The educational system of Pennsylvania, by J. M. Yetter ...

Front matter

Book J^v^I

Copyright^" .

COPSilGHT DEPOSnS

Preface

It seemed best to divide the "Educational System of Pennsylvania" into three parts or divisions : Part I treats of the elements contributing to the system, and tells how, out of such a conglomerate of people with much diversity of opinions, ideals, and beliefs, a general plan was at last formed and accepted. Part II treats of the system as planned and formulated by law. Part III shows what the system is in actual practice.

Of Part I we claim no original material, but at least some new interpretation of old facts. Part II discusses the system in a different and, we believe, a better planned and more systematized way than has ever before been undertaken.

In Part III the working of the system is described from our own experience, which includes work done in the common, ungraded country school, the city graded school, the State Normal School, and the college. Thus from personal experience in and with the system we obtain the information upon which almost the entire contents of Part III are founded.

It will be noticed that the system led the people rather than the people urged forward the system. Governor Wolfe sacrificed the office of governor a second term for the system's foundation, and likewise Governor Bigler urged its improvement by the law of 1854, though fully realizing that it meant his political death. Fortunately for the system the successors of both these governors stood by the ideas of their predecessors on school mat ters.

6 PREFACE

Instead of popular sentiment urging forward these great improvements they were quickly followed by its decided rebuke. It must not be supposed, however, that the populace was opposed to education or any improvement of the system, but the variety of ideas as to methods of obtaining these advancements was often the cause of much trouble and hindrance.

The first scheme seems to have been entirely new and soon needed revision, yet it showed both plan and purpose, as will appear on reading Part 11.

Part III shows how unthought-of agencies and influences often produce different results from those anticipated. To plan is one thing, to execute may be another, and the executing of the plans was left necessarily into the hands of those who often interpreted and carried out the plans in a way far different from that intended or expected by the authors.

It is hoped that Part I may show the kinds of people who desired a school system and how they struggled for it. Part II what the plan was and how it developed, and Part III how the people interpreted and carried out the plan.

With gratitude, mention is here made of State Supt. N. C. Schaeffer, City Supt. M. L. Brembaugh and ex- U. S. Commissioner W. T. Harris for assistance in obtaining material.

Part I

Introduction. — What must be taken into consideration in writing a history? Variety of -early schools. Ideas of various elements of the population : the Swedes, Germans, Quakers, William Penn. — 11-16.

Chapter I. — Early Schools. All in favor of education, parochial schools and their influence upon the schools of to-day. Higher education, "Subscription" or "Pay" schools and their influences upon present practices. Kind of teachers in Pay schools. Cost of schools. Schools for the poor, Lancaster schools and their influence. — 19-23.

Chapter II. — Efforts for a regular system. Penn's ideas as given in his frame of government. Need of popular sentiment. Constitution of 1776. Timothy Pickering and the constitution of 1790. Plan for a system. State Aid to the Poor. Dissatisfaction. Difference of Opinion. "Society for the promotion of a rational system of education." Opposition to the law of 1834. Thaddeus Stevens. — 24-40.

Part II

The System as based on the Law of 1834.

Chapter L— Township government, Board of Directors, organization of the board, Duties of Directors, Changes by the law of 1854. Manual labor. Criticism, —43-46.

Chapter II. — County Government. Duties of Inspectors, to visit schools, to examine teachers, to issue

8 CONTENTS

certificates. Changes in county government by the law of 1854. County Superintendent, his selection, his duties, to examine teachers, issue certificates, maTce annual reports to state superintendent, to call and preside at teachers' institutes. The School Journal. The law of 1854 Opposition to the law, attempts to repeal. Workings of the office of county superintendent. — 47-54.

Chapter III. — State Government. Secretary of the Commonwealth to be State Superintendent of Schools. Duties of the Secretary of the Commonwealth as State Superintendent of all the Schools; report to the Legislature, prepare blanks, sign all orders on the State Treasurer, settle controversies, changes in state government of schools, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Duties of Superintendent of Public Instruction. — 55-59.

