common Schools,
Seventh Annual Report,
p. 5.
29 O. L., LI, 429.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 205
the Board of Education had decided upon
the need of
one or more high schools, the voters of
the township
were authorized to vote upon the
question of the cost
and location of the schools. The
legislation concerning
high schools was very meager. The law
of 1853 gave
considerable latitude in the
organization and manage-
ment of high schools. A school higher
than the primary
grade might not involve more than the
work of the or-
dinary grammar division, yet under the
meaning of the
act it was to be classified as a high
school. We shall see
later that this very frequently was
exactly what oc-
curred.
Ohio's legislation concerning the high
schools for this
general period is not commensurate with
the growth or
importance of these schools. After
1853, the Legisla-
ture was silent for six years upon the
subject of high
schools. A minor amendment to the law
of 1853 was
passed in 1859, which provided that
incorporated vil-
lages might cooperate with the township
within which
they were wholly or in part located, in
the establish-
ment of a high school within the
township. The elec-
tors of both township and village were
to vote upon the
question, and a majority vote of each
group was neces-
sary before such a school could be
established. If the
vote was favorable, the two boards of
education were
required to settle between them the
question as to which
board would have jurisdiction over the
school.30 Ten
years later, another amendment to the
law was passed,
which provided that the question of
establishing high
schools must be settled by a majority
vote of the elec-
tors, at a special meeting called by
the board of educa-
30 Ibid., LVI, 6.
206
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
tion of the township for that purpose.
If the voters
favored the school, they were required
at the same
meeting to decide upon the location of
the building, its
cost, the amount of tax to be levied,
and the number and
size of the bonds to be issued, as well
as the time of
payment of the bonds. The board was
then authorized
to certify to the county auditor the
annual tax levy.
The board was authorized to borrow money
in anticipa-
tion of the tax incomes and to issue
bonds.31
Almost fifteen years more were to
elapse before
further legislation for the welfare of
the high schools
was enacted. In the meantime, however,
the high school
movement had been advancing at a rapid
pace. From
only fourteen high school in 1850, the
number had so
increased that by the year 1880 there
were 567, with a
teaching staff of 698 teachers, and an
enrollment of
30,111 pupils. The trend of the high
school develop-
ment was significant, especially since
the legislation at
the time seemed to have centered about
the township.
The figures given above, when further
analyzed, reveal
only 13 high school buildings in the
township districts,
while there were 85 in the separate
districts. The
township high schools had 29 teachers
while the separate
districts claimed 669 teachers on their
high school
staffs.32
The legislation of 188233 made one
minor amend-
ment to the existing law. The amendment
provided
that whenever a high school had been
established, it
could not be discontinued without a
vote of three-fourths
31 Ibid., LXV, 197.
32 State Commissioner of Common Schools,
Twenty-seventh Annual
Report, pp. 13 ff., 177 ff.
33 O. L., LXXIX, 37.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 207
of the members of the board of
education concerned,
nor within three years of its
establishment. This act
was followed in 188534 by a more
comprehensive law
which gave to townships having a
village or special dis-
trict within their limits, the power to
create a special
high school district by uniting the
township and village
with the special district, or by
uniting any two of the
above districts. Ten days before any
general township
election, ten or more electors were
authorized to serve
general notice that such a proposition
would be sub-
mitted to a vote of the people at the
coming election.
If a majority of the ballots in each of
the districts fa-
vored the creation of a special high
school district, the
results of the election were certified
to the Court of
Common Pleas of that county. The court
appointed the
first board of education from electors
of the township.
Thereafter, the district elected one
member of the board
annually, whose term of office was for
three years. The
high school boards of education were
clothed with the
same powers as were conferred upon
other boards of
education. A law was passed in 1891 which
gave to
township boards of education full
authority over high
schools organized within the township.
The boards of
education were to provide the teachers,
to build and
repair school buildings and to
determine tax levies
which were not to exceed ten mills for
all school pur-
poses. It was the further duty of the
board of educa-
tion to certify the tax levy to the
auditor of the county,
annually.35
A law of considerable importance was
passed in
1894 which gave to counties containing
cities of the
34 Ibid., LXXXII, 128.
35 Ibid., LXXXVIII, 484.
208 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications
first class the right to send the
children of the county,
who lived outside of the city limits,
to the city high
schools on the same tuition basis as
the children of the
city.36 The board of
education of the city was required
to estimate the additional revenue
needed for the city
high schools under this act, and to
certify the same to
the commissioners of the proper county.
