SCHOOL SUPPORT, ORGANIZATION, AND CURRICULUM
SUPPORT
[Sidenote: Problem of support]
[Sidenote: A fixed salary necessary to secure better teachers and retain
them]
At various times in the course of this study, it has been mentioned
that the activities of the lower branches of the meeting organization
were directed by means of advices sent out from the yearly meetings.
These advices, particularly at the earlier dates, were of a very general
nature, and, as one would judge from the name, were only recommendations
as to what should be done, with occasional expressions of approbation or
reproof as the action of the constituent meetings merited. As years went
on, however, the advices became of more consequence, sometimes mapping
out plans of action in considerable detail.[750] One of the questions
which came to demand a great deal of attention was that of supporting
teachers in the schools. Great trouble had always been experienced in
getting masters, properly qualified mentally and morally, who would
continue long in the same place of service. The suggestions of the yearly
meeting in 1750 sought to remedy that serious condition. The opinion then
expressed was that,
the most likely means to induce such persons to undertake
the business will be to have some certain income fixed, in
consideration of which, they should be obliged to teach so
many children on behalf of each monthly meeting, as said
monthly meeting might judge adequate to the salary and that no
person should receive the benefit of the salary, without the
appointment of the said meeting.[751]
It was directed that the meeting’s clerk send copies of the above
recommendation to all quarterly meetings, which were in turn to supply
each of their monthly meetings and direct them to send in a report to the
next yearly meeting.[752]
[Sidenote: A weakness of the meeting organization]
The above is cited as one of many similar recommendations; and, without
the presentation of any more of them, it may be well to point out one
of the great weaknesses of the system—that weakness being the lack of a
strong central control in the organization which could formulate plans
and compel them to be carried into execution. A financial plan based on
that idea would no doubt have resulted quite differently than did the
one pursued, which left it wholly to the determination of the locality
whether they would settle regular funds for the schools. Since this study
is historical we shall limit ourselves to that point of view exclusively.
Let us notice then the reception of the recommendations in the case of
a few meetings, tracing it to the lowest meeting whence, in the last
analysis, the funds usually came.
[Sidenote: How recommendations reached the lower meetings]
[Sidenote: Function of committees appointed]
What became of the recommendation when it had been sent out from the
yearly meeting? In some cases committees were appointed in the quarterly
meetings to which it came. An instance of this is the case of Concord
Quarterly Meeting which in 1754 appointed a committee to inspect and
examine the accounts and all moneys which were given to charitable and
educational purposes.[753] At another time Concord appointed a committee
to visit the monthly and preparative meetings to ascertain the state
of schools among them; this committee reported soon after that they
had visited the meetings but that not much had been done in regard to
schools.[754] The appointment of these committees was quite a common
practice and, no doubt, they had considerable influence. They often
worked with the committees of the monthly meetings,[755] and in some
instances produced very full reports of their activity, which they, of
course, forwarded to the yearly meeting.[756] The duties in general
performed by the quarterly meetings, as doers of the yearly meeting’s
will, were as follows:
[Sidenote: Duties of the quarterly meeting summarized]
1. To transmit the advices through the representatives to the various
monthly meetings.
2. To appoint committees (_a_) for investigation and (_b_) for
coöperation with those in the monthly meetings.
3. To collect reports and make final report for their locality to the
yearly meeting.
4. At some stages of development the quarterly performed some duties
later performed by the monthly meeting.[757]
[Sidenote: Procedure in the monthly meeting]
What became of the recommendation when sent on from quarterly meeting?
After arriving at and being perused by the monthly, they were always
sent by the representatives back to the various particulars, or
preparatives, there to be considered also.[758] The preparative meeting
was not primarily a “record-meeting” and little can be found of their
organization, if they had any, for raising funds, save from the
reports of the monthly meetings. This does not mean, however, that the
preparatives did not share in raising the funds; it means only that the
organization for so doing was in the monthly meeting.[759] The plans
adopted by that body were drawn up in the most part by a committee
which was representative of each particular meeting. Let us examine
briefly the general nature of the plans proposed by some of the meetings
for establishing permanent funds. Only those of two or three will be
mentioned, as there was great similarity in all of them. The text of the
plan for some of the meetings may be found in the chapter in which those
meetings are considered.[760]
In 1796 the minutes of Kennett recorded a plan their committee had
devised for the establishment of a permanent fund. As has already been
suggested, one of the greatest weaknesses of the whole system was that
everything was done upon individual choice.[761] That is probably the
first thing to strike the reader’s attention as he looks over the plans
devised. We will state as concisely as possible the chief points.