Chapter IV. — State Normal Schools. Need of same Law for their establishment. Government of Normal Schools, trustees, their duties, meetings of Principals, Examinations, aid to Normal Students from the state, graduates of Normal Schools to have certificates. — 60-65.

Part III

The practical development of the system. Some practices different from the intentions of the law.

Chapter I. — Township government. Selecting apparatus. Selecting text-books, agent influence. Selection of teachers. Evils of other states. Teachers said to purchase positions. — 69-73.

Chapter IL — Legislative suggestions. Manual training in country schools, Manual training in West Chester State Normal School, Manual training in Keystone State Normal School. Sewing in the Normal Schools. Philadelphia Manual Training School. Wilkes-Barre, other schools. — 74-79.

CONTENTS 9

Chapter III. — County Government. Politics in county government. Duties of County Superintendent of Schools. His visiting schools. Examine teachers and grant certificates. Uniformity of examinations and how they work in other states. Dr. Schaeffer's opinion. Our county superintendents. Penalties inflicted by county superintendents. — 80-85.

Chapter IV. — State Government of Education. Selection of Superintendent of Public Instruction. Dr. Schaeffer appointed by a Republican Governor, though he was a Democrat. Dr. Higbee appointed by the Governor of an opposing party. Governor Pattison and Dr. Schaeffer. Neither Deputy at present a college man. Duties of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Superintendent of Public Instruction to settle all controversies. Commissioning County Superintendent. — 86-90.

Chapter V. — Teachers' Institutes. Criticism of Pennsylvania teachers' institutes. Benefits to the public. Instructors of institutes too often inexperienced in com- > mon school work. Directors' Day. Effect of entertaining Institutes or Teachers. Liberality of the State to Teachers' Institutes. Inattention at institutes. — 91-95.

Chapter VI. — Normal Schools, Trustees, Politics, Influence, Appointment of State Trustees. New Course of Study. Graduating. Failures. Examinations under the State Board. Principals and Faculty of State Normal Schools. — 96-102.

Chapter VII. — Distribution of State Appropriation. Certificates of College Graduates. — 103-105.

Chapter VIII. — Cities of Pennsylvania, duties and powers of Controllers. City Superintendents. High Schools may be established. Special laws for cities. Special training schools for large cities. Different training in Cities than in Country Schools. Powers of Sub-District Directors. — 106-109.

10 CONTENTS

Chapter IX.— Miscellaneous : Colleges, Evening Schools, Length of Month, Public Libraries, Physiology and Hygiene. The School Journal. Short Summary, Salaries m Pennsylvania compared with other states. Conclusion. — 110-115.

The Educational System of Pennsylvania

VARIOUS IDEAS OF EDUCATION.

In the history of a state or county whose people consist of a mixture of immigrants and their descendants, it is highly essential that the beliefs, ideals, prejudices, and other peculiarities of the early and later settlers be carefully considered.

The population of Pennsylvania is the result of a mixture of Quakers, Germans, Swedes, Scotch-Irish, English and others.

We still find here and there an elderly person who remembers the Scotch-Irish schoolmasters who were among the first to travel from place to place and establish private schools, making teaching their regular occupation.

Our ancestors tell us that these schoolmasters received into their schools children of various religious beliefs and of all classes. We can easily see the reason for this. These private schools were established where there were not enough people of one denomination to support a parochial school. If this be true, then it is evident that the wages of the teacher would depend on the size of his school, that is, the number of his scholars; for some who attended those schools tell us that the charges were a certain sum for each scholar. Hence the teacher could afford to lay aside his religious prejudices for the sake of an increase in salary.

II

These were not the only kind of schools found in early times, as we shall see later, but they demonstrated the possibility of educating all the children of a community, with parentage of various beliefs and conditions, in the same school with no serious harm to any of their sectarian ideals. This mixing of various sects in the same school had much influence in changing from the expensive and inefficient parochial school to the much superior non-sectarian system of schools of which Pennsylvania may feel proud. For inasmuch as both existed in the State, they could be readily compared as to expense, results and satisfaction. True, some clung to the idea of parochial schools for a long time, but, as we shall see later, argument and fact finally won against prejudice.

