RONALD M. JOHNSON
Politics and Pedagogy:
The 1892 Cleveland
School Reform
On May 25, 1892, a large crowd gathered
at Cleveland's Stillman Hotel. The oc-
casion was the announcement of Andrew S.
Draper as the city's new school super-
intendent. The assembled group listened
attentively as H. Q. Sargent, the school
director, introduced Draper, a prominent
New York educator. Sargent dwelt
momentarily on the recently reformed
school system, which had led to the creation
of his own office. Draper followed with
a brief statement. He praised Cleveland-
ers for a "unique plan" of
school administration. He urged all "to act in harmony
to the end that the desired results may
be attained," promising that in "attempt-
ing the reorganization I will do the
right, with malice toward none."' Many early
advocates of the reorganization,
including Edwin J. Blandin, a former municipal
judge, were at the Stillman that day. In
1887, Blandin had first called for school
reform. He was ready to witness the
fruition of his original effort.2
The story of the Cleveland school reform
is significant for a variety of reasons.
The event is illustrative of Cleveland
history between 1870 and 1900. During that
period, the city expanded at an accelerated
pace, growing in population from
92,829 to 381,768. Once a secondary
Great Lakes commercial terminus, the city
became a major manufacturing center. The
social consequences of this change
were enormous. Even as members of
founding Connecticut families formed the
Early Settlers' Association, an
urban-industrial society emerged that contained
great wealth and extreme poverty. The
contrast was evident in John D. Rocke-
feller's mansion on 40th Street and
Euclid Avenue and the dilapidated shanties
of laborers in the industrial
"flats" along the Cuyahoga River. In this setting, a
new political order unfolded. Politics
revolved around a clash between the
business-dominated Republican party and
an increasingly immigrant-oriented
Democratic organization. The latter
slowly gained new strength from spreading
working-class neighborhoods. By the
early 1890s, the Republican hold on city
government was threatened as Democratic
ward organizations increased in num-
ber and influence.3
1. Cleveland Leader, May 26, 1892.
2. For an early assessment of the
reform, see Samual P. Orth, "The Cleveland Plan of School Ad-
ministration," Political Science
Quarterly, XIX (1904), 402-416.
3. The political history of Cleveland
for this period is discussed most fully in James B. Whipple,
"Cleveland in Conflict: A Study in
Urban Adolescence, 1876-1900" (unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Western Reserve University, 1951),
337-349. A later phase of political development has been covered
by Thomas Campbell, "Background for
Progressivism: Machine Politics in the Administration of
Robert E. McKisson, Mayor of Cleveland,
1895-1899" (unpublished thesis, Western Reserve Uni-
versity, 1960). Additional analysis of
Cleveland politics can be gleaned from Samuel P. Orth, A His-
tory of Cleveland, 3 vols. (Cleveland, 1910), and Philip D. Jordan, Ohio Comes of Age,
1873-1900
(Columbus, 1943).
Dr. Johnson is Assistant Professor of
History at Georgetown University.
Cleveland School Reform 197
The 1892 school reform occurred as part
of this sustained political battle. The
close relationship between municipal
politics and school reform has often been
overlooked or deemphasized. Urban
historians have stressed mayoralty races,
councilmanic elections, and party
organization; educators, the role of professional
schoolmen, institutional bureaucracy,
and pedagogical theory.4 Too few studies
link these historical developments
together. The 1892 Cleveland school reform
offers such an opportunity. Both its
origins and the Draper superintendency re-
veal the intermingling of political and
pedagogical concerns.5
Public school enthusiasts throughout the
nation praised the Cleveland school
reorganization. In June of 1892, Joseph
M. Rice, an early muckraking journalist,
wrote a series of articles for The
Forum on conditions in urban school systems.
He depicted most as creatures of
political interference and inefficient manage-
ment. Rice alluded hopefully to
Cleveland. He saw the recent reform as a new
breakthrough to improve the schools.6
Three years later, the National Educa-
tional Association endorsed an urban
school plan based largely on the Cleveland
system. In 1897, St. Louis reorganized
its schools under the direct influence of the
Cleveland experiment. By the turn of the
century, urban reformers in New York,
Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, and San
Francisco had looked carefully at Cleve-
land in restructuring their own school
systems.
From the beginning, public education had
reflected the growth of the city.
Schools existed in early Cleveland, but
not until 1837 did the city council estab-
lish the first system of public
education. The first two decades involved steady but
manageable growth.7 A
three-member school committee initially governed the
schools. In 1849, a state law passed
which required Cleveland to have a six-man
school board and a school
superintendent. For almost a quarter century, this sys-
tem was followed. In 1873, the Ohio
legislature again altered the Cleveland school
system. The state stipulated that two
representatives from each ward in the city
had to serve on the school board, a step
taken to encourage greater popular rep-
resentation. When this policy led to
constantly enlarging school boards, the Ohio
Assembly, a decade later, limited school
boards to twenty members in Cleveland
and Cincinnati, the two cities affected
by the earlier legislation.8
After the Civil War, Cleveland's rapid
influx of population resulted in larger
numbers of school-age children. By 1880,
the city contained 49,256 such children,
a number that grew to 64,550 seven years
later for a thirty-one per cent increase.
