Part 69 (2/2)

We shall consider each of these, briefly, in order

I THE BATTLE FOR TAX SUPPORT

EARLY SUPPORT AND ENDOWMENT FUNDS In New England, land endowments, local taxes, direct local appropriations, license taxes, and rate-bills had long been coland Colonies, while rate-bills date back to the earliest ti money for school support Theseof our national period, and to them were added a variety of license taxes, while occupational taxes, lotteries, and bank taxes also were employed to raise money for schools A few examples of these may be cited:

Connecticut, in 1774, turned over all proceeds of liquor licenses to the tohere collected, to be used for schools New Orleans, in 1826, licensed two theaters on condition that they each pay 3000 annually for the support of schools in the city New York, in 1799, authorized four state lotteries to raise 100,000 for schools, a siain in 1801, and numerous other lotteries before 1810 New Jersey (R 246) and ress passed fourteen joint resolutions, between 1812 and 1836, authorizing lotteries to help support the schools of the city of Washi+ngton Bank taxes were a favorite source of inco chartered on condition that they would pay over each year for schools a certain sus These all represent what is known as indirect taxation, and were valuable in accusto the people to the idea of public schools without appearing to tax theun in the case of Ohio in 1802, soon stimulated a new interest in schools Each State admitted after Ohio also received the sixteenth section for the support of common schools, and tnshi+ps of land for the endow the lead of Ohio (R 260) and Indiana (R 261), dedicated these section lands and funds to free common schools The sixteen older States, however, did not share in these grants, soup a perh at first without any very clear idea as to how the income from the fund was to be used [1]

THE BEGINNINGS OF SCHOOL TAXATION The early idea, which seeenerally entertained, that the incorants, license fees, and these permanent endowment funds would in tiradually abandoned as it was seen how little in yearly income these funds and lands really produced, and how rapidly the population of the States was increasing By 1825 itmen that the only safe reliance of a systeeneral and direct taxation of all property for their support ”The wealth of the State must educate the children of the State” became a ord, and the battle for direct, local, county, and state taxation for education was clearly on by 1825 to 1830 in all the Northern States, except the four in New England where the principle of taxation for education had for long been established [2] Even in these States the struggle to increase taxation and provide better schools called for ument and popular education (R 316), and occasional backward movements (Rs 317, 318) were encountered

[Illustration: FIG 200 THE FIRST FREE PUBLIC SCHOOL IN DETROIT A one-room school, opened in the Second Ward, in 1838 No action was taken in any other ward until 1842]

The struggle to secure the first legislation, weak and ineffective as it seens of education” had to be prepared for and carried through Many thought that tax-supported schools would be dangerous for the State, harhly undemocratic Many did not see the need for schools at all

Portions of a town or a city would provide a free school, while other portions would not Often those in favor of taxation were bitterly assailed, and even at times threatened with personal violence Often those in favor of i the school had to wait patiently for the opposition slowly to wear itself out (R 319) before any real progress could be innings of state aid in any substantial sums, either from the income from permanent endowment funds, state appropriations, or direct state taxation, the State became, for the first time, in a position to enforce quite definite requirements in many matters Communities which would not meet the State's requirements would receive no state funds

One of the first requirements to be thus enforced was that co state aid must also levy a local tax for schools

Commonly the require, and recognizing exceptions in a few States, this represents the beginnings of compulsory local taxation for education As early as 1797 Vermont had required the towns to support their schools on penalty of forfeiting their share of state aid New York in 1812, Delaware in 1829, and New Jersey in 1846 required a duplication of all state aid received

Wisconsin, in its first constitution of 1848, required a local tax for schools equal to one half the state aid received The next step in state control was to add still other require state aid One of the first of such was that a certain length of school term, commonly three months, must be provided in each school district Another was the provision of free heat, and later on free schoolbooks and supplies

When the duplication-of-state-aid-received stage had been reached, compulsory local taxation for education had been established, and the great central battle for the creation of a state school systeht to tax for support, and to compel local taxation, was the key to the whole state syste an adequate system of school support in any State has been merely the further education of public opinion to see new educational needs

II THE BATTLE TO ELIMINATE THE PAUPER-SCHOOL IDEA

THE PAUPER-SCHOOL IDEA The pauper-school idea was a direct inheritance froland, and its home in America was in the old Central and Southern Colonies, where the old Anglican Church had been in control New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and Georgia were the chief representatives, though the idea had friends a certain classes of the population in other of the older States The new and democratic West would not tolerate it The pauper-school conception was a direct inheritance froed to a society based on classes, and holly out of place in a Republic founded on the doctrine that ”all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” Still erous conception of education for a deovern the old aristocratic or conservative classes, the heavy taxpayers, the supporters of church schools, and the proprietors of private schools Citizens who had caught the spirit of the new Republic, publicwere opposed on principle to a plan which drew such invidious distinctions between the future citizens of the State To educate part of the children in church or private pay schools, they said, and to segregate those too poor to pay tuition and educate them at public expense in pauper schools, often with the brand of pauper made very evident to them, was certain to create classes in society which in tier to our dee numbers of those for whom the pauper schools were intended would not brand the their children to the schools, and others who accepted the advantages offered, for the sake of their children, despised the system [3]