The Swedes and Germans brought with them the idea of education by the Government, but conducted by the State church, as we are told by S. G. Fisher, in his "Federal and State Aid to Education." The same author confirms what we have already heard from our ancestors, that the church was the school house and very often the minister the teacher. The Queen's grant of New Sweden required state support of church and school. The Germans had the same ideas of education. Thus grew up various parochial schools among these people. Naturally the streams of immigration continued for some years from the same countries, and these ideas were thus kept alive. One mingling with the descendants of these settlers, the so-called "Pennsylvania Germans" or "Pennsylvania Dutch," and noting the tenacity with which they cling to the customs of their fathers, and especially the language, is not surprised that the idea of church control of education remained fixed in their minds, and that they should resist any attempt of the state to establish the non-sectarian public schools among them. Yet they were all in favor of education, and we can see, as is remembered by many still living, that one after another they sacrificed their parochial schools for the far more efficient public schools. ("History of Education in Pennsylvania," by J. P. W., chapter 22. "History of Berks County," by Morton L. Montgomery, pages 74,

The position of the Quakers as to education is often misunderstood. This is quite natural from seeming contradictory statements concerning them. Fisher says^: "The Quaker despised learning, poetry, music and the fine arts as vicious amusements." Bancroft says that to them the inner light speaks by an "inward voice, uncreated by schools, independent of refinement, open to the unlettered hand, not less than to the polished scholar, a sure pathway into the enfranchisements of immortal truths."

Says Wickensham* : "The Quakers believe in the fullest sense that all men are created equal, since to all men is given alike the gift of God's Spirit."

William Penn, in speaking of George Fox, says' : "For many times hath my soul bowed in humble thankfulness to the Lord, that he did not choose any of the wise and learned of this world to be the first messenger in our age of his blessed truth to men; but that he took one that was not of high degree, or elegant speech, that his message and work, he sent him to do, might come without suspicion, or jealousy of human wisdom and interest, and with more force and clearness upon the conscience of those that sincerely sought the way of truth in the love of it."

This is all we could find from Penn*s own writings that could in any way be interpreted as indicating that

* "The Making of Pennsylvania," by S. G. Fisher, page 34.

'"A History of Education in Pennsylvania," page 21.

'"A Brief Account of the Rise and Progress of the People Called Quakers."

the Quakers despised knowledge and learning. On the contrary we know that they founded Haverford College in 1833, and Swarthmore College in 1865, besides other institutions of learning. Thus, their actual conduct does not seem to indicate any lack of respect for learning or education. The history of these institutions shows broad ideas of education. The first graduating class of Swarthmore was composed of five young women and one young man. This college still has coeducation in its fullest sense. Whence then was originated the idea that the Quakers despised knowledge or even appreciated it less than any other sect? We can only say that they probably emphasized other requisites as of more importance, relatively speaking, than education, while others thought differently; or it may be one of those peculiar historical facts of a people condemning something and at the same time practicing it in the extreme. The Quakers, for instance, complained about others being so particular about dress, and they themselves took great care that their dress was according to a prescribed plan. Still Mr. Wickersham tells us that the public schools of the Quakers were open to other sects as well as their own.^ He also adds that while the Puritans of New England were burning witches one was tried in Pennsylvania and found ^'guilty of the common fame of being a witch, but not guilty as she stands charged," and thus ended the only trial of a witch^ in Pennsylvania. The author adds : ''No people in the world have been more tolerant of the opinions of others or stronger advocates of the rights of conscience than the Friends. Such people are not apt, seriously, to oppose a system of education for all the children of a state. When they came into possession of

Pennsylvania they were the rulers and thus they were in a measure compelled to soften their opposition to war, politics, freeman's oath and the power of government, yet a.U^e historians say that they were the most liberal oj^-l^prietors."

