EDUCATION
While Mexican officials had made sporadic attempts to provide public
education in Los Angeles, creation of an organized school system did not occur
until the early 1850s. After the American annexation, the city council
contracted with private schoolmasters, who charged tuition but who also
received city subsidies funded by a small property tax to support education
first imposed in 1852. In return, they provided the schoolhouses in which they
taught.
One of the contractors, A. S. Breed, opened a school in Dec., 1852, with a
subsidy of $33 per month. He fits the description of the unnamed hangman,
cited by Horace Bell, who carried out the sentence of an 1851 vigilance
committee. Elected town marshal a few months after he opened his school, Breed
was removed from that office for embezzling funds.
Beginning in 1853 the city council appointed a three member board of
education and a superintendent to run the newly-organized school system. The
next year Mayor Stephen Foster estimated that three-fourths of the 500 school-
age children within the city could not afford tuition at the subsidized
schools. He urged construction of two public schools, financed by the property
tax. Using that money the first publicly-owned school opened in 1855 at Second
and Spring, followed shortly by another erected on Bath Street near the Plaza.
Control over school administration was eventually transferred to the
voters, who elected the board and superintendent for the first time in 1866.
Board membership grew to five in 1872 through special state legislation, which
also empowered the board to appoint the superintendent.
By 1880 the number of school-age children within the city had increased
significantly. The annual school census revealed 3579 children between the
ages of 5 and 17, with 2098 enrolled in school. Fortunately, absenteeism was
great or the 32 teachers would have been overwhelmed.
Throughout the 'eighties the system struggled with the difficulties caused
by the rapid population increase. Facilities were quickly overcrowded as
average attendance quintupled during the decade. Parents, teachers,
administrators and the board grappled with a problem that would be familiar to
Angelenos on several later occasions.
A) THE BOARD OF EDUCATION
Professional educator and prolific chronicler of the city's early history,
James M. Guinn was appointed superintendent in 1881. By that time the growing
number of children had already outstripped the ability of the school system to
provide facilities for them. Superintendent Guinn chose to battle the board of
education, elected on a partisan ballot in that era, over the issue of
inadequate schoolrooms. He was aware that such a course was precarious.
During the first two decades of the American period superintendents rarely
served more than a single year. Nor were professional educators selected for
that post until 1880 when it was given to Mrs. Chloe Jones, who had been the
high school principal. Guinn owed his appointment to the fact that Mrs. Jones
had been removed when she tangled with the board. In the summer of 1883 he
summarized his own struggle in this letter to the Times. Among the "solid
three" who opposed Guinn was George S. Patton, Sr., father of the World War II
general.
{Times, July 14, 1883, p. 3}
The Schoolhouse Question--A Clear Statement of the Situation.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: It is a well-known
fact that during the past school year the public schools of
our city have been badly overcrowded. It is equally well
known that during the greater portion of the year a number of
children--at one time as high as one hundred and fifty--were
excluded from the schools on account of insufficient school
room. The parents of these children were promised that next
year there would be ample room; that the Board of Education
were about to build several new school buildings.
It is now within a few weeks of the opening of the
schools for the ensuing year. What is the situation? Not a
brick laid, not a nail driven in a new building; not even a
plan adopted. The seating capacity of the schools has been
reduced three hundred from what it was last year by the
canceling of the lease of the rooms in the Normal building,
and by the sale of the Bath street property. No room for
three hundred children who were in the schools last year, and
no room for three or four hundred more who have come here by
emigration. There is a bare possibility that four rooms will
be added to the Eighth street building in time for the
opening of schools. If this is done it will give seatings
for 200 pupils. But, even taking the most favorable view of
the situation, there will not be less than 100 to 500
children excluded from the schools during the next term.
This is certainly a lamentable state of
affairs--lamentable not only from an educational standpoint,
but from a business one also. It affects the prosperity of
our city. Who is responsible for this state of affairs? A
plain statement of facts may show. Repeatedly, during the
first part of last school year, by verbal and written
reports, I called the attention of the members of the Board
to the overcrowded condition of the schools, and to the
necessity of selling the Spring street and Bath street
properties to obtain funds to build new buildings. After
many resolves and re-resolves, the lots were offered for
sale. A cash offer of $30,300 was received. Dr. Kurtz and
Mr. Gibson favored the acceptance of the offer, and urged the
necessity of proceeding immediately to build. The "solid
three" who rule urged delay, claiming that the Council would
put in a liberal bid. The offer was neither accepted nor
rejected, but the Secretary was instructed to re-advertise
for new proposals. At the next meeting the offer was
withdrawn. After weeks of delay the Council put in a bid of
$31,000. It was moved to accept it. I called the attention
of the Board to the fact that the Council had no available
funds to pay cash down for the lot. I was sneeringly told by
the President "that if they didn't pay for it they couldn't
get it." After more delay the Council turned over to the
Board $7000 from the salary fund; this was all that could be
paid on the lot. With this, and $5500 received from the sale
of Bath street, the Board bought the Haverstick
property--four lots, two fronting on Spring and two on Fort
street. This property, about the time that the cash offer of
$30,000 was received for the Spring street lot, could have
been bought for $9500. The "solid three," by their masterly
delay, got $700 more for the Spring street lot and paid $3000
more for a new school site. A nice little problem in Profit
and Loss!
The financial situation may be briefly summed up thus:
The Board has sold $36,600 worth of school property; cash
received, $12,000; paid for school site, $1250; attorneys'
fees, $250; balance due, $23,850, payable possibly from taxes
next November; amount in the treasury to build new school
buildings, not a dollar.
Mr. Gibson, a new member of the Board, is energetic and
anxious to do his duty.
Dr. Kurtz, an old member, is a true friend of the
teachers and of the schools. He has visited the schools and
examined into the work done in them, and is well satisfied
with it. It is the misfortune of these gentlemen to be in
the minority. My political principles are not in accord with
those of the "solid three," therefore I step down and out of
the superintendency. The success of the Democratic party in
the next Presidential campaign depends upon the appointment
of a Democrat as superintendent of schools in Los Angeles
city. The appointment has been made. A Democratic victory
is assured. "To the victors belong the spoils."
J. M. GUINN.
Elections to the board were partisan until the city charter revision of
1903. There apparently was a Republican way to teach reading, a Democratic way
to master 'riting, and a Prohibitionist approach to 'rithmatic. {A century
later some partisans would still insist that that was true.} Guinn's closing
lines reflected that partisanship, as did this letter by "Common Sense" on the
eve of the 1885 board election. Democratic candidate George Griffin, the
subject of the letter, was a journalist. At various times in his career he
wrote editorials for the Times, held a position on the staff of the Express and
assisted H. H. Bancroft as a translator of Spanish documents, Griffin lost the
election.
{Times, Nov. 26, 1885, p. 2}
"Col." Geo. Butler Griffin and the Board of Education.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: Your criticisms in
Tuesday's issue on "Col." George Butler Griffin, one of the
Democratic candidates for membership on the School Board,
were evidently based on blank ignorance. You do not know the
man. You do not realize his peculiar fitness for the
position. Be it known to you, Mr. Editor, and to all the
voters of the city, that the "Colonel" is not a man {of - Ed.}
ordinary clay, ordinary accomplishments, ordinary intellect,
nor of ordinary blood. Physically, he is not large, but
intellectually he is a giant, and as for blood--why, there is
no question about its color; it is the bluest of the blue.
How can you expect such a man to think or act like common
mortals? It is an impossibility. He is their superior, and,
of course, his children are necessarily superior to ordinary
children. Hence, until quite recently, he has always been
obliged to send his children to "select schools," because
that was the proper thing for a high-toned, aristocratic
gentleman to do, and he had to uphold the dignity of his
"Caste." The risk of contamination had to be avoided, and,
in justice to the "Colonel," I must opine that in
condescending to honor our common schools by his patronage at
present, he has a most laudable object in view; it is nothing
less than to disarm criticism while he seeks election, and
once on the School Board, and its Chairman, then truly will
commence the era of reform. Business will be dispatched with
telegraphic swiftness, for of course the other members will
at once recognize the "Colonel's" overshadowing superiority
and will feel in duty bound to register his decrees.
