lished during the present century. Throughout the colonial period the only action by the Province legislature concerned the establishment of academies, and whatever was done in the way of common school education was through private or local action.1 The relations of the State government to this latter problem begin with the law of 1795,2 appropriating £20,000 annually for the encouragement of schools. This amount the legislature apportioned among the different counties; the apportionment to the various towns was entrusted to the supervisors in each county, and the local management was entirely in the hands of elected town commissioners and school district trustees. The trustees were required to make reports to the town commissioners as the basis for the district apportionment of the State appropriation; and reports of the number of schools, scholars and days of instruction were to be forwarded through the town commissioners and county treasurers to the Secretary's office at Albany. There is, however, no provision for either State or county control or supervision in the system of school administration thus set up; and although the State appropriation was continued annually for ten years, there was no action taken towards inspection or control of the schools aided from the State funds.

In 1805 the school appropriation was allowed to lapse, and although the accumulation of a Common School Fund was at the same time provided for, there was to be no distribution until the annual interest of this fund amounted to $50,000. It was not until 1814 that this situation was reached, and during this interval common school education became again entirely a subject for local action or inaction as the case might be. With the renewal of State aid for schools from the interest of the Common School Fund, Acts were passed for the organization of the school system throughout the State. The Massachusetts "district system" was made the basis, probably because existing local schools were established on that plan. Each district meeting of freeholders and taxpayers was authorized to locate its school, levy local taxes, and elect a board of trustees, who employed the teachers and directed the management of the schools. There were also to be school commissioners in each town, to whom the trustees were to make reports, and town inspectors to examine candidates for positions as teachers.

1 As early as 1691 a bill was proposed in the New York Assembly "“to appoint a school-master for the educating and instructing of children and youth, to read and write English in every Town in the Province." No action was taken on this bill. Journal of New York Assembly, 1691-1743, p. 7.

The grants from the State were made conditional on the raising of an equal amount by local taxation, and the first step was taken in the direction of central supervision by providing for a Superintendent of Common Schools, selected by the Council of Appointment, at an annual salary of $400. The chief duties of this officer were in the management of the Common School Fund, his powers of control over the schools and local officers being but slight. He was, however, to prepare plans for the better organization of the schools, to apportion the State appropriation among the counties according to their population, and the reports of the school trustees to the town commissioners were to be forwarded to him.

In the introduction and organization of the new school system, the first Superintendent, Gideon Hawley, did not limit himself to the duties specified in the statute. By his activity he demonstrated the possibilities of his position, and the successful establishment within eight years of 5,500 schools with an enrollment of over 300,000 pupils has been ascribed in very large degree to his work. The uncalled for removal of Superintendent Hawley, in 1821, caused the legislature, as a means of censuring this action of the Council of Appointment, to transfer the duties of Superintendent of Schools to the Secretary of State. This change was in effect a reduction of the central control over the educational system, for although that officer could perform the specific duties laid down in the law, his other functions made impossible the same active work outside the letter of the statute as could be done by a separate official.

The first step in the direction of an increase in the central control was in 1822, when the acting Superintendent of Schools was given an appellate and final jurisdiction over all acts and decisions of local school officials. The power thus conferred on the State Superintendent has been of the greatest importance; it in effect constituted him an administrative court, and his decisions on the thousands of cases that have been presented form a body of administrative law controlling the powers and duties of all local school officials. The scope and significance of this authority will be considered in detail later; it is only necessary here to note its general character and its place in the historical development of central control.

The need for a more effective supervision of the schools and local school authorities soon began to be felt. Governor De Witt Clinton, in his message to the Legislature in 1826, pointed out that the Superintendent of Schools was prevented by his other official duties as Secretary of State from visiting the schools in person, while in

1 Laws of 1822, c. 245.

L

fact he had no legal authority to make such visits. The Governor held that "a visitorial authority for the purpose of detecting abuses in the application of the funds, of examining into the modes and plans of instruction, and of suggesting improvements would unquestionably be attended with the most propitious effects." 1 These opinions were endorsed by the Literature Committee of the State Senate, whose chairman urged that "the State, which contributes so large a proportion of the compensation of the teachers, has a right to direct its application in such a way as to effect the object of procuring useful instruction." 2 Similar recommendations were made in the following year by the Secretary of State in his capacity as Superintendent of Schools. But no action was taken by the legislature; and the local authorities continued for fifteen years more to direct the management of the schools free from any effective inspection and supervision.

3

In 1839, John C. Spencer, Chairman of the Senate Literature Committee of 1826, became Secretary of State, and ex-officio Superintendent of Common Schools. With the earlier proposals still in mind, he secured from the legislature the authority to appoint unsalaried county boards of visitors to visit the schools and report with suggestions for improvement. The reports of these boards of visitors recommended the establishment of an efficient and systematic county supervision under the general direction of the State bureau, as a substitute for the existing inefficient method of town inspection. These reports and the greater official influence now held by Mr. Spencer secured the enactment, in 1841, of the scheme proposed by him fifteen years before.

