« PreviousContinue »
1,026 days and 1,034 days. Table IV b gives the same item, taking into account only the schooling furnished in elementary and secondary schools supported by public taxes.
Table IV a.- Average number of years of schooling (of 200 days each) that each individ
ual of the population received at the different dates specified in the table, taking into account all public and private schooling of whatever grade.
1870. 1880. 1890. 1895. 1896. 1897. 1898. 1899. 1900. 1901. a 1902. a 1903.
TABLE IV 6.— The same, taking into account only the schooling furnished by public ele
mentary and secondary schools.
1870. 1880. 1890. 1895. 1896. 1897. 1898. 1899. 1900. 1901. a 1902. a 1903.
1800 1840 1850 1860
82 1870. 208 ! 1880 420 1890 434 1903
It seems that the past year shows a rate of instruction which, if continued for the twelve years of the legal school age, would give an average of 934 days to each inhabitant. Estimates given in my Report for 1901 make the average amount of schooling to each individual of the population at a number of dates commencing with the year 1800, as follows:
Days. 672 792 892
1,034 Laws relating to agricultural and mechanical land-grant colleges. Chapter II (page 39-226) contains the laws of 32 States and Territories governing the agricultural and mechanical land-grant colleges established under the acts of Congress approved July 2, 1862, and August 30, 1890. The laws governing such institutions in the other 16 States and Territories were given in Chapter I of the Report for 1902. This chapter completes the collection.
An examination of the legislation shows that the levying of a fixed tax on the assessed valuation of the taxable property of the State for the permanent support of these institutions has been adopted by a number of the States and Territories. Thus, California, Colorado, and North Dakota each levy a tax of one-fifth of a mill on every dollar of the assessed valuation of taxable property; Arizona, three-fifths of a mill; Indiana and Michigan, one-tenth of a mill; Minnesota, twenty-three one-hundredths of a mill; Ohio, one-tenth of a mill unless otherwise provided by the legislature; New Mexico, forty one-hundredths of a mill, and Nebraska, 1 mill. Kentucky levies an annual tax of onetwentieth of a mill on each dollar of the assessed valuation of property in the State belonging to white inhabitants; Alabama grants one-sixth of the net proceeds of the fertilizer tax, and South Carolina grants the entire proceeds of such fertilizer tax, but requires the institution to enforce the fertilizer law. Missouri grants the proceeds of the collateral inheritance tax to an amount not to exceed the equivalent of a tax rate of one-tenth of a mill on every dollar of the assessed valuation of the taxable property, and provides that if the proceeds in any one year are not sufficient to provide such amount the balance shall be paid out of the first money thus received in the following year; of the entire amount collected one-fifth is for the support of the Missouri school of mines and metallurgy. Wisconsin provides for an annual State tax amounting to $337,500; Oregon, $25,000. In Oklahoma the amounts are fixed by each legislature. Maine has a fixed appropriation of $20,000 per annum, North Carolina $10,000, and Vermont $6,000. In the case of Michigan, which provides a tax rate of onetenth of a mill, it is stipulated that the amount to be raised in any one year shall not exceed the sum of $100,000.
The levying of a permanent tax for the support of these institutions relieves them of the necessity of making constant appeals to sometimes unfriendly legislatures for the means for current support. However, in some of the States mentioned above the tax rate was fixed long ago, and in the meantime the institutions have grown so rapidly in the number of students and expanded their scope of instruction so largely that the growth in the income from the tax rate has not kept pace with the increase in expenditures rendered necessary for the proper maintenance of the work. The State of California, for instance, has during the past few years granted the sum of $100,000 annually for the current support of its university in addition to the regular tax, and has granted special appropriations for buildings. In some cases special taxes are levied for a limited period for certain specified objects, especially where large sums are needed for new buildings.
The legislation shows also that in a number of the newer States funds are raised for the erection of buildings by means of bond issues, the payment of both principal and interest on such bonds to be made out of the income derived from the lease of the lands granted to the institutions by the General Government or from the interest derived from the proceeds of the sales of such lands.
With respect to the compensation of the members of the boards of trustees or governing bodies it may be stated that generally the laws provide for the payment only of actual and necessary expenses incurred in attending the meetings of such boards. Of course there are a number of exceptions, as, for instance, the following: Arizona allows $5 per day and 10 cents per mile for each mile traveled, mileage being limited to one payment for each session and compensation to $150 in any one year; Arkansas, $2.50 per day and actual necessary expenses; Georgia, $4 per day and actual fare to and from meetings; Iowa, $4 per day not to exceed thirty days in any one year and mileage, but building committees may receive pay for sixty days; Maine and Wyoming allow actual traveling expenses; North Dakota, $3 per day and mileage at 5 cents per mile; Oklahoma, $5 per day, not to exceed twelve days in any one year, and mileage at 5 cents per mile; South Dakota allows $5 per day, with special compensation to members from the Black Hills region for meetings east of the Missouri River; Utah, $4 per day and 10 cents per mile for one way only; West Virginia, $4 per day and actual expenses. In quite a number of cases the laws are silent on the subject.