Discussion would be heresy--the gallant "Colonel's"
infallibility will have to be conceded to secure peace and
harmony. His scheme of reform is radical but eminently
wise, and all well-balanced minds will endorse it. It is
nothing more nor less than to put an end to the stupid
Republican practice, at present in vogue, of grading and
classifying children according to their knowledge, and
substituting therefor a system of grading according to
pedigree. We must have first, second and third-class
children. "Caste" must be recognized--the common must be
separated from the uncommon, the refined from the uncouth,
the ragged and the poor from the well-dressed and well-to-do.
Upon no other basis can so ancient, blue-blooded and
aristocratic a family as the "Griffins" be expected to
patronize our public schools; and without such patronage how
can you reasonably expect them to be a success? If you, Mr.
Editor, doubt the necessity for reform, as herein indicated,
I pray you crave an audience of the "Colonel." If you find
him disinclined to grant it--as you may, for he is not
habitually condescending--humbly invite him to some
Democratic wet grocery, call for an allopathic dose of that
which mellows even the proudest of the proud, the greatest of
the great, repeat the dose as often as you deem prudent, and
I will stake my existence that you will learn from the
"Colonel's" own lips of his ancient and aristocratic lineage;
that he is a graduate of a famous Eastern university; an
accomplished civil engineer; a distinguished member of the
New York bar; a linguist of linguists; an editor; that he has
traveled the world over and has imbibed copious draughts of
knowledge, etc., at the various European and other founts.
Wisdom will drip in "chunks" from his lips, and if your
receptive and retentive faculties be good, you will learn
enough in one hour to obviate the necessity of consulting a
cyclopedia the remainder of your life. You cannot fail to be
impressed with your own littleness and the "Colonel's"
greatness, and you will end your interview by craving the
privilege of supporting the "Colonel" in the present contest.
Be wise and fear not.
Yours truly,
COMMON SENSE.
Faced with the reality that the board from its inception had been
exclusively a male organization, whether elected or appointed, reform-minded
women undertook to elect one of their own in 1886. Coincidental with the
revival of the Los Angeles Woman's Club by Caroline Severance, several club
women called upon prominent political leaders from the various parties in an
effort to have a woman nominated and elected, despite the fact that only men
could vote. Mrs. Anna Averill, a leading community figure who had formerly
served on the faculties of the University of Southern California and Los
Angeles High School, was placed on both major party tickets. Shortly before
the 1886 election this plea for the election of a woman appeared in the Times.
{Times, Nov. 28, 1886, p. 6}
A LADY FOR THE SCHOOL BOARD.
Los Angeles, Nov. 27.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
There seems to be a growing public sentiment in favor of
women as helpers and co-workers in all educational matters.
In a number of our {illegible} cities they already hold
positions of responsibility on various boards of education.
I cannot but think that decided benefits would result to our
public schools by an efficient woman on our own city Board of
Education. It is true, our board has, we are glad to say,
always been composed of honorable gentlemen, men who are
capable, efficient and faithful; and it is not that these
gentlemen have in any degree failed in their work that we ask
for a lady among them, but simply that their burdens,
gratuitously carried, might be more justly distributed, and
possibly lightened.
The present business activity of our city makes unusual
demands upon our energetic business men, and it is not
without great personal sacrifice that they find time to
attend to public duties. Much of the necessary work could be
done by a lady freed from business cares and yet acquainted
by long experience as a teacher with the workings of our
schools and their needs. Again, the fact that a large
proportion of our teachers are ladies, makes it seem only
reasonable that they should have a woman as their
representative on the board. One who could, and would visit
them in their schools, counsel them in their work and
correctly represent them before the board. We think Mrs. Ann
S. Averill capable, by reason of her long experience as a
teacher, her thorough self-discipline and high intellectual
attainments, of filling this position satisfactorily and
anxiously desire her election.
C.
Anna Averill won, becoming the first woman board member. Flushed with that
success, an attempt was made the following year to elect a second woman. Mary
Garbutt, wife of a wealthy businessman and herself active for several decades
in women's and other reform movements, including the Socialist Party, won the
Prohibitionist nomination. With women constituting the overwhelming majority
of the city's teachers, the W.C.T.U. made an unsuccessful appeal for her
election based on a question of parity.
{Times, Nov. 28, 1887, p.3}
Another Lady for the School Board.
Los Angeles, Nov. 27.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
Mrs. Mary E. Garbutt, whom the temperance party has nominated
as a member of the School board, is an experienced educator,
having formerly taught several years in Denver, Colo., as
well as in this city. She is well acquainted with the
schools of Los Angeles and deeply interested in their
progress. Mrs. Garbutt is a lady of candid, unbiased mind,
good judgment and much executive ability, and will, if
elected, discharge her duties with thoroughness and
impartiality. Certainly, it is not asking too much that, out
of five members of the School Board, two should be ladies.
There would still be three gentlemen to hold the balance
of power in all matters considered too difficult for feminine
powers of management; and what more suitable than that two of
those who control our schools should be experienced teachers,
with leisure to visit and thoroughly inspect the educational
work of the city, commending and confirming all that is good,
and weeding out whatever is useless or deleterious.
W.C.T.U.
B) GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN HIRING TEACHERS, PRINCIPALS
The significance of the W.C.T.U. effort to achieve a degree of parity in
female representation on the board, and its failure with Garbutt's defeat, was
reflected in a debate that erupted in the letters column two years later. The
city charter adopted in 1889 provided for the partisan election of nine board
members, one from each ward. The new board chosen that year quickly stirred up
a controversy by adopting the resolution quoted in the letter below. Women
constituted over 90% of the teaching corps, yet few of the principals were
women. While "A Woman Suffragist" expressed indignation over an obvious case
of sex discrimination, she also laid out the case for voting rights as a
solution to the problem of gender inequality. Had "affirmative action" been a
buzz word in the 1880s, it surely would have been raised in this situation.
{Times, June 24, 1889, p. 6}
Throwing Stones at the School Board.
Los Angeles, June 19.--[To the Editor of The Times.] In
the report of the last meeting of the Board of Education,
published in yesterday's Times, is the following resolution,
presented by Mr. Powers, and passed by a vote of six to
three.
"Resolved, that it is the sense of this board that in
the election of teachers for the next school year there shall
be no discrimination on account of sex, but so far as
possible it shall be the policy of this board to elect male
principals of city schools having more than four
schoolrooms."
The resolution is decidedly peculiar in its injustice to
the women who have done the very best quality of work as
principals in many of the largest and hardest-managed schools
in the city, and it is no wonder that the men who voted for
such barefaced injustice should screen themselves behind the
number "six." All honor to the three who stood out against
this new rule. Their names should be made public that the
people should know who are the men that will have the good
of the children and the schools at heart, and will appoint
the teachers who have been found efficient, regardless of
sex, and are willing to let even a woman who has proved her
capability and spent her full share of years in the lower,
poorly-paid positions, enjoy the well-earned pleasure of
receiving a respectable salary.
"No discrimination on account of sex!" and, pray, how
else can these men discriminate against women than by
appointing men to the well-paid positions, giving women the
hard work and low pay, with not even the prospect of
advancement before them. What man of energy, ambition and
spirit, having held a superior position and demonstrated his
entire capability of filling it as perfectly as it can be
filled, would be willing to return to a subordinate position
and lower pay because of his sex? or would continue to work
under such circumstances unless compelled by absolute
necessity?
If the women were less efficient, it would be right and
just, but to make sex and nothing else a cause for removing
an excellent teacher from her position, is an injustice which
would seem impossible in this day and generation, if the
above resolution did not show too distinctly the intention of
the board.
"No discrimination on account of sex!" Truly, the
California Legislature knew well the necessity of acting when
it passed the law insuring the women equal wages with men for
the same work, or this advanced, and, I am sorry to say,
Republican, School Board would unquestionably have outdone
the salaries of the women, merely because they had committed
the crime of being women--i.e., non-voters--surely not by any
fault of theirs. Would these same men dare discriminate
against women, who have proven themselves so thoroughly
efficient, if these women were voters? No, indeed! In that
case the disinterested members of the school board would be
possessed by a righteous love of justice and the good of the
schools, which would make it absolutely necessary for them to
retain the women--who had political power.