In the beginning they advocated universal education, and Penn's frame of government contains provisions for the same. He writes"": "I know some say 'Let us have good laws and no matter for the men that execute them* ; but let them consider that good laws want good men, and may be abolished or evaded by ill men ; but good men will never want for good laws, nor suffer ill ones." Again, "That therefore which makes a good constitution must keep it, namely, men of wisdom and virtue, qualities that, because they descend not with worldly inheritance, must be carefully propagated by a virtuous education of youth."

We know that in his travels through Europe he spent some time in Holland, which, no doubt, influenced him in his plan of government, especially in relation to education. Here is probably the place where his idea of universal education originated. With strong recommendations from its founder, Pennsylvania, it will be seen, owes much to the hearty support of the Quakers for everything which tended toward the advancement of the education of all her children.

From Wichersham's History of Education in Pennsylvania, Montgomery's History of Berks County, several articles in the first volume of the Pennsylvania School Journal, from various writings, and by judging of the national origin, we find all agreeing that the first settlers of Pennsylvania were, without exception, in favor of education, but the different nationalities and sects had different ideas as to how it should be obtained. It is not

'Pennsylvania's Frame of Government."

i6 THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM

surprising that the EngHsh elements were in favor of voluntary or subscription schools rather than public schools, for according to Holman, England herself had nothing else, and even to-day he designates her schools as semi-state institutions.^

The great problem evidently was to harmonize these various elements by a system broad enough to supply the wants of all and do violence to the opinions of none ; to lead public opinion in such a way as to support a general system of education.

^"English National Education," by Halman.

Chapter I. An Educational Contest

In order the better to understand why the settlers of Pennsylvania were all in favor of education, the kind of education they desired and the kind of schools they established, it would be well to note that they had fled from religious persecution ; most were Protestants, and one of the two great principles of Protestantism is that "the Bible is the only rule of religious faith and practice." Hence, it is necessary that every child should learn to read the Bible. This explains why the work of Michael Schlatter, the first superintendent in Pennsylvania, was necessary : Since the reformation, the church and the school had been one interest, and some sects are still unable to see that they may be as independent of each other as the church and state. The various leaders of religious sects, therefore, were very much interested in schools. Michael Schlatter was one of the greatest of these workers. He visited Holland and Germany. He published a journal in Europe appealing for money. He sailed for America and arrived in Boston in 1746. The next year he pushed on to Skippach and Philadelphia. He visited many other places in this vicinity, and in the same year (1747) he organized the first German Reformed Synod in America. Schlatter found a great lack of schoolmasters and ministers. The people were too poor to support them, even too poor to support their own families. He feared the people would wander from their religion. From Holland he collected i 12,000 sterling. England, Palatinate and Switzerland all received his appeal for funds. He argued that F. A. Muhlenberg, the great patriarch of the Lutheran Church in Pennsylvania, took better care of his flock than he could of the Reformed people, for he — Muhlenberg — had more abundant funds. They were, however, great friends, and Schlatter speaks of their affectionate meeting when he returned from one of his trips to Europe. This may account for the many union churches of Lutheran and Reformed congregations in Pennsylvania.

Schlatter obtained the aid above mentioned mainly through the report he made to the various religious bodies of Europe concerning the condition of education in Pennsylvania. This report was translated into EngUsh, and became a matter of deep concern of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts.

Dr. William Smith, afterward Provost of the college at Philadelphia, confirmed the report, and argued that the English Protestants and the English Government should assist in the work, because these people were Protestant Germans and because they were subjects of the English crown. Penn, also, had given aid to the education of schoolmasters in Pennsylvania. All these movements resulted in the organization of a "Society for Propagating Christian Knowledge Among Germans in America," in London in 1754, and i20,ooo were collected to assist in the work.

The Lutherans offered their new school houses at New Providence and New Hanover for the use of these non-sectarian schools. They were accepted and the schools were opened.