This law was
passed for the particular benefit of
the people of the
county of which the city of Cincinnati
was a part.
During the late 'nineties, the Ohio
school system was
the object of some very drastic
legislation. The high
school was the center of two very
important legislative
enactments. The first of these was
passed in 1898.37
This law emphasized the possible union
of two town-
ships or districts for high school
purposes. It provided
that upon the petition of twenty
electors, the township
boards of education must submit the question
of a union
high school to the vote of each
township. In the event
of a favorable vote, the control of the
joint high school
was given to the township or district
in which the build-
ing was or would be located. The school
was supported
by a tax upon all the property included
in the districts
thus uniting. The law provided that the
electors in such
a joint township district should vote
on the question of
where the school should be established,
the kind of build-
ing to be erected, the amount and
method of raising the
funds for the establishment of the
school, and the
amount of the tax levy for its general
support. The
board was authorized to hire the school
superintendent
and his assistants. Where such schools
were estab-
lished, the boards were required to see
that the elemen-
36 Ibid., XCI, 552.
37 Ibid., XCIII, 281.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 209
trary branches were not neglected; and
in addition, they
were to provide for instruction in
Natural Philosophy,
Algebra, Bookkeeping, and Physical
Geography. Joint
township high school districts were
amenable to the
general laws which governed joint
sub-districts. The
law of 190038 centered chiefly about
the centralization
of schools in townships. This law
provided that where
such centralization took place, a high
school course of
study of at least two years might be
added. Successful
entrants in the county examinations in
the elementary
school subjects were permitted to
attend any village or
city high school in the county, and
have their tuition
paid by the board of education of the
district in which
they lived.
The legislation of 190439 eliminated
the provision
that a petition signed by twenty
electors was required to
authorize the board of education to
submit the question
of a union high school to the vote of
each township.
The new provision gave the boards
concerned power to
act when a high school was favored by a
two-thirds vote
of each of said boards. However, should
it be neces-
sary to erect a new building to house
the high school,
the proposition to levy additional
taxes for the pur-
pose had to be submitted to the
electors of each town-
ship. If sufficient funds were on hand
in the school
treasuries, the boards had full power
to act. Complete
control of the high school so created
rested with the
board of education of the township in
which the build-
ing was located. In 1908 the control of
joint high
schools was placed in the hands of a
committee com-
38 Ibid., XCIV, 317.
39 Ibid., XCVII, 359.
Vol. XXXIX--14.
210
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
posed of two members from each of the
districts can-
cerned.40 The same law gave
boards of education in-
volved in township or joint township
high schools the
right to levy not to exceed five mills
for the support of
these schools. When the problem of
joint township
high schools was not in question, the
boards of educa-
tion were given authority to establish
high schools when
in their judgment such schools were necessary
or de-
sirable.41 When in 1913 the extension
of the high
school idea was made possible,
authorization was given
the boards of education of adjoining
rural districts, or
rural and village districts, by
majority vote of each
board concerned to unite such districts
for high school
purposes.42 The final step which made
necessary the es-
tablishment of a system of high schools
comparable to
that of the elementary school was the
passage of the
Bing Law in 1921.43
The curriculum of the high school
throughout this
seventy-five year period steadily
expanded although it
remained ill-defined to the close of
the nineteenth cen-
tury. The law of 1853 provided, as we
have seen, for
a school higher than the primary grade.44
At this time
the primary grade curriculum and the
grammar grade
curriculum had not been defined. In the
previous chap-
ter some inferences were drawn as to
the scope of the
curriculum of the elementary school
prior to the pas-
sage of the "compulsory attendance
act," which speci-
fied the rudiments of an elementary
school curriculum.
40 Ibid., XCIX, 462.
41 Ibid., XCV, 117.
42 Ibid., CIV,
225.
43 Ibid., CIX, 379. For further discussion of
this phase of the subject
see pages 66 ff, where the Bing Law is
considered in detail.
44 Ibid., LI, 429.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 211
From the State School Commissioner's
report for 185145
it would seem that the high school
curriculum at that
date included in the range of its
subject matter: United
States History, Physiology, Philosophy,
Algebra, Chem-
istry, Geology, Astronomy, Analysis,
Bookkeeping,
Botany, Drawing, Mapping, General
History, Latin,
and French. In the light of later
specifications of cur-
riculum materials, it seems altogether
probable that
some of these subjects, such as, United
States History
and Physiology, were on the border line
and frequently
found a place in the curricula of both
the elementary
and high schools. It would appear that
many so-called
high schools of the first half of the
period offered many
of the subjects now taught exclusively
in the elementary
schools. As late as the year 1890, the
State School Com-
missioner gave evidence of this state
of affairs in his
annual report:
A high school is a somewhat indefinite
quantity in Ohio.
