LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF EDUCATION, SIR: All States in the Union maintain systems of public schools, and in every State support and control of schools are divided between the State and local communities-county, township, district, municipality. In no two States is this division the same. In some the tendency is toward strong central State control, as in the State of New York; in some the State assumes a larger part of the burden of support, as in some of the Southern States; in others the burden of support is left almost wholly with local communities, and to these communities is intrusted the control of the schools under general State laws. The State of Massachusetts and other New England States, as well as several of the Middle Western States, offer examples of this tendency. As expenditures for the maintenance of schools, and public interest in the results of these expenses, increase, students of education, school officers, and taxpayers desire to know what apportionment of support and control is likely to be most effective. In his study of the "State vs. Local Control of Elementary Education," Dr. Theodore L. MacDowell has brought together much material which will be helpful to those interested in this question. I therefore recommend that the manuscript transmitted herewith be published as a bulletin of the Bureau of Education. Respectfully submitted. The SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. P. P. CLAXTON, Commissioner. 5 PREFACE. The relation that should exist between central and local authorities has long been a favorite theme for persons interested in various theories of government. Many arguments have been produced, some based upon fact and others upon opinion, as to the relative merits of centralized and localized plans of government. In the field of education, as in governmental activities in general, the question of control has long been debated, and material presenting the issues from a theoretical standpoint is available. Little attempt has been made, however, to ascertain by statistical investigation the facts as to the actual status of educational control, either in regard to any one State or in regard to the United States as a whole. As a step toward the accomplishment of this purpose, the present study has been conceived and prepared, and it is presented with the hope that it may be the starting point of other similar investigations into a rich field of educational polity. One practical value of such investigations lies in the fact that legislators are coming more and more to rely upon the advice of educators in framing school laws, frequently to the point of the adoption of new and complete codes. It is well, therefore, that both educators and legislators should realize the effect of a piece of proposed or existent legislation in its bearing upon control. So far as the selection and arrangement of material are concerned, the reader should keep in mind that although the study contains a great amount of detail, it does not purport to be a compendium of school law. Instead, the underlying purpose is to present a systematic arrangement of school law in its reference to the question of educational control. From this point of view, portions of laws having no relation to the question of control have been eliminated, since to include them would be to obscure the fundamental issue.1 In its original form this study of control in elementary education was prepared as a thesis presented to the faculty of the graduate school of the University of Pennsylvania in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of doctor of philosophy. Since its acceptance for that purpose it has been modified so as to include intervening legislation. In view of the fact that State aid for agriculture, industrial education, home economics, and consolidation of schools has received extended treatment in recent publications of the Bureau of Education (see Bulletin, 1914, Nos. 30, 37; Report of the Commissioner, 1913, Vol. I, Ch. XI; 1914, Vol. I, Ch. XI), the detailed analysis of this topic prepared by the author for inclusion in this study is printed only in abstract form (pp. 20-31). The sources used in the preparation of the study were the most recent school laws of the various States as issued by the State departments of education, supplemented by the session laws of the legislatures in session since the date of publication of the school laws. For stimulus in the preparation of this study and for the general spirit pervading it, I am indebted to able instructors and fellow students at Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania. Acknowledgment is also due to the State superintendents throughout the country for their ready replies, without which it would have been impossible for me to interpret many points of law. Acknowledgment is also due Mr. James C. Boykin and other members of the Editorial Division of the Bureau of Education for helpful criticism. My chief debt of gratitude, however, is to my wife, Lillian Ione MacDowell, who with unfailing zeal has aided most materially in the completion of what has proved to be an arduous undertaking. THEODORE L. MACDOWELL. January 1, 1915. STATE VERSUS LOCAL CONTROL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION. INTRODUCTION. While the final responsibility for the establishment and maintenance of American schools rests with each individual State, there is nevertheless such a uniformity in ideals and in legislation that to public education, more than to any other social institution, may the term "national" be applied. Yet, in our National Constitution there are no provisions concerning public education. Each State is free to adopt, therefore, any one of several policies in the administration of public schools. First, it might shun any and all responsibility in the education of the child, if society could afford to adopt such a policy. Second, acting through central authority, the State might raise all moneys and assume entire control of education. Third, it might govern through central authority, but compel local units to provide the entire cost by local taxation. Fourth, it might take a more superior position, and through its central authority encourage and cooperate with the localities, both financially and administratively, giving great freedom to local initiative, but reserving final power to itself, to be exercised when necessary. This lastnamed policy furnishes a high ethical basis for educational control; it implies a delicate balance of central and local processes, a friendly attitude of the State, supreme in its unity, toward the weaker unit, the locality; it tends to perpetuate what has been regarded as America's birthright-the freedom of local government to operate within the constitutional limits established by the State. Assuming the last to represent actual conditions, this study endeavors primarily to determine, by an analysis of State school legislation,' the present status and trend of control of elementary education.2 From the standpoint of control, legislation pertaining to education may be divided broadly into two divisions or aspects. In the first place, a State may establish regulations, either mandatory or restric The study deals only with legislation applying generally throughout a State and does not include special legislation, that is, acts of a local nature. * "Elementary education," as used in the study, denotes what is covered by general usage; institutions established for specific purposes, such as the care and education of deaf, dumb, and blind children, are generally under the management of a special board of trustees, and are, therefore, not included. |