Opposition, however, showed itself, as it seemed to some to be a political move, as it would appear to alienate the Germans from the political support of the Quakers. Others feared it would destroy the German language in Pennsylvania. Others were jealous of their religion. Yet Schlatter pushed on with his work until 1757, when he resigned his position as superintendent of schools, and Dr. William Smith, Provost of the College of Philadelphia, succeeded him. Dr. Smith undertook the work with great energy and zeal. But an Englishman at the head of the German Schools was less acceptable than his German predecessor.

All the opposition needed was a leader, and he soon appeared in the person of Christopher Sauer. Sauer was a printer, who manufactured his own material, a merchant who made his own wares, a physician who looked after the health of his customers. He bought their produce and sold them everything they needed. He helped every one and accommodated every one and became rich at it. In short, he was the one grandest German of them all, loved and followed most devotedly, the Good Samaritan of Germantown. When his voice sounded, the contest was on in earnest. Comparing this struggle with the celebrated educational struggle of Horace Mann in Massachusetts, that was but a skirmish by the side of this mighty war. A war that lasted from 1750 to 1770. In Massachusetts it was a question of method, a pedagogical struggle, but in Pennsylvania it was a question of religion, language and nationality.

Smith, with money back of him, tried to start opposition to Sauer along every line. He started his own printing press, his own stores, etc. Franklin supported him. He, no doubt, was anxious for the success of this great school system, that it might furnish students for the College of Philadelphia, over which he presided. It also pleased Franklin because it tended to unify the people. It tended to make them one m language. It would tend to make them one in religion, since everything tended more or less toward the English Church and toward the discarding the Lutheran and other German churches. In fact, one of the brothers of Muhlenberg became one of the most prominent ministers in the English or Episcopal church. Sauer saw all this, and threw all his mighty influence against it. With his business capacity, his wealth, and the influence of his many publications, his great love for his countrymen, there could be but one result. Dr. Smith was utterly routed and his schools were abandoned. The Germans did not abandon education, but they returned to the churcE and the district school. They were stirred to intense activity along educational lines. They more than ever clung to their language, customs and religion, a trait still characteristic of their descendants after more than one and one-third centuries. The Germans won what they contested for, but they lost all the benefits that would have resulted from the assistance of their English would-be benefactors. They retained their language, but they lost the opportunities for a higher education for which their natures craved.

This struggle led them to mistrust any educational advancement along non-sectarian lines and burdened them with inefficient parochial schools. But this has now passed. They still love their language, their customs, their religion, but their opposition to English schools has now ended, and none are more devoted to the cause of education and the common school system of the State than the Pennsylvania Germans. It is generally supposed that Dr. Muhlenberg was ignorant of the designs which Sauer claimed actuated the plans of Schlatter and Smith. Schlatter, a native of Switzerland, and Smith, a native of England, even with Muhlenberg's assistance, could not combat, successfully, the immense influence of the German, Christopher Sauer, especially if the latter could make the Germans believe that their language, nationality and refigion were being assailed. When the contest was over, the union churches of Lutheran and Reformed Congregations began to disagree, and the union church idea, then so common, and so successful for the time, now has few supporters. The reaction has, unfortunately, in some sections, pitted them against each other. But the days of Sauer and Smith are past, and the greatest educational struggle of the century is an event of history too important to be omitted even in such a brief work as this. Christopher Sauer was a firm believer in education; he was a college bred man himself, and he sent his son to the best schoolmaster of the colony, Christopher Dock of Skippack. Dock wrote a work on pedagogy in 1750, but it is claimed that Dr. Sauer planned it. He published it in 1770, after the writer's death. It was the first work on pedagogy pub- Hshed in America. Christopher Dock was a pious schoolmaster, and his work is interesting, especially since he advocated correspondence between the youth of different schools as a means of education. This seems to be an anticipation of the modern correspondence schools.

This great contest waged by English influence against German, wealth against personality, cold planning against love and devotion, furnishes a true explanation of the traits and peculiarities of this unique class of people, though the smoke of the battle has long passed from the eyes of the contestants.