The battle for the eliht out in the North in the States of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and the struggle in these two States we shall now briefly describe

THE PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATION In Pennsylvania we find the pauper-school idea fully developed The constitution of 1790 (R 259) had provided for a state syste was done to carry even this constitutional direction into effect until 1802 A pauper-school laas then enacted, directing the overseers of the poor to notify such parents as they deeent that, if they would declare theht be sent to soiven free education (R 315) The expense for this was assessed against the education poor-fund, which was levied and collected in the same manner as were road taxes or taxes for poor relief No provision was made for the establishment of public schools, even for the children of the poor, nor was any standard set for the education to be provided in the schools to which they were sent No other general provision for elementary education was rowth of the cities, and the rise of their special problebecame necessary ”The Philadelphia Society for the Establish a better system, and in 1814 ”'The Society for the Proanized in Philadelphia for the purpose of educational propaganda Bills were prepared and pushed, and in 1818 Philadelphia was peranize as ”the first school district” in the State of Pennsylvania, and to provide, with its own funds, a system of Lancastrian schools for the education of the children of its poor [4]

THE LAW OF 1834 In 1827 ”The Pennsylvania Society for the Proanda which didabout the Free-School Act of 1834 In an ”Address to the Public” it declared its object to be the prohout the State of Pennsylvania, and the ”Address” closed with these words:

This Society is at present composed of about 250 members, and a correspondence has been commenced with 125 members, who reside in every district in the State It is intended to direct the continued attention of the public to the importance of the subject; to collect and diffuse all information which may be deemed valuable; and to persevere in their labors until they shall be croith success

Meovernors were interested, ”Addresses to the Public” were prepared, and a vigorous propaganda was kept up until the Free-School Law of 1834 was the result

This law, though, was optional It created every ward, townshi+p, and borough in the State a school district, a total of 987 being created for the State Each school district was ordered to vote that autu the laere to organize under its provisions, while those rejecting the laere to continue under the educational provisions of the old Pauper-School Act

[Illustration: FIG 201 THE PENNSYLVANIA SCHOOL ELECTIONS OF 1835 Showing the percentage of school districts in each county organizing under and accepting the School Law of 1834 Percentage of districts accepting indicated on the map for a few of the counties]

The results of the school elections of 1834 are shown, by counties, on the below map Of the total of 987 districts created, 502, in 46 of the then 52 counties (Philadelphia County not voting), or 52 per cent of the whole nuanize under it; 264 districts, in 31 counties, or 27 per cent of the whole, voted definitely to reject the law; and 221 districts, in 46 counties, or 21 per cent of the whole, refused to take any action either way In 3 counties, indicated on the map, every district accepted the law, and in 5 counties, also indicated every district rejected or refused to act on the law It was the predominantly German counties, located in the east-central portion of the State, which were strongest in their opposition to the ne One reason for this was that the ne provided for English schools; another was the objection of the thrifty Germans to taxation; and another was the fear that the new state schools ht injure their Gerht for free _versus_ pauper schools, though, was yet to coislators who had voted for the laere bitterly assailed, and, though it was but an optional law, the question of its repeal and the reinstate issue of the caislators who had favored the laere defeated for reelection Others, seeing defeat, refused to run

Petitions for the repeal of the law, [5] and reislature when it ely under the leadershi+p of a Vermonter by the name of Thaddeus Stevens, [6] refused to reconsider, and finally forced the Senate to accept an aer bill This defeat finally settled, in principle at least, the pauper-school question in Pennsylvania, [7] though it was not until 1873 that the last district in the State accepted the new system

ELIMINATING THE PAUPER-SCHOOL IDEA IN NEW JERSEY No constitutional mention of education was islation was passed until 1816 In that year a perun, and in 1820 the first permission to levy taxes ”for the education of such poor children as are paupers” was granted In 1828 an extensive investigation showed that one third of the children of the State ithout educational opportunities, and as a result of this investigation the first general school law for the State was enacted, in 1829 This provided for district schools, school trustees and visitation, licensed teachers, local taxation, and made a state appropriation of 20,000 a year to help establish the system The next year, however, this laas repealed and the old pauper-school plan reestablished, largely due to the pressure of church and private-school interests In 1830 and 1831 the state appropriation wasprivate and parochial schools, as well as the public pauper schools, and the use of all public money was limited ”to the education of the children of the poor”