I would like to ask, what are the objects of schools and
school boards? Is the advancement of the children the first
consideration, or is it merely an incidental end to be
attained if its attainment can be easily accomplished? If
the above rule is carried out, will not the very best of the
women teachers, where it is possible, leave, and an inferior
class come in? If the board is so anxious to appoint men,
why not make all the teachers in some of the schools men, and
give them a chance to show their abilities in the different
grades, and their powers to move along harmoniously with each
other as the women have done. That would be fair, but to
take all the desirable positions from efficient women and
give them to men is manifestly injustice of the most
unblushing kind, and you cannot wonder that under such
treatment from men every advanced woman of this land is fast
becoming
A WOMAN SUFFRAGIST.
Having irritated the suffragists by their earlier action, the board next
antagonized male educators by continuing the practice of appointing women to
nearly all the teaching positions, over the protest of board member E. J. Cox
who argued that the schools needed the strong arms of men to control the larger
boys. W. J. Kennard's well-reasoned objection to the board's policy was
countered by "An Ex-Teacher" and John Morton, both of whom carefully answered
Kennard's criticism of the board and used his letter as an opportunity to raise
the issue of male v. female principals. Kennard is apparently the William J.
Kinnard listed in the 1888 city directory as a teacher at Los Angeles Business
College. The only John Morton listed with a Los Angeles address clerked for
the Abstract and Title Insurance Company in the late 'eighties.
{Times, July 10, 1889, p. 5}
Too Many Female Teachers.
A SHARP CRITICISM OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Los Angeles, July 5.--[To the Editor of The Times.] Our
Board of Education in its meeting on Monday last, decided to
appoint as instructors in the public schools for the coming
year 151 teachers, of whom only eight are of the male
sex--and to reject the services of men highly qualified and
experienced, who have successfully conducted public schools
in the past, in this or other States--for lady teachers who
do not pretend to greater proficiency or experience, and many
of whom have only lately made this State their home.
This action, I assert, is not only an unjust
discrimination against male teachers, but extremely impolitic
and injurious to the best educational interests of the city,
unjust, in that a man who has given his life to the
preparation of himself for the duties of a teacher, who is a
rate-payer, and one to whom in many cases a wife and family
look for support, is barred out of a position he is anxious
and thoroughly qualified to fill, to make way for a teacher
having fewer responsibilities and no one depending on her for
support; impolitic and injurious to our city's interests in
that teachers are appointed having but little authority or
influence over the older pupils, who are usually weak in
mathematics and penmanship (two of the chief branches), and
who are not physically strong enough to stand the strain of
two sessions a day, consequently involving the city in an
extra expenditure of from $15,000 to $20,000 a year to pay
for a double set of principals.
It is a well-known fact that the discipline of our
public schools in the higher grades is lax; this is not only
injurious in itself, but prevents the best results being
obtained in any branch of study. I know of many cases where
under the present mistaken system adopted by our school
directors, parents have been compelled to take their 12 or
14-year-old children from the public schools on account of
want of discipline and consequent slow progress in education.
We have also female principals of our schools, who,
recognizing their weakness in mathematics and penmanship,
send their own children to male instructors for those
branches!
In face of these arguments what reasons do the directors
give for their recent action in appointing out of a total of
151 teachers engaged, 143 female instructors?
"Home talent" was their excuse, but an absurd one, for,
as Mr. Cox observed, most of the female teachers come to us
from other States. I know of no real excuse for this
remarkable course of action, unless it be a maudlin sentiment
in favor of the opposite sex.
I do not speak at all disparagingly of female teachers.
I recognize their value and the good results they achieve,
and would in all cases prefer to have teachers of this sex
for the younger pupils, but when a man of brains, long
experience and wide reputation is set aside for a female
teacher, merely as a tribute to her sex, or because she is a
so-called "home product," it is carrying gallantry to a
ridiculous extreme.
My experience in schools, both in this and European
countries, is very considerable, and I long since came to the
conclusion that for the older pupils, and especially the
boys, a man teacher of mature years, experienced and well
qualified for the post, is not only a desideratum but a
necessity.
The object in selecting teachers should be to get those
most able and possessing the highest qualifications. The cry
of "home talent" may be more injurious to ourselves than to
the rejected applicants for positions. Why do some of our
leading colleges obtain their professors from abroad? Surely
we are "cutting off our own nose" when we refuse a good
teacher because he was not "raised" among us.
Those directors who, to please politicians, or to pose
as champions of the weaker sex, appoint inferior teachers as
instructors of our children, are betrayers of the trust
confided in them by the electors of this city.
I have no personal interests to urge in this matter,
having never applied for a position, nor do I intend to do
so, and being totally unacquainted with any of the present
applicants. I write only in defense of the principle
involved, and the indignation with which I see (owing to such
inconsiderate action as that of our school board), worthy men
with families looking for employment and almost in a state of
destitution, while less worthy and less proficient female
teachers, with no one dependent for support on their labor,
are elected to lucrative posts over their heads. I am yours,
etc.,
W. J. KENNARD.
[How would a share-and-share alike distribution of
teachers do?--Ed.]
{Times, July 16, 1889, p. 5}
Defense of Women Teachers.
Los Angeles, July 10.--[To the Editor of The Times.] In
this morning's issue appears a letter from Mr. W. J. Kennard,
regarding the appointment of women as teachers here, which
shows clearly that the gentleman is laboring under several
misapprehensions. With your kind permission I would like to
correct these, if possible.
To begin with, I will state that, like him, I never have
applied for a position in the Los Angeles schools, and never
shall.
Your correspondent complains that the applications of
"highly qualified and experienced" men, who have
"successfully conducted schools in the past in this and other
States," have been rejected by our board, who appointed
instead women with no responsibility and laying no claim to
greater proficiency.
When the Los Angeles Board of Education has dropped a
man from the roll of teachers, we may be soon remembering its
recent resolution, that it was for cause, and not from
"maudlin sentiment," or any desire on their part to "pose as
champions of the weaker sex." That they still made the
appointments they did show that they recognized the
efficiency of the women teachers and principals, and had the
honor and manliness to make their appointments according to
proficiency rather than sex; filling vacancies that occurred
in the higher positions from among the tried women, rather
than untried men, no matter how highly recommended. Mr.
Kennard claims that the discipline in the higher grades of
our public schools is lax. If this is true, is it any more
so in the schools governed by women than in those under the
supervision of men? Or were the children in the former less
advanced in scholarship than those in the latter?
The question whether an applicant has others dependent
upon him (though women quite as frequently have relatives to
support as men) should not enter into the consideration of
his or her appointment. Public schools are not eleemosynary
institutions intended to furnish a means of livelihood to the
destitute. The good of the schools alone is to be aimed at
in the election of teachers, and this is not always attained
by the employment of men in the responsible positions. It is
a well-known fact, of which, however, Mr. Kennard is probably
ignorant, that men have repeatedly failed as principals in
this city, and been succeeded by women who did well, and kept
in order even that bete noir, the big boy.
European experiences can not be applied here. American
women are educated under conditions differing so much from
those surrounding their European sisters that they succeed in
many things which, to the others, would be difficult or
impossible. Moreover, in European countries women have never
had an opportunity to show what they could do with older
boys, so it is impossible to tell how they would succeed.
Among Americans the fairest-minded educators admit that women
generally equal men as teachers, and if Mr. Kennard's
experience has been different it is not corroborrated by that
of the majority of observers.
If there is any time when a man rather than a woman is
needed to teach boys, it is not in the higher grades, when
the boys already have some manliness and common sense, and
can be acted upon by mental and moral means, but rather in
the lower, the "intermediate" grades, where they are
sometimes regular "little hoodlums," and often need physical
force to restrain them. Yet it does not occur to Mr. Kennard
that men should ever be appointed to these (or any other)
subordinate positions. No; they are to have the
principalships and women, also rate-payers, with the same
brains, education, proficiency, and (that important element
in Mr. Kennard's estimation) families to support--lacking
nothing but the ballot and to remain subordinates. That is
where the injustice comes in!
I believe there should be more men teachers. Perhaps it
would be a good thing for our schools if men and women were
appointed in about equal numbers--"share and share alike," as
you suggest--but it should be "share and share" alike in
reality--not the kernels to one sex and the hulls to the
other. No doubt the School Board of Los Angeles would have
appointed more men had more men applied for and been willing
to take lower positions. It is more than probable that the
applications from men were for principalships only. Where
these were successfully filled by women, there was no reason
why they should be removed to make room for untried men. If
men were willing to begin on the lower rounds of the ladder,
as women do (I venture to say there is not a woman principal
in the city who did not begin as a subordinate), and win
their laurels fairly, instead of wanting the best-paid and
governing positions to begin with, there would be more men
appointed.