The number of members on the boards of trustees or regents varies in the different States, as well as the manner of their selection. In the great majority of States the trustees or regents are appointed by the governor by and with the advice and consent of the senate. In three States-Illinois, Nebraska, and Nevada—they are elected by popular vote; in several others by vote of the State legislatures, and in a few cases, as in Vermont, Delaware, South Carolina, and Maryland, part of the board is self-perpetuating, while the other part is subject to appointment or election.
Generally the entire management of the institutions is committed to the governing body especially designated for the purpose. There are, however, a few exceptions. In South Dakota the management of the agricultural college is committed to the Regents of Education, a body of five members, which has exclusive control of all the educational institutions maintained by the State. In Montana the management is committed to the State board of education, which, however, delegates immediate supervision to a local committee of five members. In Minnesota the State board of control has full authority in all financial matters, including the construction of buildings, but the board of regents retains control of the general educational policy as well as the number of teachers to be employed and the salaries to be paid.
Education in Great Britain and Ireland.—Chapter III (pp. 227– 271) presents brief conspectuses of public elementary education in Great Britain and Ireland, with detailed accounts of important current events and a statistical review showing the progress since 1870.
As regards England interest centers in the changes in the local administration of schools effected by the law of 1902, which has been put into operation during the year under review. The former school boards closed up their work as rapidly as circumstances permitted, and the county councils, which have become the local authorities for education, have been developing their plans for the approval of the central "board of education.” The councils, like the former school boards, are the agents for the distribution of the Government grant for schools and are empowered to raise whatever additional funds may be needed for the support of the schools by local taxes. These taxes, which under the law of 1870 could only be applied to public schools, are now applied equally to church schools, which remain substantially under private management. It will be remembered that the protest against the use of local taxes, except under public control, was so strong that the original draft of the law of 1902 was modified to the extent of establishing a slight measure of public control over the church schools.
The opposition to the support of sectarian schools by local taxes, which it was supposed would subside as soon as the law was really in operation, has been steadily increasing. In England this opposition has taken the form of "passive resistance," i. e., refusal on the part of the Nonconformists to pay the portion of the school tax which would go to the support of religious instruction in the church schools. This resistance is not occasional and sporadic, but an organized movement extending throughout the country. Since the chapter here considered was in print statements have been made in Parliament showing that no less than 18,000 summonses have already been issued against persons refusing for “conscience sake” to pay the tax for religious instruction, and that the number of cases in which final notice has been given amounted to 80,000. In Wales the opposition has taken a more threatening form, the majority of the county councils of this principality having absolutely refused to appropriate local taxes to sectarian schools. Under these circumstances it is generally predicted that the law of 1902 will be speedily amended in some important particulars.
Apart from the question of sectarian schools the law presents many favorable aspects which are specially noted in the chapter before us. The church schools, which educate about 42 per cent of the children, are placed on a much better footing by their improved financial condition; whereas formerly they depended upon voluntary contributions for about one-third of their expenditures, they now have the certainty and security of the local tax. Further, by bringing secondary education within the sphere of Government supervision the law promises to effect the much-needed coordination of elementary and secondary schools, which have hitherto worked without reference to each other. The local councils have been extremely active and in general very judicious and liberal in their efforts to carry out the provisions of the law. Out of 333 councils 243 bad submitted schemes for the approval of the Government before the end of the year. It still remains to be seen, however, whether the county councils acting through educational committees of their own formation can efficiently maintain the schools after the schemes are formulated. The task would be comparatively easy in small districts. The peculiar difficulties that are likely to arise in the larger towns with the children distributed in two distinct classes of schools-i. e., private or church schools and public or council schools—are set forth in a citation from the Schoolmaster presented in Chapter III, page 158.
The most noteworthy event of the year in the history of education in England was the passage of a new law for London. In its final form the law does little more than extend the general law of 1902 to the metropolis; but in its original form the bill departed much further from the principle of popular control for tax-supported schools than the general law had done. Its provisions were condemned, not only by the liberals and nonconformists, but also by a great body of conservatives and churchmen who had gauged the spirit of the city much better than the Government leaders. To the scathing criticisms of the measure by members of Parliament and the press were added public demonstrations of ominous character, and under the accumulated pressure the Government hastily withdrew or modified the most objectionable features of the bill.
The Parliamentary history of the measure, which is given quite fully in Chapter III, is therefore of special interest as affording an insight both into the educational status of London and also into the interaction of Government and local policies in this great city. The most objectionable feature of the original bill was embodied in clause 2, which deprived the city council of all independent action in forming its educational committee by giving the borough councils of London a controlling voice in the matter. This clause was dropped under pressure. Opposition then centered in clause 3, which provided that the borough councils should be made the managers of the public schools of their respective districts; that they should have the right to determine the curriculum of these schools, to appoint and dismiss the teachers, and to determine the sites upon which additional schools should be erected. This endeavor to deprive the council of the authority which was nominally imposed upon it was also defeated, and the bill as passed left the London county council the supreme local authority for the schools of the metropolis. The force and drift