From the subjects taught in some of our
township and village high
schools, which, in addition to the
common branches, include only
physical geography and the elements of
algebra and physics, up to
the curricula of the best of our city
high schools, in which the
aggregate of scholarship for graduation
is greater than was re-
quired for graduation from our best
colleges seventy-five years
ago, the range is pretty wide.46
Corroboration of the conclusions drawn
as to the
subject-matter of the high school
curriculum was found
in the State School Commissioner's
report for 1885.
In his report, he gave the number of
high school stu-
dents enrolled in various branches of
study. The
subject-matter offered was almost
identical with the sub-
45 State
School Commissioner's Annual Report, 1851, p. 55.
46 State Commissioner of Common Schools,
Thirty-seventh Annual
Report, p. 173.
212 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications
jects listed above as those which
constituted the high
school curriculum of 1851.47
The indication of what subjects should
constitute the
rudiments of an elementary education,
as outlined in
the compulsory school law of 1889,48
make it possible
to exclude the subjects there
enumerated as rightfully
belonging to the curriculum of any
school of higher
grade. The numerous laws that provided
for examin-
ing boards and for the subjects which
must be success-
fully passed by the aspirant for the
elementary school
diploma, were steps which indirectly
gave lower limits
to the high schools curriculum. The law
of 189849 was
the only law of this period that
mentioned specifically
any of the subjects that high schools
were required to
offer. The law specified that the
elementary branches
were not to be neglected where township
high schools
were established; but in addition to
the subjects of the
elementary grade, instruction was to be
offered in
Natural Philosophy, Algebra,
Bookkeeping, and Physi-
cal Geography. These four subjects made
up the rudi-
ments of a required high school course.
The question
of what other subjects might be
included to make up
the full two- or four-years curriculum,
was left entirely
to the demands of the local situation.
The lack of an adequate curriculum
policy was due
to the lack of a definition of what
constituted a high
school. Any definition of a high school
which would be
at all adequate must concern itself
primarily with a
statement of the division of the
curriculum. With the
increased attention given to the
subject-matter of the
47 Ibid., Thirty-second Annual Report, p. 173.
48 O. L., LXXXVI, 333.
49 Ibid., XCIII, 281.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 213
elementary school from 1889 to 1900, the necessity for
a determination of the curriculum division between the
high school and the lower grades became
imperative.
The plight in which the schools found
themselves is
voiced by Lewis D. Bonebrake in 1899:
It seems strange that our lawmakers
have never seen fit to
define what is meant by the term, "the high
school," or to authorize
some one to do it for them. All through
the law there are such
phrases as "schools of higher
grade," "schools of higher grade
than primary," "high school
purposes," . . .
and other like
expressions. No definition of high
school anywhere exists in our
statutes, and no one is apparently
commissioned to formulate a
definition thereof.
Great diversity of practice exists as
to high school curricula.
There are high schools, so-called,
having arithmetic, grammar,
reading, United States history, and
other elementary branches as
a part of their courses of study, and
scarcely any branches above
elementary algebra, civil government,
physical geography and
physiology. There are others where a
large range of studies is
covered,--a range so large that it
admits justly the criticism of
overcrowded curricula. One-year high
schools, two-year, three-
year, and four-year high schools are
said to obtain
As it is at present, the commissioner
can do little else than record
the statistics as returned, calling all
"high schools" that so style
themselves.50
This was the status of the high school
and its cur-
riculum at the close of the year 1900.
The agitation that arose at this time
could not long
delay new legislation which would give
a definition of
the high school in terms of its
curriculum. In the legis-
lation of 1902, the high school
received such a defini-
tion.
The high school was defined as "a school of
higher grade than an elementary school,
where instruc-
tion should be given in approved courses
in: the history
of the United States and other
countries, Composition,
50 State Commissioner of Common Schools,
Forty-sixth Annual Report,
p. 9.