[Sidenote: Kennett plans for raising funds summarized]
(_a_) Subscriptions were voluntary, and if a note were given it bore
interest at 5%;
(_b_) There was a regularly constituted board of trustees for the funds;
(_c_) Record was to be kept of receipts and expenditures and reported to
the monthly meeting;
(_d_) All money paid in was to be vested in real property as soon as
possible;
(_e_) Disagreement among the trustees must be settled before the monthly
meeting;
(_f_) Funds were to be used for paying salaries or keeping buildings in
repair provided the amount of the principal fund be not lessened.[762]
From reports of the success in establishing schools in Kennett
meeting,[763] one must believe that their trustees managed the funds
wisely and that subscriptions were generously made, but their exact
financial state is not given.
[Sidenote: Similar plans by Darby, London Grove, Buckingham, Sadsbury,
and others]
Similar plans were devised by many other meetings, such as London
Grove,[764] Darby,[765] Sadsbury,[766] and Buckingham.[767] In all the
outstanding characteristics are the same as those mentioned in the
Kennett plan. One very interesting characteristic which frequently
recurs, is that in the fifth rule of Kennett which allows that the funds
may be used also for the poor, who are not members of Friends.[768]
Other forms of support besides the subscription just mentioned were, (1)
_legacies_, given on terms determined at the will of the donors, (2)
_fees_, and, occasionally, (3) _issue of bonds_ for rather small sums,
which were needed in case of emergency, such as completing a school house
which had been begun. An instance of the third method occurred in 1701
when Philadelphia Monthly Meeting agreed that £100 be raised in that
manner for completing the work on the school house.[769] Many similar
instances were found in records of other meetings. The rate system was so
commonly used as a means of support in the early schools that it needs
no special attention here. Some of the rates paid for teaching will be
noted in a later presentation of masters’ salaries. Legacies have been
very frequently mentioned in previous chapters and it is here necessary
only to call attention to the chief characteristics of the bequests and
refer the reader to previous chapters if he wishes to examine the text of
them.[770] The common characteristics are:
[Sidenote: Main characteristics of the bequests made]
(1) Entirely voluntary, though the making of them was frequently urged by
the meeting[771] and was in fact the concern of the queries which were
regularly sent out. By this means the yearly meeting was informed of the
interest taken in making donations.
(2) Almost universally consisted of (_a_) sums of money or (_b_) land.
(3) The donor chose trustees in the meeting to be subject to its
direction.
(4) The purpose was generally definitely stated; also how the money
should be invested.
[Sidenote: The value of legacies in a few meetings]
An entire chapter might be devoted to this interesting and very important
means of support of the Quaker schools, but much less space must suffice.
The value of it may be indicated by a few figures given in statements
of a few meetings and school records. The table gives the yearly value
of the legacies or other permanent endowments at the year stated. The
list is not complete, due to inadequate records, but may be taken as
indicative of the extent of this form of support.[772]
VALUE OF LEGACIES FOR SCHOOL SUPPORT
For whose use Year Amount
Overseers of Penn Charter School[773] 1776 £574/00/11½
Buckingham Monthly Meeting[774] 1778 244/ 4/11½
Buckingham Monthly Meeting[775] 1793 767/10/00
Wrightstown Monthly Meeting[776] 1790 248/13/10
Falls Monthly Meeting[777] 1799 777/ 9/ 4½
Uwchlan Monthly Meeting[778] 1784 120/10/00
Horsham School Committee[779] 1793 351/ 2/11
ORGANIZATION
[Sidenote: London advices on education]
The machinery of organization which had any connection with the direction
of the school system has already been frequently referred to. It is
the same organization which was discussed in Chapter II.[780] It has
further been pointed out that one of the functions of the head of this
organization, the yearly or general assembly, was to issue advices for
the direction of the lower units. These advices began very early, so
far as they are concerned with education. In 1692 London Yearly Meeting
warned all others to be careful of a “Christian care in the education of
their children,”[781] and followed it successively each year with more
suggestions.[782] These advices all found their way to the Yearly Meeting
of Philadelphia and Burlington, and the similarity between the advices of
the two meetings is striking but not surprising.