Mr. Kennard says that women are weaker in mathematics
and penmanship than men. As to the former, it is a well-
known fact that women carry off as many of the prizes for
mathematics in colleges and universities as men do, if not
more; and girls generally outrank boys in this branch in our
public schools. A woman took the Johns Hopkins University
fellowship in mathematics in a competitive examination, and a
woman filled the Chair of Mathematics for many years (perhaps
still) at the University of Upsala in Sweden--one of the
foremost European institutions.
Whether women, as a rule, are weaker in penmanship than
men, I do not know; but after all that is merely a
mechanical art and has nothing to do with mental or moral
education. Besides, Los Angeles has a special male teacher
for this branch, who has been retained, no doubt, because of
his efficiency, not his sex.
If in this city any women principals have sent their
children to schools having male principals, it was probably
because they lived in the district belonging to the school of
the latter, and children go to school in their own district.
Now a teacher lives where he pleases, but teaches where the
board pleases, and many teachers go long distances to their
work, while their children may attend school in the next
street. I doubt that any woman principal of this city sent
her children out of their district in order to send them to
schools with male principals.
Mr. Kennard also seems misinformed regarding the double
sessions here. There are no double sets of principals. The
principals teach a room themselves (with one exception), and
get from $15 to perhaps $50 a month more than the ordinary
teachers. Their assistants, and male principals of large
schools have to have these as well as female, receive $10
over their ordinary salaries. This involves no very great
expense to the city. The real "double sessions" are for two
sets of scholars. These were not instituted to benefit
teachers, but to accommodate more pupils in the same rooms.
Neither men nor women were equal to the task of doing justice
to from 75 to 100 pupils in two sets, teaching each set as
much in four hours as others learned in six, and also
correcting their exercises, etc. That was simply doing the
work of two teachers. If they did it they should have double
pay, and so nothing would be gained for the city. The
ordinary double session of three hours each is carried on
successfully and without complaint by women when they have
the use of a room for it, and it is considered best for the
children.
To close, Mr. Editor, I thank Mr. Kennard for coming out
openly with his objections against women teachers, and you
for printing them, and also for so kindly and fairly giving
the woman's side a hearing.
Hoping that Mr. Kennard et al. may become converted from
"the error of their ways," I remain,
AN EX-TEACHER.
{Times, July 12, 1889, p. 3}
A Defense of Female Teachers.
Los Angeles, July 11.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
Permit me, through your columns, to answer a few of the more
salient points in Mr. Kennard's letter, which appears in your
issue of the 10th inst.!
That men who have spent their lives training themselves
for teachers are debarred from positions has (from our
observation) not been the case. A man who begins with the
idea of devoting his life to the work, if he has any natural
ability, generally finds himself eventually in a professor's
chair. That so few men do this is why our colleges must
sometimes look abroad for instructors. The proportion of
male and female teachers in this city is in the same ratio as
the proportion of male and female teachers all over the
Union.
Visit our normal schools, and see the proportion of male
and female students. The average is about one to fifteen.
Then, how many of these male students, when once launched on
the educational field as teachers, long follow that
occupation?
Ask them their intentions and you will find nine times
out of ten that teaching with them is only a stepping-stone
to something else. Look over the records of our lawyers,
doctors, ministers, etc., and see how many of them in their
impecunious days taught school for a few terms or years. If
by chance a few do stay in the ranks as mediocre teachers
their work will lose much by comparison with that of teachers
of the opposite sex in the same grades.
The most of our girls who educate themselves for
teachers do so because they are dependent upon their own
exertions for a livelihood, and to obtain that livelihood
they must reach a high standard, for in these days of many
applicants to one position it seems to be a "survival of the
fittest."
I would ask your correspondent to look over the corps of
teachers or applicants for certificates at our examinations,
and he will find the ladies as good penmen (?) and
mathematicians as the gentlemen.
The files of papers in our schools also show it. It is
not lack of strength on the part of the lady teacher that
causes half-day sessions, it is lack of schoolhouses, and not
one of the entire force but will rejoice when the schools are
supplied with plentiful accommodations, enabling her to keep
her classes all day and feel she is doing them as well as
herself full justice in every way.
By "ratepayers" does he mean taxpayers? In looking over
the Assessor's books he will find many female teachers' names
thereon.
As to lack of authority and a strong arm to train the
unruly pupils, we would cite an instance that once came to
our notice of a male principal whose nerves were so upset
when he punished a pupil that he generally let them go
without.
If the female teacher's nerves are upset by inflicting
punishment, she is conscientious and does her duty. Truly
yours,
JOHN MORTON.
C) OVERCROWDED SCHOOLS
All three of the previous letters made reference to overcrowded conditions
in the city's schools that necessitated abbreviated double sessions.
Superintendent Guinn had resigned after warning of classroom shortages early in
the decade. The population explosion of 1887 exacerbated the problem. By 1890
average daily attendance would reach 6841, up from 1343 in 1880, and the number
of children of school age stood near 11,000. There also had been a fivefold
increase in teachers, from 32 to 161. But throughout the decade facilities
remained inadequate to meet the district's needs, and "half day sessions"
became standard practice in Los Angeles. After the Times ran a letter at the
peak of the real estate boom in 1887 praising the Amelia Street school, "A
Subscriber" responded with a concern that bothered many other parents in the
city. Anna Averill, writing for the board as "The Secretary," somewhat
sarcastically justified the district's efforts to cope with the problem.
{Times, Oct. 22, 1887, p. 4}
Our Crowded Schools.
Brooklyn Heights, Oct. 21.--[To the Editor of The
Times.] I noticed in your issue of the 20th a letter
commenting on the Amelia-street school. I am very glad to
know that at least one place in our beautiful city can boast
of her clean and studious school. While we have no cause to
complain of an uncleanly school we have all reasons to
complain about an insufficient amount of room, so much so
that last year our children were reduced to three hours per
day and the balance of the time romping in the streets, and
we had a sort of promise that it would be enlarged for this
season, but nothing was done. Brooklyn Heights, like all
other parts of Los Angeles, has added to its numbers, and now
our children are compelled to take two hours per day or
nothing. We have in this district very near 200 schoolable
children, and about half that number receive two hours'
schooling per day. We find no fault with our teachers, but
we would feel grateful if our Board of Education would come
our way and take a census of our children and see how much
credit they could take to themselves for the good education
our children will receive. We are all taxpayers. We would
feel kindly disposed if we could get the use of a tent as an
addition to shade our little ones and be instructed as they
should be. A great many here would be willing, if a good
teacher and a room could be found, to start a private school
and ignore our system altogether. Would it not be well for
our School Board to squander 5 cents and board the street car
and look into the matter, for we have all come to the
conclusion that they do not know we belong in their
jurisdiction, but we will be apt to remember them at our next
election. We will all stand unanimous in our efforts, but
hardly in their favor.
A SUBSCRIBER.
{Times, Oct. 28, 1887, p. 3}
Public School Facilities.
Los Angeles, Oct. 24.--[To the Editor of The Times.] In
the issue of your paper on the 21st there is a remarkable
communication by "A Subscriber," in which the School Board is
severely censured for the crowded and certainly most
unsatisfactory condition of our city schools. Brooklyn
Heights suffers as much doubtless, no more certainly, than
other parts of our city, but when "A Subscriber" states that
the children in that locality are given but two hours per day
to attend school he has simply told just one-half the truth.
Last year the children there could have but a half-day
session of three hours; this year they have four hours,
unless the parents permit them to "romp on the streets,"
instead of availing themselves of the full time afforded
them.
"To squander 5 cents on a street car to look into a
matter" already too apparent is a useless extravagance, even
for the well-paid members of the Board of Education. To
patient and considerate taxpayers we will say that every
possible effort has been put forth to better the condition of
our schools. Sites have been selected, plans for buildings
accepted and contracts are ready to be assigned. But until
the bonds so generously voted can be converted into money we
can go no further. To accomplish even this much has
necessitated frequent sessions of the Board of Education, in
which anxious consultations and plannings have detained us
until a late hour of the night. And if "A Subscriber" and
the taxpayers whom he professes to represent will as he
insinuates, remember us at the next election, and relieve us
of any further gratuitous service in their behalf, we shall
be quite content.