Student enrollment rose only
twenty-seven per cent for that same period, up to
33,150 from 24,262. Between 1887 and
1891, the gap widened. The number of
potential students rose to 80,745, up
twenty-five per cent but enrollments showed
4. Many of the best monographs on the
history of urban education, such as Michael B. Katz,
Class, Bureaucracy and Schools (New York,
1971), still deal essentially with professional schoolmen.
Sol Cohen, Progressives and Urban School Reform (New York, 1964), is a solid example of educa-
tional history placed in a broader
context. Another is David B. Tyack, The One Best System (Cam-
bridge, 1974), but his primary concern
is with administrative structure and pedagogical developments.
5. Two important articles which
represent fresh efforts to see educational history as part of a lar-
ger process are Samuel P. Hays,
"The Politics of Reform in Municipal Government in the Progressive
Era," Pacific Northwest
Quarterly, LV (October 1964), 157-169 and Robert H. Wiebe, "The Social
Function of Public Education," American
Quarterly, XXI (Summer 1969), 147-164.
6. Joseph M. Rice, "Our Public
School System: A Summary," The Forum, XV (June 1892), 512.
7. Orth, History of Cleveland, I, 522-524. For a fuller coverage of this period, see
William J. Akers,
Cleveland Schools in the Nineteenth Century (Cleveland, 1901).
8. Nelson L. Bossing, "The History
of Educational Legislation in Ohio from 1851 to 1925," Ohio
Archaeological and Historical
Quarterly, XXXIX (1930), 180-182.
198
OHIO HISTORY
only 38,314, or a thirteen per cent
expansion over four years earlier.9
At the same time, enrolled children
faced overcrowded classrooms and under-
staffed facilities. Old school
buildings, suffering from long use, and the few struc-
tures built since the Civil War no
longer could handle the numbers coming into
the schools. The instructional staff,
even with annual additions from Cleveland
Normal School, were overworked. In
addition, increasing numbers of teachers
gained positions without basic
pedagogical training. These appointments resulted
from ward representatives intervening on
their behalf before the school board.
Administratively, these conditions
caused a series of turnovers, specifically in the
superintendency. In the past, strong
personalities, such as Harvey Rice and An-
drew S. Rickoff, had held the post. In
1882, Burke A. Hinsdale, a highly respected
Michigan educator, assumed the office. The
school board hoped that he, as an
experienced individual, might restore
the schools to take their earlier stability.
In 1886, his sudden departure raised new
questions about the schools. These
doubts did not dissipate when Cleveland
school supervisor, L. W. Day, succeeded
Hinsdale. An Ohio-born schoolman, Day
had logged sixteen years in the Cleve-
land school system. A local rather than
national entity, Day was not of the same
stature as his predecessor. He did pride
himself on having close relations with the
school board, including its Democratic
members. After a year in office, Day came
under sustained criticism from the Cleveland
Leader. The newspaper attacked
the superintendent for tolerating
improper procedures by the school board in
awarding text-book contracts and illegal
use of school building materials. The
Leader also chastized Day for his slow response to the Thomas
Whitehead inci-
dent. This involved Whitehead's alleged
misuse of school funds for private loans.
Indicted by a grand jury and forced to
resign as school board treasurer, White-
head was not criticized sufficiently by
Day, according to the Leader.10
The Cleveland Leader's reaction
to Day involved a wider concern about the
entire municipal structure. Since the
early 1880s, business and professional men
had sought to reverse the growing
influence of Democratic ward organizations on
city government and public schools.
Their complaints included allegations of
"rings and combinations" in
the rewarding of city contracts. They attacked the
excessive number of ward-level patronage
jobs and general inefficiency in the
operation of the government commissions.
At first, any attempt at reform was
limited to the efforts of individuals.