214
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
Rhetoric, English and American
Literature, Algebra,
Geometry, Natural Science, Political or
Mental Science,
ancient or modern foreign language, or
both, commer-
cial and industrial branches, and such
other branches
of higher grade than those to be taught
in the elemen-
tary schools, and such advanced studies
and advanced
reviews of the common branches, as the
board of edu-
cation may direct.51 The
Legislature was not inclined
to be vague in defining the high
school. They carried
the definition a step further and
defined three grades
of high schools which would receive
legal recognition,
namely: high schools of the first,
second and third
grades.52 These three grades
were not allowed to offer
courses other than those enumerated
above. The first
grade high schools must:
1 -- Offer a course of study covering a
period of
four years,
2 -- Continue the school session for at
least 32
weeks each year,
3 -- Require the completion of 16
courses for grad-
uation.
The second grade high school was held
to the same
length of school year but covered only
a period of three
years and required the completion of 12
courses for
graduation. The third grade high school
was required
to continue its sessions for only 28
weeks out of the
year, offer a course of study extending
over at least
two years, and demand the completion of
at least 8
courses for graduation. In all cases
the courses cred-
51 O. L., XCV, 145.
52 These three grades remained
essentially unchanged to the close of
the period.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 215
ited toward graduation were completed
on the basis of
four recitations per subject per week
for the full ses-
sion of the school year. All schools
which failed to
reach the standard which clearly
defined a third grade
high school, were to be known as
elementary schools.
The Legislature found it more difficult
to delimit the
high school curriculum by definition on
the higher level.
It attempted to do so by defining what
should be
legally considered a college. Under the
terms of the
definition, a college was an
institution of a higher grade
than a high school, offering
instruction which carried
the branches of the high school beyond
the scope of
those schools, and included other
advanced subjects in
its curriculum. The college might be a
school in which
professional, special or technical
studies were pursued.
One of the distinctive features of the
college was its
right to confer academic degrees.53
Features were added to the law to make
the defini-
tion and classification of the high
school effective in the
curriculum requirements. The clerk of
the board of
education, of each district in which
there was main-
tained a school of high school grade,
was required to
furnish the State Commissioner of
Schools with de-
tailed and accurate information
concerning the time
required for the completion of the high
school course,
subjects offered, and any other
information which the
Commissioner might demand. In case of
neglect or
refusal to furnish this information,
the school could
not be maintained as a high school and
its work would
not be recognized in the State. The
State School Com-
missioner was also empowered to
determine the grade
53 O . L., XCV, 115.
216
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
of the high schools, after an
inspection had been made.
He was authorized to withhold his
approval of any
curriculum which did not meet legal
requirements, or
the standards of which had been
modified after approval
had been given by him.54 To
assist the Commissioner
of Schools in the maintenance of
effective standards of
high school classification, the
Legislature in 1909 au-
thorized the Commissioner to appoint
"two competent
inspectors."55 These
inspectors were under the direct
supervision of the Commissioner of
Education and were
to devote their entire time to the
inspection of high
schools. Further legislation in this
direction served only
to increase the rigidity of the
standards imposed.56
The subsequent expansion of work of the
high
school can be traced through three
lines of legislative
enactment. The first is shown by the
increased subjects
assigned to the high school and through
the language
employed. The list of subjects
suggested for 1902 has
been given. In addition thereto the
Legislature of 1909
suggested that boards of education were
authorized to
maintain Manual Training, Domestic
Science, and Com-
mercial departments; and support
Agricultural, Voca-
tional and Trade Schools.57 The
varied types of course
offered incidental to this curriculum
and school expan-
sion is suggested in the wording of the
law of 1914,
which refers to "the high school
curriculum or curric-
ulums, the courses of instruction
offered therein."58
The second phase of the expanding high
school is
54 Ibid., XCV, 117; CIV, 225.
55 R. S., Sec. 40294a.
56 O. L., CIV, 173, 225.
57 Ibid., C, 17.
58 Ibid., CIV, 104.
History of Educational Legislation,
1851 to 1925 217
seen in the provision for the Junior
High School. The
law was very specific in its definition
of the grade limits
of the new organization. The elementary
school thence-
forth was to consist of the first six
grades. Grades
seven, eight and nine were organized
into the Junior
High School; while grades ten, eleven
and twelve be-
came the Senior High School.59
The third direction which high school
expansion
took was that of introducing a Normal
department in
first grade high schools.60 The
law was very explicit as
to the type of instructors for this
department, the length
of time that should be devoted to
pedagogical subjects,
instructors' salaries, housing, and
provision for ade-
quate practice-teaching facilities.