This people's brogue and its multitude of peculiarities, to some literary genius, may furnish an infinitely richer field than ever met the scrutinizing eye of Washington Irving as he gazed down the annals of the New York Dutch. It may not be too much to expect that some time a far greater work than Knickerbocker's History of New York may grace the record of this peculiar people.

CHAPTER n.

EARLY SCHOOLS

From various county and state histories^ we learn that the first schools founded by settlers were of a sectarian nature, that is, parochial schools especially in those parts — central, southern and southeastern sections — where religious sects were concentrated. Nothing is more natural than to suppose that, since these people were in favor of education and since the countries from which they immigrated allowed the church to control education, they would follow suggestions from their churches or from their ministers.

Parochial Schools. — From the same source and from the recollections and traditions of old men we learn that whenever a church was built the school house followed. In many cases, the minister was also the teacher and the church the school house.

When the duties became too great for the minister, and the remuneration was sufficient, a teacher was employed, who was also the leader in the church choir and the "pastor's" assistant. As the minister was always the guardian of the school as well as its founder, to be consistent he would take great care that only teachers of a high moral and religious reputation were employed. He influenced the selection of teachers through the trustees, for many, if not most, parochial schools were controlled

^Shimmel's "History of Pennsylvania," Kuhn's "Swiss and German Settlers in Pennsylvania," Montgomery's "History of Berks County," Wickersham's "History of Education in Pennsylby trustees. We still have some of these schools remaining, as the Moravian schools of Bethlehem, Pa. In this way the trustees and even the patrons were taught to see that only those teachers with suitable qualifications were employed. Our own experience and observation proves how well this custom is still adhered to. A people may be furnished with all the necessary equipments for a perfect system of education, but unless they are interested in carrying out the necessary conditions it will require eternal vigilance of some external power to prevent its falling to ruin.

Not only popular sentiment but the law of the state now demands moral character^ as a requisite qualification of public school teachers. The idea of making a teacher the leader in Sunday school is still considered in selecting teachers for some districts, especially in rural communities of the State. This has much to do with the high moral standard of the teachers of the State.

When parents were too poor to pay the requisite tuition they were allowed to send their children free of charge, specially if they belonged to the same sect as the school. This privilege, however, depended upon the church controlling the schoor; some were more tolerant than others.

It was probably fortunate that these early schools were thus controlled, for in this new country it helped the various churches combat sheer materialism when everything in a newly settled State tended to lead in that direction.

Higher Ediwation. — Higher education was controlled by ecclesiastical influence, with the single exception of the University of Pennsylvania ; all other like institutions in the Eastern and Central States, such as Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth, Williams and Brown in New England, Co-

^ "School Laws and Decisions," pages 241, 171.

'See "U. S. Report of Bureau of Education," 1895-96, page 236.

lumbia in New York City, Princeton in New Jersey, University of Maryland, William and Mary and Randolph Macon in Virginia, and the universities of North and South Carolinas, together with other seminaries aspiring to college work, had ecclesiastical foundation.^ Those having sufficient endowment still exist, and are the great institutions by which the State is very largely relieved of the burden of higher education. The training of teachers in the State Normal Schools of Pennsylvania is an exception to this general rule ; but they will be discussed in another chapter. p, One great objection to parochial schools was that sev-

eral schools of different sects must be maintained in some districts when there were only pupils for one. Says Shimmel in his "History of Pennsylvania" : "It was said of the country around Philadelphia that by 1750 a school house stood in almost every ridge of woods." If these parts most thickly settled were overburdened with a variety of schools what can be said of those most thinly populated ?

The folly of these efforts sooner or later became apparent except to the most bigoted, for the early churches were financially overburdened. The teaching generally was not stimulated then by the competition of welltrained teachers. The denomination of the church to which the teacher belonged had more to do with his pay and selection than his ability and preparation. Another hindrance was the fact that, because the teacher generally received his salary directly from the parents of his pupils, he was compelled to cater more or less to his pupils and their parents. His independence was handicapped and he was unable properly to stimulate the work of the pupils. A few of these parochial schools which were well endowed still survive, but the great majority of parents prefer the free to the pay schools, and while