The Act of 18414 provided for the appointment by the Secretary of State of a Deputy Superintendent of Schools, thus making possible a greater central activity in carrying out the powers conferred by previous statutes. For the visitation and inspection of the schools, there was to be a Superintendent in each county, who should recommend to school trustees and teachers the proper studies, books, discipline and conduct of the schools; examine and grant certificates of qualification to teachers; and also decide in the first instance on appeals subject to the jurisdiction of the State Superintendent. These county superintendents, although appointed by the supervisors in each county, were to act subject to the rules and regulations of the Superintendent of Schools, and half of their salaries was paid by the State. With the Deputy Superintendent at Albany and this corps of county officials, a much

1 S. S. Randall, History of the Common School System of the State of New York, p. 51. Laws of 1839, c. 330. 4 Ibid., 1841, c. 260.

? Randall, op. cit., 101, 105.

more thorough system of school supervision and a much more effective central control was made possible.

The new system of inspection brought about great improvements in school administration, and its benefits were so clear that Superintendent of Schools Young, who when he succeeded Mr. Spencer as Secretary of State was a violent opponent of the change, soon became its enthusiastic supporter.1 Legislative committees and prominent educators also strongly approved of the plan and methods adopted. Nevertheless, there arose a strong demand for the abolition of this system of supervision." Local trustees and town commissioners were not pleased to find their former independence interfered with, while injudicious political selections by supervisors in some counties resulted in the appointment of some incapable and oppressive officials.3 For these and other reasons the clamor against the Act continued, the pressure on the legislature finally became too strong, and in 1847 the county superintendent system was abolished. On the face of it, the result was to place the town and district officers in direct connection with the State Department; but in fact, as the State Superintendents recognized, any effective supervision of the local officers without a corps of officers acting under the direction of the State bureau was impossible, and the result was plainly a long step in the direction of decentralization.

The reaction was only temporary. Other forces were at work, and soon new measures were taken which so increased the amount of State aid to the common schools that a return to the policy of further State intervention in the management of the schools was inevitable. Already in 1838 the interest of the United States Deposit Fund had been appropriated to the schools,5 increasing the annual State appropriation from $110,000 to $275,000. Just at the time the office of county superintendent was abolished the agitation for free schools was beginning; in 1849 the Free School Act was adopted by a referendum vote; and, although the practical realization of free schools did not come until much later, an important step in that direction was taken in 1851, when a State tax of $800,000 was imposed by the legislature for the support of the common schools, in addition to the income of the Common School and United States Deposit Funds.

6

The increase of State aid was not for the purpose of increasing State control, for the new appropriation was turned over to the town commissioners and district trustees, to be expended at their

1 Reports of Supt. of Schools, 1843, 1844, 1845. 2 Randall, op. cit., 177.

* Ibid., 233.

4 Laws of 1847, c. 480.

5 Ibid., 1838, c. 237.

6 Ibid., 1849, c. 151.

discretion in the same way as the earlier grants. Nevertheless, the increased State appropriation paved the way for a larger degree of inspection and supervision of the schools, and in fact made a more thorough control almost essential.

An important step in this direction was the organization, in 1854, of a separate Department of Public Instruction. The general oversight of the schools had hitherto been entrusted to an official burdened with many other duties, and although since 1841 there had been a special Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction, his duties were those of a subordinate, and the Secretary of State remained as the head of the school system. An independent Superintendent of Public Instruction, freed from all other functions, could necessarily exercise a greater activity beyond the sphere of statutory duties. In addition to the former powers of the Secretary of State, the Superintendent of Public Instruction was given authority to visit the schools and make inquiries into the course of instruction, management and discipline. Even although he could not personally visit any large number of schools, the grant of this power is significant of the tendency towards a larger control over the local school officers.

In 1856 the State school tax was changed from a tax for a fixed sum to a mill tax,2 which at the existing valuation gave an immediate increase of $300,000 in the State grants for schools. At the same time came the re-establishment of an effective system of supervision, which had been urged constantly by the State Superintendents since the repeal of the county superintendent system in 1847. The new system differed in some respects from that established in 1841. There was to be a school commissioner for each Assembly District, instead of a Superintendent for each county, and the commissioners were to be elected instead of appointed by the board of supervisors. Although chosen by local election, the district commissioners being subject to the rules and regulations of the State Superintendent, and receiving their salary from State funds on his order, were under the direction of that officer, and the introduction of the system marks an important step in the extension of state control. The powers and duties of the district commissioners included the examination of the management, instruction and discipline of the schools, and the condition of school buildings and grounds; the recommendation of improvements in all these lines; the examination, licensing and annulling licenses of teachers, and the organization of teachers' institutes. The authority of the district commissioners did not, however, include the city schools.

1 Laws of 1854, c. 97.

2 Ibid., 1856, c. 179.