Later this plan un-
derwent modification in the direction
of a more con-
servative policy to insure a higher
quality of work. The
legislative acts of 191961 and 192162
limited the Normal
school to a county institution and
permitted but one such
school to each county.
SUMMARY
At the close of the year 1925, there
had been devel-
oped in Ohio a well-defined and
elaborate system of
state high schools. Following the
passage of the first
general law in 1853, high school
legislation was confined
to the details of district organization
and support. The
early legislation was at all times
permissive in character.
No serious attempt had been made to
define the true
meaning of a high school or the exact
nature of its work.
The high school as an institution
remained a somewhat
59 Ibid., CVII, 624.
60 Ibid., CIV,
155.
60 Ibid., CVIII, Pt. I, 233.
62 Ibid., CIX,
591.
218 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
indefinite and an elusive thing until
the legislation of
1902 gave it definition and limitation
of scope. The con-
tinued legislative endeavor to
definitize and expand the
work of the public high school received
its final and most
complete expression for the period in
the Bing Law of
1921.63
Although practically neglected in its
infancy, the
high school made rapid progress. It
literally grew up
out of the necessities of the situation.
From fourteen
small high schools in 1850, the number
reached 836 in
1900, 1,475 in 1920, and 1,275 in 1925
(The apparent
decrease in the number of schools
listed in 1925, in all
probability, is due to the tendency to
centralize and con-
solidate, as the figures below indicate
decided increases
in teachers and students for this
period); and from a
comparatively few students in 1850, the
number attend-
ing high schools in 1900 reached
56,952; in 1920
jumped to 128,538; and in 1925 totaled
210,169. The
number of teachers in the high schools
showed a similar
increase. In 1900 there were 1,884 high
school teachers;
in 1920 approximately 5,987; and 8,894
in 1925.*
63 This law has been discussed in some
fullness in chapter II, pages
66 ff.
* The data from the Annual Report of
the State Superintendent for
1925 is not clear on this point. On page
7 the number of teachers in high
school is given at 8,894. In a more
complete analysis of the high school
situation given on page 21 of the same Report
the total number of teachers
employed in the high school is given at
13,921. Many superintendents and
principals in the smaller school were
included in this number. The analysis
is given as follows under the caption
"Report on High Schools," "There
were 4,656 teachers in city schools, 371
teachers in exempted village schools,
and 8,894 teachers in county
schools." Note too that the data from page 7,
referred to above, corresponds with the
number given in county schools
on page 21. It would seem entirely legitimate
to include many small school
principals and superintendents among
high school teachers as a large num-
ber of them carry a teaching load little
short of the regular teachers.
History of Educational Legislation, 1851 to 1925 219 The property valuation for these schools totaled over five and a quarter millions of dollars in 1900, and ap- proximately thirty millions of dollars in 1920. The Annual Report of the State Superintendent for 1925 does not give the property valuation for high schools of that date. Other significant advances for the period had been made which were not so easily measured by statis- tics. The quantity and quality of work both offered and done in the high schools represented one of the chief elements of educational progress during the years from 1851 to 1925. |
|
THE HISTORY OF EDUCATIONAL LEGISLA-
TION IN OHIO FROM 1851 TO 1925
BY NELSON L. BOSSING, PH.D.
CHAPTER I
INFLUENCES AFFECTING EDUCATIONAL
LEGISLATION IN OHIO FROM
1851 TO 1925
The history of education in Ohio from
1851 to 1925
cannot be fully understood without a
knowledge of
those economic, social and political
factors, both con-
temporary and past, which determined
the trend of
educational movements within the state.
It is equally
important that the educational progress
of the state
prior to 1851 should be thoroughly
understood, since
much of the school legislation from
1851 to 1925 found
its originin the educational activity
of the preceding
fifty years.
Ohio became a state in 1803 as a result
of the open-
ing up of the Northwest Territory for
settlement. The
Northwest Territory embraced that vast
unsettled por-
tion of the country which lay west of
Pennsylvania, be-
tween the Ohio River on the south, the
Great Lakes
and the British Possessions on the
north, and the
Mississippi River on the west.
Virginia, Connecti-
cut, New York and Massachusetts
asserted their title
to much of this region by virtue of
charters, grants, and
purchases. Congress, in September 1780,
took steps
to open the Northwest Territory for
settlement. A
month later Congress adopted a
resolution which de-
(78)