In 1885, for example, Myron T. Herrick, a
vice president of the largest bank in
Cleveland, ran successfully for a term on the
city council. He overcame opposition
from Sixth Ward Democratic politicians
in this bid. He later recalled the motives
for his actions. "Educated and well-to-do
people," he stated, "not only
in Cleveland but in a great many towns everywhere,
had begun to realize that they had some
civic duty besides making a contribution
to the campaign funds and paying their
taxes."11
During his term on the council, Herrick
helped launch an organized reform
movement. On January 12, 1887, the Board
of Trade called a meeting to discuss
municipal problems. A large crowd met at
the Board's offices. They heard Edwin
Blandin condemn the breakdown in
government and the schools. Born in New
9. The statistics on school-age
eligibility and enrollment come from the Annual Reports, Cleve-
land Public Schools. The low percentage of enrolled students was partly due
to the limited range of
Ohio's 1877 compulsory attendance law which applied
only to children from 8 to 14 and then only
for 12 weeks of each academic year. In
1899, this law was strengthened to cover 20 weeks, with 10
to be in succession. Finally, the
Cleveland schools did not hire their first truant officer until 1888. For
additional commentary on this question,
see Whipple, "Cleveland in Conflict," 392-398.
10. See Daniel W. Lothman,
"Cleveland Educators I Knew," Clipping File, Education Section,
Cleveland Public Library.
11. T. Bentley Mott, Myron T.
Herrick: Friend of France (New York, 1929), 31.
Cleveland School Reform
199
York, but a resident of Cleveland for
over a decade, Blandin had recently served
two years on the Court of Common Pleas.12
His experience in that post made him
concerned over the general social
conditions in the city. He contacted Edwin
Cowles, the Leader's outspoken
publisher, about revising the city charter. Out of
this collaboration came the Board of
Trade meeting.
The focus of Blandin's criticism was the
decentralization of local government.
He rejected the traditionally limited
mayoralty as an anachronistic adminis-
trative approach, increasingly
ineffective in a period of rapid urban growth. A
stronger civil government would not only
be more efficient, he argued, but could
begin to deal with the social problems
facing the city. He called for all commis-
sion heads to become appointive posts,
their offices, such as finance, police, fire,
public works, charities and correction,
and legal affairs made strictly accountable
to the mayor. As for the schools, he
desired an appointed school commissioner,
who would handle business matters and
select the school superintendent, and a
smaller school board of five or seven
members.13 This approach was, as Melvin
Holli found in Detroit, an attempt
"to change the structure of municipal govern-
ment...and to introduce the business
system of the contemporary corporation
into municipal government."14
Soon labeled the "Federal
Plan," the Blandin proposal sparked a struggle to
revise both Cleveland's municipal and
school charters. Throughout early 1887,
the reformers laid the groundwork for
this effort. First, the Board of Trade estab-
lished a Municipal Reform Committee. The
Committee incorporated Blandin's
general ideas into a specific statement.
Such a document would help publicize
the proposed changes and could be used
to approach the state legislature which
held final authority over all charter
revisions. A month later the Committee over-
saw the creation of the Board of
Industry and Improvement as a permanent ve-
hicle of reform.
The membership of the new Board agreed
to the creation of a Committee of
One Hundred. In addition to Herrick,
Cowles, and Blandin, this group included
such "prominent businessmen and
professional gentlemen" as Mark Hanna,
Norman A. Gilbert, John Hay, George W.
Gardner, Andrew Squire, John H.
Wade, Jr., and Orlando J. Hodge. Also
active Republicans, these men epito-
mized the reform leadership. The Committee
contained a small number of Demo-
cratic businessmen, including Tom L.
Johnson. The dominant reform view ap-
peared in a Leader editorial
which referred to the Board of Industry and Im-
provement as "essentially of a
business character, and in its conduct it will be
actuated by the sole desire to promote
the business interests of this city."15
Between 1887 and 1892, the Cleveland
reform movement pressed for accep-
tance of the Federal Plan. The Leader
emerged as an energetic advocate of the
reform. On April 2, 1888, for example,
the Leader charged Democratic ward
leaders and Catholic diocesan officials
of conspiring to create "a Democratic
machine out of the public school
system."16 Many Clevelanders agreed with the
Leader and some joined the reformers, such as Cleveland Normal
President El-
12. For a brief profile of Blandin, see
William R. Coates, A History of Cuyahoga County and the
City of Cleveland, 3 vols. (Cleveland. 1924), 1, 459.
13. Cleveland Leader, January 13,
1887.
14. Melvin G. Holli, Reform in
Detroit (New York. 1969), 162.
15. Cleveland Leader, March 1,
1887. Of the three major newspapers, the Leader provided the
fullest coverage of reform activities.
Because of Cowles' involvement and the newspaper's strong
editorial support of the reform, the
extent of reporting was much greater than that found in either the
Plain-Dealer or the Press.
16. Cleveland Leader, April 2,
1888.
200 OHIO
HISTORY
roy M. Avery, also founder of the Logan
Club, a Republican organization. Edu-
cator, writer, and inventor, Avery
brought added prestige to the movement. Other
important city figures became involved
including William J. Akers, businessman
and influential member of the Tippecanoe
Club, another Republican body; John
S. Covert, who succeeded Cowles as the Leader's
editor after the latter's death in
1890; and Hiram C. Haydn, pastor of the
Old Stone Presbyterian Church. All
shared with Avery a desire for
educational reform. Haydn played a critical role in
bringing the Civic Federation into the
campaign. Composed of leading Protestant
clergy and Western Reserve University
academics, the Federation stressed great-
er morality in government. Founded in
1890, this organization supported the
Federal Plan as necessary to encourage
the participation of principled men in
local civic affairs.