[Sidenote: London advices summarized]
It may be convenient for the reader if some of the chief recommendations
of the London Advices are stated briefly, that the likeness of the two
may be noted later when we examine those of Philadelphia. They are:
1. Education is to be useful and practical.[783]
2. The major emphasis is placed on Christian and moral instruction.[784]
3. The teachers must be capable of good moral influence.[785]
4. Teachers must be members of Friends.[786]
5. Free education is to be provided for the poor[787] (first it was only
mentioned for the children of Friends, later others).
6. The coöperation of teachers is urged for the betterment of methods of
teaching.[788]
7. The weaker communities are to be aided by the stronger.[789]
8. Both parents and teachers must realize the force of example.[790]
9. Close censorship of all reading material for the youth.[791]
[Sidenote: Means of exercising influence: epistles, ministers, and
representatives]
[Sidenote: Philadelphia advices also general for first half century]
From this very brief statement of London Advices and with little
attention paid to their manner of getting into and influencing those of
Philadelphia, save to state that the chief means were: (1) _epistles
sent_, (2) _travelling ministers_, and (3) _through representatives sent
from the lower meetings_, let us turn to consider those of the last
named meeting. As early as 1694 we find that that body approved certain
“proposals about the education of youth,” the initiative for which seems
to have come from Philadelphia Quarterly Meeting.[792] So far as the
minute of the meeting goes, one would hardly dignify this statement so
much as to say that it suggested a plan of education. If such a plan were
submitted, it was carefully kept out of the minutes of that date. The
very nature of the advice continues as with those of London until near
the middle of the century, but as one reads the records they are seen
to grow gradually in definiteness until beginning (to name a definite
date) about 1746 and on through the period of 1777 and 1778, there are
elaborated certain ideas for the establishment of schools in town and
country. It is not until those later years that anything like strong
central control is felt, and certainly there were earlier no visible
results of such centralizing influence. Even then it took the form of
urgent suggestions which, though producing very considerable results,
cannot be regarded candidly as the best that might have been done. It
is with these suggestions of the latter part of the century that we are
chiefly concerned. The most important are here stated in brief manner.
[Sidenote: Summary of Philadelphia advices]
1. Education is to be useful in nature.
2. The minima to be attained are moral and Christian training and an
ability to read and write.
3. The meetings are to assist each other in settling schools.
4. Members of Friends are to be employed as teachers in the schools; good
moral influence of the teachers is of first importance.
5. A fixed income, house, and garden are necessary for securing a better
and more permanent teaching body.
6. All teachers, employed, are to be approved by the monthly meeting.
7. Quarterly meetings are to appoint visiting committees.
8. Permanent funds recommended to be put in care of trustees.
9. Schools to be under the care of monthly meetings’ committees and
reports are to be made thereon.
10. The poor children to be educated free of charge, and also the
Negroes, where they are not able to pay. Children not Friends were not
omitted,[793] as we find in the plans actually followed by the monthly
meetings.
[Sidenote: The functions of the quarterly meeting]
The chief functions of the quarterly meeting were: (1) to transmit
these advices; (2) to gather and return reports of the accomplishments
within its limits; and (3) to keep in touch with the work by means
of committees. Sufficient material has in the writer’s opinion been
presented in the way of reports in previous chapters relating to schools
established in the various counties, to make it unnecessary here.[794]
To characterize it as an intermediary agent and its functions as
supervisory and directive seems to be adequate.
[Sidenote: Monthly meeting the business unit]
The monthly meeting was above all others the organizing business unit and
the welfare of schools appears to have depended much on its activity.
It is to the monthly meeting that we are indebted for almost all of the
reports on schools, and it has been noticed that not until raised to
the dignity of being a monthly meeting, did many meetings assume any
important part in directing education. A few preparatives, which might
be considered as a little exceptional, were Byberry, Falls, and Horsham.
They appear to have handled their schools a little more independently
than did others. Duties which were as a general rule performed by each of
the monthly meetings were these:[795]
[Sidenote: Duties summarized]
1. To investigate the state of schools in their preparatives.
2. To appoint committees to visit, assist and report on schools
established, and recommend the establishment of others where necessary.
3. To approve masters, retire them, and fill vacancies.
4. Through trustees or committees on funds, (_a_) to finance the
education of poor children, (_b_) to pay salaries, (_c_) to build school
houses, and (_d_) to establish permanent endowments.