In the meantime we invoke the patience and courage of
our citizens, assuring them that the evils, regretted by none
more than by ourselves, shall be remedied as soon as it is
rendered possible by the authorities under whom we serve.
THE SECRETARY.
Overcrowding continued, and as the 1887-88 term came to an end an unsigned
article critical of the schools appeared in the Times. The piece, written as a
news article, apparently represented the views of Otis and his paper and
suggested that the solution was a "plan of economy" that assigned teachers to
an eight hour day while pupils remained on four hour, half day sessions. That
brought forth a defense of teachers from "A Half-day Teacher."
{Times, June 29, 1888, p. 3}
Half-day Sessions in the Public Schools.
Los Angeles, June 26.--[To the Editor of The Times.] In
behalf of the teachers of this city, of which body I am a
member, I will try to throw a little more light upon the
question of teachers and their work than your correspondent
of June 23d {25th - Ed.} seems to possess. I will take up the
statements of "Economy," and, in answering them, show the
citizens the other side of the argument. The principal
objection made is "that pupils are in the school room only
four hours daily, which is a little more than one-half the
time in other cities," etc. Now, it would have been well for
the writer to ascertain just how long pupils are in session
in other cities in California before making that sweeping
assertion. Now, for the answer. In Oakland, San Francisco,
Sacramento, San Jose and other enlightened towns, the
children in the first, second and third years are kept in
school three hours and twenty-five minutes. We keep them in
four hours. How does that answer for keeping in only one-
half as long? The law requires only four hours for these
little folks. Further, the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and
eighth grades in these other cities mentioned keep the pupil
in school four hours and forty minutes, and this time is
called a full session system. Here, in the same grades, we
instruct them four hours, and that is just forty minutes less
than in cities not so crowded. Is this not considerably more
than half given in other cities? Did "Economy" study up this
question before he spoke? I think not. I can substantiate
my statements, for I have taught in some of the schools I
name. In the Oakland High School pupils remain only three
hours and 40 minutes for the entire day, and yet I never
heard a parent there complain that the teacher did not earn
her salary, or try to put the responsibility of the child's
mental and moral training entirely upon the shoulders of the
School Board, as "Economy" does; besides, if the pupils in
our half-day classes do the work we require them to take home
and bring in next day, they will be kept busy from one to
three hours, and if the father and mother will see that they
do it, they will not have time to "run the streets" any more
than they would were they in school till 4 o'clock. Now,
again let us take up the teacher's work, and for her
afternoon rest she gathers up 40 or 50 papers in arithmetic,
with 10 examples in each, geography, with a similar number of
questions to be corrected on each paper, language and
spelling, ditto, with from 20 to 25 words to be corrected,
and diacritical marks noted, etc. This keeps the teachers of
the fourth up to the eighth grades busy at least two hours,
for there is no time for such correction in school; so we can
safely say she works at hard, brain-tiring tasks six or seven
hours daily. Is that not enough? "Economy" says: "The work
of the teacher is hard, but no harder than that of the shop-
girl." This comparison is about as sensible as to say that a
physician charges $2.50 for a visit of 10 minutes, and a
horse-car driver works 14 hours for the same money. But did
it occur to "Economy" that it did not take the clerk, or the
driver, the same length of time to prepare for his profession
that it has taken the good teacher or the skillful physician
to prepare for his. I question very much if "Economy" could
even get ready to teach by going through the ordeal known as
"the Examination for Teachers in Los Angeles county." One of
the knots to be untied at the recent one was twisted up after
this fashion:
"A man dying left his estate to be divided as follows:
If he left a son, the son was to have five-sixths of the
estate, and the widow one-sixth. If a daughter was left, she
was to have one-third and the widow the remainder. A son and
daughter were left, and the estate being valued at $9360,
what was each one's share?" I suppose this remarkable effort
is due to the boom in this part of the country. After going
through this and similar monstrosities I think "Economy"
would resign before he began. Would he be willing to send
his children in the afternoon to the tired teacher who had
worked all morning with 40 or 50 bright, active children, who
asked for and received instruction, and, not satisfied at
that, they make a demand upon the patience, good nature and
magnetism of the sympathetic teacher? It is not the hard
labor that wears; it is the brainwork that tires us out. How
I should like to see "Economy" teach one of the graded
classes. I imagine he would be the first one to ask for an
increase of salary, rather than an increase of work. This
thing of making teachers do double duty has been tried in
other cities and always with the same results, namely,
failure to accomplish good work. Our "public reformer" is
magnanimous enough to say he will expect poor work for two
years. Does he know that two years of a child's education,
when neglected, can never be made up? However, if we must be
decapitated, let the ax fall on all of the official necks in
town. Let the police do "double session" work by holding up
two lamp-posts instead of one; let the firemen do double
duty; let the public officials dispense with half their
clerks and do the "double session" act by sitting up at night
doing extra work, in order to help pay for any and all public
buildings in which they may be employed, and we teachers will
not complain of having to be made the instruments by which
the necessary room for the children must be provided; but do
not make the teachers alone the scapegoat of public economy
and do all the retrenching of public expenses. Right here
the question suggests itself to me: Why does our "public
reformer" (every city has one) always settle on the school
teachers when any reduction is to be made in salaries? Is
it, and I think it is, because the teachers are mostly women
and have no vote? I think that if sensible people will
consider the matter well that something can be done to build
these houses without asking the teachers to bend beneath a
double load. We teachers of the half-day classes work harder
than if we had the full time, in order to bring the children
up to the required standard; and then to look forward to just
twice the amount of work is almost to much.
A HALF-DAY TEACHER.
The 1888-89 school year opened with the district still short of
schoolrooms. "Observer" blamed the board. "Father" raised an objection about
taxing and spending inequities in different districts that resulted from
partial state financing of schools, a criticism that would be echoed nearly a
century later in the Serrano school funding case. "Parent" offered yet another
solution that would strike a familiar chord among taxpayers in financially
strapped districts who would seek to "cut the fat" in order to pay for what
they considered basic.
{Times, Sept, 24, 1888, p.3}
The Public Schools.
Los Angeles, Sept. 21.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
The parents and patrons of the public schools of this city
have watched with a lively interest the discussion of the
condition of our schools, because many of them knew well
their condition before this discussion commenced. They have
long known that they have not been getting the very best
possible results from the money expended on our public
schools; and they have a sort of creed that in school
matters, as in almost everything else (but especially in
school matters, on account of their great importance to the
future welfare of their children), there is no reason, as a
rule, why they should not receive the very best results that
the money they expend for public schools will secure. Can
any person give the shadow of a reason why they should be
content with only one-half or three-quarters of the "value
received" that they are entitled to for their money, instead
of the full value, or to the best possible results
attainable? Now, will anybody pretend that, with a large
proportion of our schools as "half-day" schools, and the
teachers receiving full pay, and from 50 to 75 per cent.
higher pay than is received in many eastern cities, Los
Angeles is getting full value of the best possible results
for its money?
It is readily conceded that there has been a large
increase in the attendance, and that the situation has been
difficult. All situations are to a greater or less extent
beset with difficulties; but the question our people will
inevitably ask, is: Has the School Board been equal to the
situation and to this question, in the opinion of many
parents, there can be but one answer: No.
The board will say that it had not sufficient money to
build all the schoolhouses that were needed. True; but it
could rent, and tide over the difficulty just as the Council
and private parties do, till money could be raised by hook or
crook to erect its own buildings. Whenever the fire
department needs houses for its engines, etc., it rents them
without any serious difficulty. That department of the city
government is equal to the occasion. Why should not the
School Board be, or resign, and give place to others who will
not be so easily vanquished? Let the board, with an adequate
comprehension of its really serious duties, wake up and rent
a room in every locality throughout the city wherever 50 or
60 school children clamor for the priceless boon of a
common-school education.
The people of Los Angeles are rich enough and
intelligent enough to rent or build houses, not only for
themselves to live in, but also for their children to be
educated in. The Board of Education is lacking in
discernment when it fails to see this obvious truth and to
act in accordance with it. Let it ransack this town till it
has found a rented room for every class under its
jurisdiction, and in good time--or some time--the people,
through the present board, or some succeeding board, will
erect sufficient buildings of its own to provide for all.
