policy of the Government to turn into the State treasuries, also, a percentage of the net proceeds of the sale of public lands within their borders. At first this was three per cent (later made five per cent), and was known as the Threeper-cent Fund." In the year 1818 Congress ordered that one sixth of it should be given to the founding or maintenance of a college or university in each. The disposi

tion of the remainder being left to the option of its holders, in a dozen States it was diverted to education; Missouri realizing one million dollars' increase of the permanent fund.

Arkansas, Indiana, Missouri, and a few other States, received saline lands, the proceeds from the working or sale of which were added to the school-fund. In New Jersey (1871) the income from the sales and rents of riparian lands between high and low water were made a part of the schoolfund, a sum the future possible revenue of which has been estimated at millions.

In some of the newer States school lands have been sold in part only. Nebraska has two million five hundred thousand acres, none of which can be sold for less than seven dollars per acre. Texas has about twenty-four million acres.

D. THE SURPLUS REVENUE FUND.

In 1836, by act of Congress, a large surplus in the United States treasury, amounting to over $42,000,000, was ordered to be deposited with the several States, in proportion to their representation in Congress. On account of subsequent financial embarrassments, the amount actually distributed was something less than $30,000,000. Sixteen of the twentysix States then organized (1837) set aside their quota of the deposit, in whole or part, as a fund whose revenue should go to the maintenance of the common schools in their respective States. Eight of these* so appropriated the whole

Alabama, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

of their shares, amounting in the aggregate to $9,855,134. Eight States,* of the $9,462,798 they received, added a part to their school-funds, the other going for internal improvements and general purposes. In ten States receiving the deposits none was given to education. These were Arkansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Virginia, receiving in the aggregate $8,793,713, which went, as named above, to general purposes or internal improvements. New York received most and Delaware least, in both of which it was set apart for education.

3. Permanent Funds and Local Taxes.

Notwithstanding the large common-school endowments + considered in the last paragraph, they furnish but a limited part of the total school revenues.

By the United States Commissioner's report for the year 1886-'87, it appears that the expenditures for education in the United States, by States and Territories, was $115,103,886; of which less than six millions was received from permanent funds. More than sixty millions of dollars were collected in local taxes, a revenue representing a capital of a billion and a half of dollars. With all the large funds, it is, after all, the willing citizens' tax that supports the schools. Pennsylvania appropriates $1,000,000 annually from the State treasury, but raises $9,000,000 from local sources. Illinois, with a permanent fund of over $12,000,000, makes an annual expenditure nearly as large, all but half a million being from local taxes.

In the table have been grouped the ten States having the largest school-funds, in which the annual income, at four and a half per cent, from this source, is compared with their respective school expenditures for the academic year 1885-'86:

*Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina.

+ The aggregate of the invested school-funds of the thirty-five States approximates one hundred and twenty million dollars.

Resources and Expenditures of Public Education in ten States, 1885–’86.

ure v.

Bibliography.

For a picture of society at the opening of the century, see Schouler's "History of the United States," vols. ii and iii; also, "Building the Nation,” by Coffin, chapters xvi, xvii, xviii, xxxi, and xxxiii, and “Historical View of Education, its Dignity and Degradation," by Horace Mann, lectConsult "Public Lands for Schools," J. Sparks, "North American Review," vol. xiii, p. 310; "History of Land Grants in the Northwest Territory," G. W. Knight, 1885; the "Ordinance of 1787," IIon. John Eaton, "Education," February, 1887, "Educational Influence of the Ordinance of 1787,” “Proceedings of the National Educational Association," 1887, p. 118; "Dr. Cutler and the Ordinance of 1787," W. F. Poole, "North American Review," 1876; "American State Universities," by A. Ten Brook, including interesting matter on "Congressional University Land Grants"; "Land Grants in the United States for Educational Purposes," by Prof. H. B. Adams, "Proceedings of National Educational Association, Department of Superintendence," 1889; "History of the Surplus Revenue Fund" of 1837, by E. G. Bourne (1885), and the "Division of School Funds for Religious Purposes," by Dr. W. T. Harris, "Atlantic Monthly," August, 1876.

A curious bit of history is to be found in a sketch of the "Pious Fund of California,” in the publications of the California Historical Society, vol. i, Part I, 1887. See also the "Origin and History of the Massachusetts School Fund," by Secretary George S. Boutwell.

CHAPTER VII.

CENTRALIZING TENDENCIES.-(Continued.)

SCHOOL SUPERVISION.

THE development in this country of systems of school supervision was inevitable. It is the normal result of public interest in the child. Division of labor in education, as in other human industry, works out its own economy. And the authoritative management of schools is justified, not alone because the training of mind is of overmastering importance, but on the plain business principle that the economical use of resources is the first step to success.

It has been said there are three stages in the development of school systems as known in the United States: 1. The conviction made general, that every child should receive a fair share of education. 2. The later but equally fundamental idea, that the property of the State should be responsible for that education. 3. That of school unity and system as secured by supervision. How slow has been the progress along these lines is evident at a glance. The enforced patronage of the schools is a phase of the first not yet generally accepted. Under the second is the-to many-doubtful question of free, secondary, and professional education; while with an abundance of supervision, the public is not wholly convinced of the importance of wise direction.

Bishop Fraser, visiting this country (1865), was constrained to say, "The great desideratum of the common-school system, both in Massachusetts and the States generally, was adequate, thorough, impartial, independent inspection of schools"; and more than twenty years afterward, an editorial in the "New England Journal of Education " declared, "The most important question of the hour in matters of education is that of supervision."

In the earlier years, when there were few schools, and

CF THE

scattered, control was chiefly local, and exercised, in New England especially, by the selectmen of the towns; later, and until late in this century, by committees and local schoolboards. Each individual school was a law unto itself; uniformity was out of the question. Schools were efficient or neglected according to the local management. To a greater or less extent this must always be true, even in cities. It is the personal and localized effort that brings success. But the extension of the powers of the committee (or board) to administer a system of schools, or the fixing of a general control in a specialist, while minor and executive interests are left to the community, has great advantages. A close organic connection of the stronger schools with the weaker may advantage the one while offering no hindrance to the other. This is the function of a well-ordered supervision. The co-operation of all gives efficiency to each.

Again, the early supervision, if it may be so called, was chiefly prudential and economical. It regarded the expenditure of moneys and the erection of houses; the levying.of taxes, making repairs, fixing the school terms and salaries; and, in general, had to do with the administration, the business, as opposed to the professional side of education. It was the infancy of control, necessary but incidental to the real work of the school. It was a care for the scaffolding rather than the structure. The oversight of methods and courses of study; of teachers and their selection; of individuals, and grades and classes; of discipline and sanitation, is a matter of half a century's growth. While, in a more comprehensive view of the office, there must be added to these its function in respect to the school's broader economic relations as a social institution, a factor in civilization, its ethical bearings. This is the philosophical side of education, and belongs appropriately to the office of general inspection. It has been said by Dr. Hall, “If teaching is to become a profession, it is superintendents, supervisors, etc., who must first make it so, by becoming, as their high position demands, strictly professional themselves in their work."