During this period of agitation, the
reformers faced both internal difficulties
and strong opposition. In 1888, for
example, the indictment of Thomas Axworthy,
Cleveland city treasurer, dimmed much of
the early support for the movement.
Axworthy was the vice-president of the
Board of Industry and Improvement and
his embezzling of $500,000 in city
revenues temporarily undermined public con-
fidence in the reform leadership. A more
serious problem was the hostility of the
Cleveland Plain-Dealer. This newspaper accepted the need for change but re-
mained suspicious of reformer motives.
Owned by L. E. Holden, the Plain-Dealer
assumed a Democratic position on most
political issues. Between 1889 and 1892,
the newspaper often questioned the
veracity of the reformers and charged them
with advancing Republican party
interests. The Plain-Dealer's concern was
shared by many Democratic politicians,
such as former City Clerk Charles P.
Salem. He early rejected the Federal
Plan as an attempt to establish through gov-
ernment centralization "one supreme
ring to control and manipulate the entire
machinery of municipal
administration." As an alternative Salem proposed the
standard Democratic view that a
strengthened city council would adequately
meet most reformer complaints.17
The Catholic Universe Bulletin also
criticized the municipal and school reform-
ers. In early 1892, this diocesan weekly
characterized the reformers as "a few
men who surreptitiously got together and
purpose to create some partisan offices,
which they hope themselves to fill or
control ...." It added that school board re-
form would mean "fresh, fat offices
for prominent reformers, and the schools can
go--to the lower order of
spoilsmen."18 The leadership of the Board of Industry
and Improvement, as well as that of the
Civic Federation, denied all such accusa-
tions.
Both municipal and school reorganization
eventually passed the Ohio legis-
lature within the space of a year. On
March 16, 1891, the state assembly incor-
porated the basic tenets of the Federal
Plan into a city charter for Cleveland.19
Shortly thereafter, Republican William
Rose won the mayoralty under the plan.
This success encouraged those in the
reform movement still pursuing educational
reorganization. For most of the next
year, the reformers increased the number of
delegations to Columbus lobbying for the
measure. Blandin, Avery, and Gilbert,
among others, argued for passage of a
school reform bill.20 Their efforts were
finally successful. On March 5, 1892,
the state legislature revised school systems
in cities of "the second grade of
the first class," a category which applied only to
17. Cleveland Leader, January 27,
1887.
18. Catholic Universe Bulletin, February
25, 1892.
19. The Federal Plan has received little
scholarly attention. For a participant's view, see Elroy M.
Avery, "Federal Plan of Municipal
Government as Illustrated in the City of Cleveland," Leigh Quar-
terly, V (June 1892), 3-15.
20. Cleveland Leader, March 2,
1892.
Cleveland School Reform
201
Cleveland. "The new type of school
government was an innovation," wrote Nel-
son L. Bossing in his history of
educational legislation. He noted that "the ordi-
nary school board of the other districts
gave way to a group known as the School
Council and a School Director. This
council was composed of seven representa-
tives 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."21 Under the Cleveland
charter, the school director appointed the superin-
tendent and held extensive veto power
over council legislation. In addition, the
school council members were to be
elected at-large, so that the candidates able to
muster a large city-wide vote were
favored to win.
The Cleveland election board set the
initial school election for the first Tuesday
in April. At this point, the Republican
influence among the reformers led directly
to a coalition between them and the
party. The reformers persuaded H. Q. Sar-
gent, a successful photo manufacturer,
to run for school director. He was viewed
as "a gentleman of the old
school," an individual of "sagacity and commercial
honor." The Republican city
convention endorsed Sargent. The Republicans put
forth a school council slate of five
downtown businessmen and two lawyers. The
group was advertised as a
"Citizens' Ticket." To oppose this effort, the Democrats
organized a slate of predominantly
neighborhood businessmen who represented
wards with the strongest party support.
Of Bohemian, German, and Irish extrac-
tion, the Democratic candidates included
an undertaker, cigarmaker, oil-firm
manager, and brewer. The party nominated
August Zehring, their German-
American central party chairman, for the
school directorship.