OBSERVER.
{Times, Sept. 24, 1888, p. 3}
The Money for the Schools.
Los Angeles, Sept. 22.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
In reference to the "dry rot" in the public schools system of
this city, would it not be well to inquire whether the
disease is not merely local but constitutional?
The money for the support of the public schools comes
mainly to us from the State treasury. We pay the poll taxes,
and a large portion of the State levy for school purposes
which is sent to Sacramento, and we get back an amount
greater or less than we have paid. For some years after this
system went into effect, we were fortunate or unfortunate
enough to receive more than we paid, but for the past few
years we have been among those that pay for other schools
than their own.
One vice of this system, as it appears to me, consists
in the provision of law that provides that all the school
money derived "through the State treasury shall be used for
no other purposes than the payment of teachers." Under this
system, we will suppose a county or city receives a larger
amount through the State than was paid to the State by the
taxpayers thereof, and we will suppose that this amount was
larger than was necessary to an efficient and economical
management of the school system then existing in such city,
however much increased school accommodation might be needed,
it matters not how small a portion of the children of school
age could be admitted, this money could be used for no other
purpose than the payment of teachers, if the result would not
be the intentional employment of more than the necessary
number of teachers, or the making their salaries higher than
adequate remuneration for their services. It would certainly
have a tendency to create a carelessness in such expenditure
that would not exist were the financial means better adapted
to the end required. On the other hand take a city like ours
that is increasing in population so rapidly, and while our
proportion of contribution to the State school fund is
proportionately increased, and our need of increased school
accommodation keeps pace with our other improvements, our
proportion of money from the State school fund lags behind.
The more we need it the more we don't get it, and if we
did we could not use it where we most need it, that is to
increase our school accommodation.
The declared policy and intention of this law was to
have the State school money go where it is most needed,
regardless of where it comes from, but to me it seems to
completely fail of its object. It sends an overplus to a
dead or dying community at the cost and to the detriment of a
live and growing one; takes from the one that needs it most
and gives where it is least required.
If the amount remaining on hand of this State school
money at the end of the school year could be used for
increased school accommodations, it would remove part of the
objection to the system, but my objection goes further; it
goes to the injustice and impolicy of State iron-clad
regulations of local taxation and the expenditure of the
money. I see no necessity for the money going to Sacramento.
I see no necessity for one community to pay taxes for the use
of another, and I see no real benefit to the community
receiving more than its just share.
Respectfully,
FATHER.
{Times, Dec. 4, 1888, p. 7}
School Matters.
"IMPOSSIBLE STAGS LEAPING IMPASSABLE CHASMS."
Los Angeles, Dec. 3.--[To the Editor of The Times.] I
am pleased to see that a correspondent of your paper has
again made a protest against the present half-day sessions in
our public schools. The "powers that be" seem to deplore the
necessity for the half-day plan, but claim that it is
irremediable; I venture to suggest a remedy.
We have in this city no less than three supervising
officers, a superintendent, an acting superintendent, and a
deputy superintendent, drawing salaries respectively, if I am
correctly informed, of $250, $200 and $150 per month. San
Francisco, with four times as many children, gets along, I
believe, with two such officers.... {Otis apparently deleted
material at this point - Ed.}
No one will claim that the school department should be
made an eleemosynary institution.
Again, there is an officer, called in the absurd
terminology of the department, a "principal of writing,"
whose duty consists in riding about the city to see that the
teachers instruct their pupils properly in that art. This
official is an unnecessary appendage to the department.
Writing is a very essential branch of the course of
instruction, but at the same time it is the easiest to teach,
requiring nothing more than a good copy and practice. It is
so cheap an art that everywhere numberless "professors"
thereof bewilder the rustic mind by drawing with pen and ink
in a series of "compound concentrated curves," impossible
stags leaping impassable chasms; a feat the economic value of
which is on a par with that of the man who makes a living by
wagging his ears. If any teacher in the city confesses her
inability to teach her pupils to write without the oversight
of this functionary at $125 per month, her resignation should
be promptly requested, as it is safe to infer that she is not
competent to reach anything else.
There, then, are over $500 per month wasted, and for
which the city gets no equivalent. This sum would pay the
rent of 120 rooms and thus enable 40 classes to hold full-day
sessions. Few men can do a day's work in half a day,
regularly. and teachers and children should not be expected
to do so; and when we remember that the teachers were paid
from $80 to $150 per month--that is to say, from $1 to $2 per
hour for the work actually performed--it seems all the more
desirable that they should be permitted to put in a full day.
Commending these suggestions to the incoming members of
the board and to the public, I am yours respectfully,
A PARENT.
D) "PARENTAL" EDUCATION V. PUBLIC SCHOOLS
In the summer of 1883 Zachary Montgomery came to town. Journalist, ex-
assemblyman, lawyer and advocate of "parental," read "parochial," education
rather than public schools, Montgomery created the first on-going debate in the
letters column regarding education. Within a week the Times carried half a
dozen letters about Montgomery's charge that public education was a morally
corrupting influence, with the public schools an "incubator of crime" and a
device of the rich to rob the poor. Despite his denial that his intent was to
promote the interests of the Catholic church by raising serious doubts about
state-run schools, his ties with the church were well known. In a series of
well-publicized open-air meetings held on the steps of the courthouse in
downtown Los Angeles, Montgomery put forth his condemnation of public schooling
in words similar to those used by critics, such as Howard Jarvis, nearly a
century later.
The whole business of education and training the young
shall, like other professions, be open to private enterprise
and free competition; provided that the State shall establish
and maintain such necessary educational institutions as
private enterprise shall fail to establish and maintain. No
citizen of this State should ever be taxed for the feeding,
clothing, or education of children not his own, whose parents
are amply able to feed, clothe and educate them.
In another era his proposal to divert public school funds to be used as parents
saw fit for the education of their children would appeal to advocates of a
voucher system.
The debate opened with a lengthy letter from J. W. Redway, a member of the
original faculty at the new Normal School in Los Angeles. It was followed by
an even longer, statistically-supported reply from Montgomery. Appearing the
day after Redway's criticism ran in the letters column, Montgomery's answer is
a prime example of the rapidity with which responses, even lengthy ones, could
be written, reviewed by the editor and printed during the 1880s. Although
Editor Otis was moved to caution correspondents about an excessive use of
space, he apparently saw this subject as one worthy of so many column inches.
{Times, Aug. 1, 1883, p. 3}
Zach Montgomery and His Anti Public School Heresies.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: Mr. Zach Montgomery,
with his "Poison Fountain," has figured considerably in the
literature of the Pacific coast during the last few years.
He has found from the census report that in the six New
England States there is a greater proportion of crime,
suicide and pauperism than in six of the Southern States. He
also finds that in the New England States, while one in 312
can neither read nor write, in the six Southern States there
is one in every twelve who can neither read nor write. He
tells us that in Massachusetts the "whole people must be
'educated to a certain degree at the public expense,
irrespective of any social distinctions,'" and that in
Virginia an "appropriation" was made "for the instruction of
the poor."
Inasmuch as in the New England States the whole
community were to be educated at public expense, Mr.
Montgomery styles this the "anti-parental system." In the
Southern States the paupers were educated at public expense,
while all the other children were left to shift for
themselves, or attend private schools. Mr. Montgomery's
statistics show that for the greater part they did the
former--hence the "parental" system, with its one to twelve
illiterates.
But because in the new England States the paupers,
suicides and criminals are respectively 2, 2 1/2, and 6 1/2
times as great as in the Southern States, Mr. Montgomery at
once declares that this is because of the "anti-parental"
education. In other words, the teachers of the schools in
the New England States are grinding out criminals, paupers
and suicides six times as fast as the parents in the Southern
States are doing the same kind of work.
Now, Mr. Montgomery, what evidence have you that this
great percentage of crime is due to the "anti-parental"
system of education? That your statistics are true, no one
doubts. Can you show that the paupers of the New England
States are all virtuous, moral and happy, and that the
educated citizens have a decided tendency to crime? In the
New England States there is a much larger percentage of
lawyers in proportion to the population than in the six
Southern States. Now, why not attribute all these social
evils to the pestiferous presence of attorneys-at-law? The
people of the New England States consume, it is probable,
about ten pounds avoirdupois of salt codfish to every one
pound consumed in the six Southern States. Why not attribute
the prevalance of crime to the intemperate consumption of
codfish?