The campaign proved vigorous and
intense. The Republicans understood well
their advantage under the school
charter. Still able to marshal a city-wide plural-
ity, they anticipated a clean sweep with
their slate. To achieve this goal, party
operatives worked through a network of
political clubs. Besides the prestigious
Logan and Tippecanoe organizations,
there were the Garfield, Cambria, and
Fremont Clubs. Black Republicans worked
through the Foraker, Harrison, and
Morton Clubs. The German Central
Republican Club sought to secure the Prot-
estant-German vote. Throughout March,
Republican and Democratic ward or-
ganizations prepared for election day.22
When voter apathy appeared to threaten
Republican strategy, the Cleveland
Leader sought to stimulate the Protestant voters into action.
Under Covert, the
newspaper raised the spectre of a
"Popish" conspiracy undermining public edu-
cation. Covert charged that a Democratic
victory would result in a city-supported
parochial school system. The Leader effort
led many Protestant clergy to deliver
election-eve sermons on the threat of
possible Catholic intrigue. The Leader car-
ried the texts of these sermons under
such headings as "The Public Schools: The
Foundation of the Republic" and
"Our Public Schools-The Duty of the Hour."
Hiram Haydn, for example, warned his
flock at Old Stone Church of growing
"chicanery,"
"jobbery," and "priestcraft" in the school system. The
Reverend D.
E. Leavett of Plymouth Congregational
Church asked his parishioners to "realize
the extent of the Roman Catholic
population" in Cleveland. He focused on the
"hierarchy at the center, skillful,
secret, combined, unwearying in its efforts to
make a vast political ecclesiastical
machine...."23
21. Bossing, "The History of
Educational Legislation," 182-184. The full text of the new law is
contained in Ohio Laws, LXXXIX,
74.
22. The Republican party in Cleveland
had earlier suffered internal dissension because of a clash
between Cowles and Hanna. Cowles' death,
however, resulted in a five-year period of dominance by
Hanna. See Herbert Croly, Marcus
Alonzo Hanna: His Life and Work (New York, 1912), 127. Also
see Jordan, Ohio Comes of Age, 206-212.
23. Cleveland Leader, April 4,
1892.
202 OHIO HISTORY |
|
On April 8, 1892, all Republican candidates won narrow victories over their Democratic opponents. Sargent gained the school directorship, but with only 50.4 per cent of the vote. While far short of a popular mandate, an exclusively Republican slate had won control of a highly centralized school system. The Leader proclaimed that the reform would prove "as satisfactory to the tax-payers of Cleveland as the splendid record of economy and efficient administration which has been made by the municipal government."24
The decision to seek a nationally-known schoolman for the superintendency came partly out of the close margin of victory. An established figure would be ef- fective, the reformers hoped, in developing wider support for the new plan. The choice of Andrew Draper, whose reputation was known among Ohio schoolmen, assured the Cleveland reformers of such a man. A former schoolmaster, lawyer, state legislator, and federal judge, Draper had turned to educational administra- tion in 1886. For the next six years, Draper served as New York state school super- intendent, winning a formidable reputation as a school administrator.25 His identification with the Republican party in that state led to his dismissal when a
24. Cleveland Leader, April 20, 1892. 25. For biographical treatments of Draper see Harlan H. Horner, The Life and Work of Andrew Sloan Draper (Urbana, 1934), and Ronald M. Johnson, "Captain of Education: Andrew S. Draper, 1848-1913; An Intellectual Biography" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1970). |
Cleveland School Reform
203
Democratic majority was elected to the
state legislature. Contacted by Sargent
at that point, Draper accepted the
Cleveland superintendency, but saw it as a
temporary assignment at best. His
arrival in late May, and the attention given his
speech at the Stillman Hotel, marked a
critical phase in the Cleveland school re-
form.
Draper acted decisively from the outset.
He released all but one of the existing
supervisors. He claimed "their ways
were not my ways, and they would not
readily come into sympathy with
me." To assist him, Draper hired Jay D. Stay of
Cleveland Normal School as an assistant
superintendent. One of Draper's earliest
acts was to call together the school
principals. He told them the central issue
under his administration would be to
improve the instructional level. He insisted
this effort would not be based on
partisan or sectarian standards. Nevertheless,
Draper alerted all involved in the
school system. "No matter with what party he
trains," he declared, "no
matter with what church he worships, or indeed whether
he worships at all, no matter how
brokenly he speaks the English language, or
whether he must express himself in a
tongue I do not understand...I seek his
friendship and I will be the friend of
every one in Cleveland who is the friend of
the Cleveland public schools."26
That he would even raise the question of re-
ligious, ethnic, and political backgrounds,
or condition his trust of an individual
on being a "friend," alarmed
many principals and teachers.
To strengthen his hold on the school
staff, Draper organized a Principals'
Round Table. This group was to meet
regularly and discuss the needs of each
school. At the initial meeting Draper
emphasized that the majority of teachers
need not fear for their jobs. To develop
a collective profile of the faculty he asked
the principals to fill out a form on
each teacher under their authority. These
questionnaires included sections on
educational training and previous work ex-
perience. They also contained an oath
requiring each teacher to affirm his sup-
port of the "healthful growth of
the public school system."27 During the two years
he served as superintendent, this system
of teacher evaluation led to the dismissal
of, in Draper's estimate, "upwards
of an hundred" supposedly inadequate teach-
ers.28
The effort by Draper to improve the
Cleveland schools involved other steps
designed to stimulate better teaching.
One teacher later recalled his brief ad-
ministration as an "epoch" in
the system's history. Writing four decades later,
Daniel W. Lothman remembered Draper
because
he held frequent teachers' meetings that
were led by the superintendent or a supervisor;
he urged the teachers to form clubs for
pedagogical study and self-improvement; he or-
ganized a class in university extension
work; he had a teachers' reading room fitted up at
school headquarters where there were on
file leading educational periodicals of this coun-
try and countries abroad; he invited
teachers to make a written report to him at the close
of the year of what they had done for
professional advancement; he encouraged travel
because of its broadening influence; in
short he overlooked no means for developing a
strong teaching force.29
The administrative approach Draper took
reflected the new freedom guaran-
teed the superintendent by the reform.
He attended school council meetings, but
26. Cleveland Leader, June 1, 1892.
27. Ibid.
28. Andrew S. Draper to Mrs. J. Elliot
Cabot, January 31, 1900, Andrew S. Draper Papers, Rec-
ord Series 2, 3 4, Box 6,
University of Illinois Archives.
29. Daniel W. Lothman, "Early
Schools of Cleveland," Clipping File, Education Section, Cleve-
land Public Library.
204 OHIO
HISTORY
did not feel bound to any request
concerning his administrative duties. He recog-
nized Sargent as his immediate superior.
Draper remained close to the school
director, later thanking him for having
"never interfered with the superintendent."
Free to do as he saw fit, Draper widened
the exercise of bureaucratic responsi-
bilities. He relied on Stay to keep
educational activities on schedule. He utilized
primary, elementary, and secondary grade
supervisors to check out the daily
routine of classroom work. The
Principals' Round Table proved a valuable asset
in identifying and remedying
inadequacies in the fifty individual schools, specifi-
cally in the physical points. His
administrative effort satisfied the school director
and council. Sargent confirmed that when
he praised Draper for a "most desir-
able reorganization" which had
"gone forward steadily, quietly and effectually."30
The primary objective of Draper at
Cleveland was a revitalized educational
process. He assumed that, under the
watchful eyes of professional administrators,
public schooling was "the only
safeguard of the Republic." He emphasized that
schools must turn out "young men
and women" with "intellectual powers so
trained that they will have both the
ability and desire to acquire more and more;
with some moral sense and some love for
the good and the beautiful, and with the
emotional powers so active that they
will continually strengthen; with character
set for intelligent, honest, patriotic
citizenship."31 To effect these goals, Draper
made a series of changes in the
pedagogical realm. He instituted a liberal method
of annual student promotions, based
primarily on teacher evaluations. He also
modified the disciplinary code, an
"old-fashioned, over-reaching military system
of managing children," by
forbidding corporal punishment and establishing sep-
arate classes for children with
behavioral problems. The "new education" Draper
brought to the Cleveland schools also
involved the dissemination of industrial
training to all levels, including the
elementary grades. He laid the basis for the
first public kindergartens, which by
1896 numbered twelve in operation.
By early 1894, the reform mandate had
been largely fulfilled. Ward influence
on the administration of the schools,
particularly from Democratic spokesmen,
had been virtually ended. The school
bureaucracy had been restructured so that
the personnel policies and teaching
function were now effectively controlled by
the superintendent. On March 7, 1894,
Edwin Blandin praised the Draper ad-
ministration for having accomplished new
"directness in administration," reduc-
tion of per-student cost, increased
professionalism among teachers, and improved
classroom work.32 Most of
all, Draper's effort had increased school enrollments.
Almost 4500 more students were in school
than when he had arrived. In the fol-
lowing years, the numerical gains continued.
By the fall of 1896, the total number
of eligible students swelled to 93,861,
up thirteen per cent over 1892. School en-
rollment increased twenty-six per cent
for the same period, rising from 39,813 to
50,454. Thus, while only forty-eight per
cent of those eligible actually enrolled
in Cleveland schools in 1890, eight
years later that number totalled fifty-five
per cent.
In May of 1894, Draper resigned the
superintendency to become the president
of the University of Illinois. He had
never intended to remain in Cleveland long
and, by this juncture, felt that "I
have done about as much as I can do for this
system." The close relationship
between the Republican party and the reformers
also worried him. Earlier in the spring
both had pressured him into speaking out
for the Republican school board slate.