As a matter of fact, Mr. Montgomery, you cannot prove
the prevalence of crime in the New England States to have any
connection whatever with the "anti-parental" schools. Now I
find, on consulting the same source from which you draw your
information, that in Indiana where the educational system is
certainly "anti-parental," the criminals are in proportion of
1 to 9552, while in Louisiana, a "parental" State, the
criminals are 1 to 816. In the same manner compare Iowa,
Kansas, Ohio and Missouri, with Florida, Tennessee, Louisiana
and Alabama and we have the following result:
Proportion of Proportion of
Criminals Criminals
Iowa.........1 to 9,325 Florida...........1 to 1,259
Kansas.......1 to 4,296 Tennessee.........1 to 1,877
Ohio.........1 to 7,589 Louisiana.........1 to 816
Missouri.....1 to 5,461 Alabama...........1 to 2,823
Hence I claim, on the same grounds, that the "parental"
system is directly responsible for this array of crime.
But let us look a little beyond our own limits and take
the case of France. Here the system of education has, until
recently, been sufficiently "parental" to satisfy the wildest
longings of your heart.
Suicides per
million Paupers Criminals
Six N. E. States... 75 1 to 216 1 to 1,352
France............ 105 1 to 12 1 to 460
Now, if Mr. Montgomery had attributed all of these evils
to the massing of population he would have been not far from
right. As a matter of fact crime and pauperism increase--and
that, out of proportion--with the crowding of population. If
Mr. Montgomery will go with me through the Mulberry street
tenement houses that I have visited this summer in New York
City--where more than 1000 men, women and children are packed
together at the rate of from five to ten in a room; where
poverty, filth and squalor hold communion; where every
semblance of family relation is violated; where debauchery
reigns supreme--I will show him where paupers and criminals
are made. If he will visit the factories, the shops and
sewing-rooms, where girls and women earn $2 per week, and
spend $4 per week for the very necessities of life, I will
show him why prostitution and bastardy are greater in New
York than in Virginia.
Furthermore, Mr. Montgomery, if you will go with me
through the schoolrooms of San Francisco, Oakland or Los
Angeles, I will show you children by the hundreds and
thousands whose only knowledge of morality, decency and
integrity has been acquired within the walls of the "anti-
parental" schoolrooms.
Whatever may be the faults of the "anti-parental"
schools--and they are many--certain it is that they are dear
to the hearts of the people. The State, Mr. Montgomery,
should certainly have the power and the privilege to make its
children and its wards into citizens who shall be able in
after life to govern it and guide its affairs. Hence the
establishment of the "anti-parental" schools, which fit poor
and rich alike for the duties of citizenship. And Mr.
Montgomery, should you ever lift your finger in violence
against them 200,000 people of the State of California will
rise up and sit down on you as never man was sat down on
before.
J. W. REDWAY.
{Times, Aug. 2, 1883, p.2}
Zach Montgomery Assails the People's School System.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: I see by your issue of
this morning that a Mr. J. W. Redway, under the caption of
"Zach Montgomery and his Public School Heresies," makes
certain statements and propounds certain questions touching
my charge against the public school system as a cause of
crime, which seem to demand an answer. In making this answer
I shall be as brief as possible, knowing the crowded
condition of your columns.
Mr. Redway admits the alleged amount of crime in the six
original public school States, but asks what evidence have I
"that this great percentage of crime is due to the anti-
parental system of education."
The first evidence that I shall offer is the fact that
crime has increased in almost the exact ratio with the
increase of expenditures for public school purposes. For
example, in 1850 the State of Maine was only expending for
public school purposes $313,818, and her prison report for
1851 shows only eighty-seven convicts in prison; but in order
to prevent crime, as it was claimed, she went on increasing
her expenditures for public schools, until, in 1878, with an
increase of only 14 per cent. of population, she was lavish-
ing on her public schools $1,115,304, and in 1880 she had a
corresponding crop of convicts, numbering 276.
In 1850 Connecticut, with a native population of
331,560, expended on her public schools but $195,931, and her
convicts numbered 244; but ten years later, in 1860, with
379,450 native population, she expended $311,545 on her
public schools, and had raised her native crime list from 244
to 449. A corresponding increase of crime along with the
increase of public school expenditures we find to have taken
place in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont and New
Hampshire. So likewise in 1860 Maryland expended on her
public schools but $205,000, and had only one native white
criminal to every 5276; but ten years later, in order to
prevent crime, she was expending for public school purposes
$1,146,057, and had one native white criminal for every 1717
native whites.
Mr. Redway makes the very singular mistake of
classifying Tennessee, Alabama and Louisiana as parental
school States in 1860, and then he triumphantly points to
their several lists of criminals in that year as follows, to
wit:
Tennessee, one criminal to every 1877; Alabama, one
criminal to every 2823; Louisiana, one criminal to every 816.
But, had our worthy friend looked into the facts a
little more closely, he would have found that in 1859
Tennessee was expending on her public schools $230,430.27;
that in 1855, Alabama had 1098 anti-parental common schools,
educating 40,283 children, which was considerably more than
half of all the children in the State; and as for Louisiana,
she was the very hub of Southern anti-parental education. As
early as 1850 Louisiana had 664 of these anti-parental
schools, with 822 teachers and 25,046 scholars, with an
annual income of $349,672 for the running of these incubators
of crime, and in 1859 this sum had swollen to $899,500.
This, too, was in a State where, in 1860 the entire white
population was only 293,247 inhabitants. No wonder, then,
that her crime list stood one to every 816 inhabitants.
As to the States of Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Ohio and
Missouri it is true that in all these States the anti-
parental system had been introduced and its influence was
beginning to be felt in 1860; but it was not to be expected
that, while yet in their infancy, they would rival in crime
those States where the same pernicious system had been in
force over two hundred years.
It is but too true, however, that under the operations
of vastly increased expenditures for public school purposes
all these last named States made fearful strides in crime
during the ten years from 1860 to 1870. Thus, for example,
in 1860 Indiana had but 1 native white criminal to every 9552
inhabitants, but ten years later she had 1 to every 2191
inhabitants. In 1860 Iowa had but 1 criminal in every 9325
inhabitants, and only ten years later she had 1 to every
3602. In 1860 Kansas had but 1 native white criminal to
every 4296, but ten years later she had 1 to every 1473. In
1860 Ohio had but 1 criminal to every 7589, and ten years
later she had 1 to every 2499; and Missouri, that in 1860 had
but 1 criminal to every 5161, in 1870 had one to every 1546.
So that by increasing the number of her criminals in the
same ratio, it will not take long for the new States to
outstrip the old ones.
"But," says Mr. Redway, "how do we know but that it is
the eating of codfish that causes this greater increase of
crime in some localities than in others?"
Now this is truly a novel idea to come from a friend of
the common school system. Just as if he really believed that
the kind of education a child receives has no more to do with
its tendency to vice or virtue than the kind of food it eats.
Does anybody deny that "'Tis education forms the common
mind," and that, "As the twig is bent the tree's inclined?"
Or does any one call to question the saying of the wise man,
"Bring up a child in the way he should go, when he is old he
will not depart from it?"
Have not the friends of the public school system been
for centuries incessantly arguing that it was the want of a
public school education that made criminals? And are we now
to be told that after all, perhaps it is only a question of
"codfish?"
Dr. Wayland in his Elements of Moral Science, says: "The
relaxation of parental authority has always been found one of
the surest indications of the decline of social order, and
the unfailing precursor of public turbulence and anarchy."
And Dr. Joseph LeConte, of California's State
University, says: "Compulsory State education certainly
strikes at the integrity of the family, for it makes children
the wards of the State."
Mr. John Swett, when State Superintendent, said (see
reports for 1864-65): "The child should be taught to consider
his Instructor in many respects superior to the parent in
point of authority."
Did time and space permit, it would be easy to show by
thousands of illustrations how utterly prostrated is parental
authority while the child is under public school
jurisdiction.