Draper agreed reluctantly. In a letter to an
30. H. Q. Sargent to ASD, Draper Papers,
Record Series 2/4/5, Box 1.
31. Fifty-Eighth Annual Report, Cleveland
Public Schools (Cleveland, 1894), 66.
32. Cleveland Press, March 7,
1894.
Cleveland School Reform
205
associate he expressed fear of becoming
"a smaller and weaker man every year
I should remain in a city suptc'y."33
The Republicans won the spring election, and
Draper accepted the Illinois post the
following month.
As he prepared to depart, Draper
observed that "thoughtful people of other
large cities" had inquired of the
reform. Such individuals saw him as a spokesman
for urban school reform. In 1893, the
Cleveland Department of Superintendence
had created a special unit to
investigate city school organization, curriculum, and
teacher certification. The Department
membership voted Draper on the task
force, which became known as the
Committee of Fifteen. Draper was elected
chairman of the sub-committee on city
school organization, a five-member group
studying city school systems throughout
the nation.34
In 1895, Draper returned to Cleveland to
attend the National Educational As-
sociation. He presided over the session
where the majority report for the sub-
committee on school organization was
discussed, His influence on the report
appeared in the call for small school
boards, business managers, and strong school
superintendents. Subject to considerable
debate, the report was endorsed by the
National Education Association. Later
that year, the Chicago Civic Federation
contacted Draper about the report and
his involvement in the Cleveland reor-
ganization. Other inquiries followed as
well as invitations to address various re-
form groups. Between 1897 and 1903,
Draper traveled widely to speak on urban
school reform, addressing reform groups
in San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, and
Philadelphia. His influence on the St.
Louis school reorganization, for example,
was extensive. As recorded by Elinor M.
Gersman, the reformers in that city re-
lied heavily on "the Draper
report."35
The resignation of Andrew Draper had no
real effect on the continuation of the
Cleveland school reform. He was
succeeded by Lewis H. Jones, former Indian-
apolis school superintendent, whose
views on politics and schooling were similar
to Draper's. Jones believed that the
"end of modern education requires that one
become able to think clearly, to aspire
nobly, to drudge cheerfully, to sympathize
broadly, to decide righteously and to
perform ably; in short, to be a good citizen."36
Throughout his eight years in the
office, Jones maintained the policies established
by his predecessor. For most of that
time, Jones could rely on the experience of
Sargent, who served as school director
until 1900. The Republicans kept control
of the school board, never losing an
election under the reform charter. In 1904,
the reform came to an end when the Ohio
Supreme Court ruled all existing
school charters invalid. The Court had
found too many differences among the
various systems and directed the state
legislature to create a new, uniform state
law.
In the years following passage of the
reorganization bill, the original reform
coalition persisted but experienced some
internal realignment. In 1893, the bus-
iness leadership had founded the Chamber
of Commerce as a successor to the
Board of Industry and Improvement. This
organization became their voice for
33. ASD to Charles W. Bardeen, April 4,
1894, published in the School Bulletin, XXXIX (May
1913), 200.
34. "Department of Superintendence,
Secretary's Minutes," February 21-23, 1893, Proceedings
and Addresses of the National
Educational Association, Thirty-Second Annual Meeting (New York,
1893), 252-256.
35. Elinor M. Gersman, "Progressive
Reform of the St. Louis School Board, 1897," History of
Education Quarterly, X (Spring 1970), 3-21.
36. The Centennial Celebration of the Founding of the City of Cleveland and the Settlement of
the Western Reserve (Cleveland,
1896), 188.
206 OHIO
HISTORY
social, political, and industrial
improvement in the city. Dominated by "self-made
men who have by their industry and
ability elevated themselves," the member-
ship of the Chamber continued to
concentrate on needed civic development,
school and library needs, and municipal
service problems.37 The clerical and aca-
demic reformers remained generally aloof
from this development, still preferring
to work through the Civic Federation. In
1896, however, they launched the Mu-
nicipal Association of Cleveland.
Through this body, they worked for "good gov-
ernment" on a non-partisan basis,
rejecting in 1899, for example, the Republican
mayoralty of Robert E. McKisson as a
"machine."38
Under the Cleveland reform, the public
school system underwent significant
improvement. A more responsive
administrative structure replaced an antiquated
and diffused form of school management,
increasingly subject to school board
interference. The reform granted greater
independence to the superintendent, and
Draper was instrumental in assuring that
theory became fact. He centralized
authority in himself while
decentralizing the actual administration of the schools.
The Cleveland school reform appeared to
Draper as a critically important experi-
ment which, if successful, would affect
future developments in public school ad-
ministration.39 A second
major gain for the Cleveland schools came in improved
teacher efficiency. Again, Draper was a
major factor in this change. He pushed
the teaching staff hard, to the point
that as Daniel Lothman recalled, "they were
all afraid of him." Instructional
preparation increased, and teachers became more
fully involved in their work under the
Draper administration. Finally, the reform
succeeded in bringing larger numbers of
disaffected, or plainly truant, children
into the schools.