Moreover, bad companionship, which parents are powerless
to guard against in the public schools, and, also, the false
notions with reference to manual labor which children, as a
rule, imbibe in these schools, all tend to demoralization and
crime.
But having said so much to the people of Los Angeles
orally on this subject during the last few days, I shall not
for the present presume to trespass further on your columns.
Respectfully,
ZACH. MONTGOMERY.
[Correspondents on this subject (and others) are
cautioned to be economical in the use of space, which is
limited in the Times. A multitude of words and figures do
not necessarily constitute argument or exhibit ability.--Ed.
Times.]
Redway had confined his criticism of Montgomery's parental education system
to an analysis of the statistical evidence, but others voiced arguments that
invoked the specter of religious intolerance. Rev. John W. Ellis, pastor of
the First Presbyterian church, was one of those who charged Montgomery with
promoting a Catholic agenda. Montgomery denied that he opposed public schools
on a denominational basis or that he sought any favor or privilege, including
public school funds, for Catholic schools any more than for schools of any
other religious body. He claimed that he supported equal rights for all
parents without regard to political or religious differences. This rejoinder
by Jordan Cox reflects the anti-Catholic hostility evident in other letters,
although in this case it comes from someone outside traditional religion, and
makes an effort to refute the statistics Montgomery cited. Cox is listed in
city directories of the 1880s as a plasterer and a contractor.
{Times, Aug. 4, 1883, p. 3}
An American's Idea on the School Question.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: I was surprised this
morning, in looking over the Times, to see a lengthy article
from the pen of Zack Montgomery, attempting to prove that a
scientific education leads to crime. Is this a late
discovery of the Catholic Church? Is this the reason they
teach so little science and so much religion? Mr. Montgomery
says that crime increases in the same proportion that money
is expended for education. As a lawyer he is in the habit of
pleading for pay, in defiance of logic, good sense, and good
morals; but if he could lay aside for a few moments the
lawyer and the Catholic, and reason, he would analyze society
to find the legitimate causes and influences to which to
attribute the increase of crime instead of recklessly laying
it at the door of our secular school system. It is said that
the Catholic Church is increasing in numbers faster than any
other church. Now, I have the same right to attribute the
increase of crime to the Catholic Church as he has to our
school system. The ratio will be nearer and the proof
clearer than in his hypothesis--with this fact in view, that
the Mother Church has a very large per cent. of the criminals
in her communion, whom she pardons weekly, and when executed
on the scaffold she sends them straight to paradise! Mr.
Montgomery would give us Italian civilization with its
brigandage and pauperism; or that of the South American
States, where Holy Church has had no opposition in all the
past.
Rome has been Catholic for 1500 years; why is it not a
heaven on earth? An American can't look upon it without
growing sick. The wealth of the country is in churches and
cathedrals and the people starving. Life and property are
safer in Constantinople than in Rome. The Church is the main
pillar of despotism. Our public schools are the main pillar
of our Republic. To destroy free government they must first
destroy our school system, which is parental and in perfect
harmony with the family government. "Anti-parental!" O
Zack, hide your head!
Mr. Montgomery generally brings the decade from 1860 to
1870 to show the increase of crime. Does he not know that
our war was the direct cause of the great increase of crime
in that decade? and even up to the present its bad influence
is not spent. Why don't he look a little deeper into the
nature of things, or does the Church blind him? Or does he
see? If so, then he is dishonest,--which horn of the dilemma
will he have?
I am an American; I talk to Americans. Let us have more
science taught in our schools, and let religion be left to
private enterprise, and it will vanish before the light of
scientific knowledge; or a scientific religion will take the
place of the present religious babel. Let us have American
ideas and American progress.
JORDAN COX.
E) SAN JOSE STATE - SOUTHERN BRANCH
In California's state system of higher education several fledgling colleges
located in Los Angeles County originated as southern branches of northern
institutions. Cal Poly Pomona began as a lower division feeder for its San
Luis Obispo counterpart. Before that, U.C.L.A. was the southern campus of the
University of California. And over a century ago the first state college in
Los Angeles, the Normal School, opened as an adjunct of the state's only other
then-existing normal school, the one at San Jose.
The Los Angeles campus opened in August, 1882, on the site of the current
city library, at Fifth and Charity {Grand}. It was overseen by trustees of the
San Jose Normal School, who appointed Charles Allen of San Francisco to be the
principal though, in fact, the campus was directed by vice principal C. J.
Flatt. Allen was soon succeeded by Ira More, incorrectly referred to as Moore
in one of the following letters. The campus became independent of San Jose in
1887 and had its own board of trustees. The letters by "South California" and
"M" reflect an attitude that would eventually lead the regents of the state
university to elevate U.C.L.A. to a status equal to that of Berkeley.
{Times, June 30, 1883, p. 6}
The Branch Normal School.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: I was gratified to
observe your criticisms in this morning's Times of the action
of the Normal School Trustees; first, in overslaughing the
faithful and efficient acting Principal of the past year,
Prof. Flatt; and, second, in entirely ignoring the wishes of
the people of Southern California in making the new
appointments for the coming year. Although our new Normal
School is a State institution, it is supposed to have been
established for the benefit of the southern part of the
State. And although technically managed by trustees living
mostly in and near San Jose, the presumption is that they
will manage it for the benefit of that section of the State
in which it is located. If the Trustees had resided here, is
it at all presumable that they would have sent up to San Jose
and imported a lot of new teachers here? The utter ignoring
of the wishes of the people of Southern California in making
every one of the new appointments, shows a contempt for our
section, and an imputation that we have not the material from
which to select teachers, even for the subordinate positions,
that must be very cutting to our people if they have any
spirit.
The trustees would do a gracious thing if they would
rescind their action in this matter and pay some sort of
deference to the wishes of Governor Stoneman and Trustee
Childs and to the patrons of the institution here, who, if
the American idea of local self-government has any
significance, have some interest in its welfare, and who have
rights that even non-resident trustees ought to respect.
June 19, 1883.
SOUTH CALIFORNIA.
{Times, June 21, 1883, p. 4}
The Normal--Shall the Wishes of Los Angeles be Respected?
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: I agree with you in
your statement of the case of the Normal School trustees in
re-forming the faculty of the branch school at this place, at
their late meeting in San Jose, by which Prof. Moore
supplants Prof. Flatt.
Of Prof. Moore I have nothing to say; but this apparent
attempt on the part of the trustees to run the branch school
located here, in the interest of a coterie of their friends
in San Jose, without any reference to the views and wishes of
Southern California, ought to be met at the very threshold by
an indignant protest and a general call for a revision of
their action.
If this cannot be done, a reformation of the Board of
Trustees will become a necessity at the earliest day
possible.
M.
F) A DISCORDANT NOTE
Apparently not all the debate over the schools was with words or was about
such weighty matters as parental education, half day sessions or provincialism,
as "Pedagogue" demonstrated with this letter. The Times reported that the
assault on Mr. Farden, a mid-year addition to the teaching staff at Spring
Street school, took place when other students erroneously informed a father
that his daughter had been whipped by the instructor.
{Times, May 26, 1883, p. 4}
An Indignant Teacher.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: Since one of our daily
papers has essayed to champion the cause of the fire-eater
who yesterday attempted to turn one of the departments of our
public school into a rat-pit, perhaps you will allow an old
teacher to voice the sentiment of the best class in this
community by characterizing the assault as a dastardly
outrage upon common decency.
If the time has come when excitable fathers are expected
to rush into our public schools, and, without ceremony or
provocation, "knock the teacher out," and have the press of
the city laud the valor of the deed, then, for heaven's sake,
let us go back one hundred years to the time when in New
England the committee-men selected a teacher for pugilistic
rather than literary attainments.
It is refreshing to know that even in Los Angeles we
have teachers who, if assaulted, as was Mr. Farden, would
seize the nearest chair, and immediately proceed to bring
about a compound, comminuted fracture of the assailant's
cranium aforesaid.
The fact is, too many old grandmothers of both sexes
think they are teachers "to the manor born," and their chief
aim and object in life seems to be to make it hot for those
who are duly chosen and installed in that most unenviable
position of instructor in a public school.
The statutes of our State amply provide for the
punishment of meddlers, and it is to be hoped that Mr. Farden
will not allow the opportunity to slip of giving an
impressive object lesson to his assailant.
"PEDAGOGUE."