These gains were not achieved without
several unfortunate developments that
accompanied the mixing of politics and
pedagogy. The socially-conscious and
efficiency-minded reform movement
succumbed to partisan election tactics. As a
result of the reform, and the kind of
campaign waged in behalf of the Republican
slate, a politically balanced school
board was reshaped into a single-party forum.
The Democratic ward members, who
represented immigrant and laboring in-
terests, were eliminated. Instead of
reducing "politics in the schools," the reform
led to a Republican entrenchment in
public education for over a decade. As
Democratic school critic Charles Salem
had warned earlier, the school reform
established a "despotism," a
"municipal aristocracy."
The reform also convinced the Catholic
Diocese of Cleveland to press on with
its plan to build a private school
system. At the same time, the reformers had
deepened old-stock Protestant suspicion
of Roman Catholicism. These develop-
ments detracted from the positive
achievements that came with the reform. In the
end, the Cleveland school reorganization
was only a partial success, creating a
new administrative system while
intensifying old partisan and sectarian con-
flicts.40
37. Whipple, "Cleveland in
Conflict," 71-74.
38. Campbell, "Background for
Progressivism," 84.
39. Fify-Seventh Annual Report,
Cleveland Public Schools (Cleveland, 1893), 183.
40. For the origins of Catholic
education in Cleveland, see Paul J. Halliman, "Richard Gilmore,
Second Bishop of Cleveland, 1872-1891"
(unpublished doctoral dissertation, Western Reserve Uni-
versity, 1963), and Thomas J. Murphy,
"History of Catholic Education in Cleveland" (unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Western Reserve
University, 1944).
RONALD M. JOHNSON
Politics and Pedagogy:
The 1892 Cleveland
School Reform
On May 25, 1892, a large crowd gathered
at Cleveland's Stillman Hotel. The oc-
casion was the announcement of Andrew S.
Draper as the city's new school super-
intendent. The assembled group listened
attentively as H. Q. Sargent, the school
director, introduced Draper, a prominent
New York educator. Sargent dwelt
momentarily on the recently reformed
school system, which had led to the creation
of his own office. Draper followed with
a brief statement. He praised Cleveland-
ers for a "unique plan" of
school administration. He urged all "to act in harmony
to the end that the desired results may
be attained," promising that in "attempt-
ing the reorganization I will do the
right, with malice toward none."' Many early
advocates of the reorganization,
including Edwin J. Blandin, a former municipal
judge, were at the Stillman that day. In
1887, Blandin had first called for school
reform. He was ready to witness the
fruition of his original effort.2
The story of the Cleveland school reform
is significant for a variety of reasons.
The event is illustrative of Cleveland
history between 1870 and 1900. During that
period, the city expanded at an accelerated
pace, growing in population from
92,829 to 381,768. Once a secondary
Great Lakes commercial terminus, the city
became a major manufacturing center. The
social consequences of this change
were enormous. Even as members of
founding Connecticut families formed the
Early Settlers' Association, an
urban-industrial society emerged that contained
great wealth and extreme poverty. The
contrast was evident in John D. Rocke-
feller's mansion on 40th Street and
Euclid Avenue and the dilapidated shanties
of laborers in the industrial
"flats" along the Cuyahoga River. In this setting, a
new political order unfolded. Politics
revolved around a clash between the
business-dominated Republican party and
an increasingly immigrant-oriented
Democratic organization. The latter
slowly gained new strength from spreading
working-class neighborhoods. By the
early 1890s, the Republican hold on city
government was threatened as Democratic
ward organizations increased in num-
ber and influence.3
1. Cleveland Leader, May 26, 1892.
2. For an early assessment of the
reform, see Samual P. Orth, "The Cleveland Plan of School Ad-
ministration," Political Science
Quarterly, XIX (1904), 402-416.
3. The political history of Cleveland
for this period is discussed most fully in James B. Whipple,
"Cleveland in Conflict: A Study in
Urban Adolescence, 1876-1900" (unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Western Reserve University, 1951),
337-349. A later phase of political development has been covered
by Thomas Campbell, "Background for
Progressivism: Machine Politics in the Administration of
Robert E. McKisson, Mayor of Cleveland,
1895-1899" (unpublished thesis, Western Reserve Uni-
versity, 1960). Additional analysis of
Cleveland politics can be gleaned from Samuel P. Orth, A His-
tory of Cleveland, 3 vols. (Cleveland, 1910), and Philip D. Jordan, Ohio Comes of Age,
1873-1900
(Columbus, 1943).
Dr. Johnson is Assistant Professor of
History at Georgetown University.