5. To take final reports to be sent to the yearly meeting.
[Sidenote: Three points indicated concerning the organization]
These functions have all been brought to the reader’s attention by
reports and minutes quoted in chapters on the schools in various
counties. This brief presentation of the organization and direction on
the part of the meetings should be sufficient to point out: (1) that the
general nature of the organization is a hierarchy of units; (2) that
the direction of school activities comes from the higher to the lower,
and is of a general and suggestive rather than specific and mandatory
nature; (3) that the monthly meeting formed the real working unit, and
that on its diligence probably depended the welfare of the preparatives’
schools. We shall now attend for a moment to a few of the details of the
school in so far as we may judge them from the records at our disposal.
THE SCHOOL
[Sidenote: Permanent properties recommended for schools]
[Sidenote: Property acquired by Philadelphia schools and meeting]
[Sidenote: and Abington]
It has already been mentioned that one of the yearly meeting’s earnest
recommendations was that a lot of ground be provided where schools
might be necessary, sufficient for a garden, orchard, grass for a cow,
etc., and that a suitable house and stables and other necessary things
be arranged for the securing of more permanent and better qualified
teachers.[796] There were certainly several of the meetings where land
for the purposes of schools was possessed before these recommendations
were made. Notable instances, which may be mentioned, were Philadelphia
and Abington, and many others, who early secured permanent lands for
the meeting which were also used for the erection of schools. Some of
the early acquisitions of school property in Philadelphia were: (1)
that purchased in 1698 of Lionell Brittain;[797] (2) another deeded by
John Goodson and Thomas Lightfoot to the overseers;[798] and (3) that
devised by William Forrest, upon which the overseers erected a school in
1744.[799] There was also the piece of ground left to the monthly meeting
of that place by George Fox, upon which the meeting gave permission for
the building of a school, free from ground rent.[800] The property gained
by Abington in 1696 was for the support of a school.[801] A meeting house
was erected on the land between 1696 and 1700. These cases of endowment
directly for schools were very limited as to locality at the early part
of the eighteenth century. Their number increased in later years, and
the increase may have been due partly to the influence of the yearly
meeting’s urgent advices.
[Sidenote: Warrington and Fairfax Quarterly]
[Sidenote: New Garden]
[Sidenote: Goshen, Darby, Buckingham]
A few instances of the tendency toward the policy of purchasing permanent
lands may be mentioned. In 1779, Warrington and Fairfax Quarterly
reported two of their monthly meetings had purchased grounds and
erected houses for the said purpose.[802] Another meeting had purchased
sixteen acres, built a house, but had difficulty in securing a suitable
master.[803] All other accommodations recommended for masters had been
provided. Near the close of the century (1794) William Jackson of New
Garden deeded a lot of ground to Friends of that meeting for the use of
a school.[804] New Garden also reported a school house built about 1795
on land given for the purpose by Jeremiah Barnard.[805] In 1792 Kennett
reported that their preparative meeting had purchased of Abraham Taylor
a piece of ground for a school and were preparing to build a house on
it. It was situated about 2½ miles from Kennett.[806] Other instances of
like procedure were: Goshen, 1795[807] and 1782;[808] Darby, 1793;[809]
and Buckingham in 1794.[810] Similar cases might be cited for almost
every monthly meeting in the southeastern part of Pennsylvania, and
it doubtless extended elsewhere. It is to be noted that this general
purchasing of school property did not come until late in the eighteenth
century, when the great advancement in Quaker education had its
beginning. It may be fairly stated that by the end of the century most
of the schools were established on school property held by the meeting
for that purpose. As pointed out above, this had been a slow development,
beginning with a few in the seventeenth century that started with land
endowments.
[Sidenote: Early schools held in meeting houses]
[Sidenote: Family school]
The earliest schoolhouses would doubtless present an interesting picture
if we could see them inside and out. Unfortunately there is little
information extant, which throws light upon the earliest. In fact, at the
very earliest establishment of schools, there were no special houses
built for them. For many of them this condition prevailed till fairly
near the close of the century. Joseph Foulke, writing in 1859, concerning
his first school days, stated that he first attended school at Gwynedd,
which was held in the meeting house, there being none other for that
purpose.[811] His next schooling, in 1795, was at a family school taught
by Hannah Lukens, who lived in a little house on the Bethlehem Road.
He then attended school in a log schoolhouse, built about 1798 by his
father.[812] Other instances may be cited in connection with the use of
the meeting house for schoolhouse. In 1693-4 Middletown Friends allowed
a school to be held in the meeting house, provided it should cause no
disturbance,[813] and again in 1699 a similar request was granted.[814]
As late as 1740 Philadelphia Meeting proposed to erect a meeting house
with chambers over it sufficiently large for the accommodation of a
school,[815] though, as mentioned before, they already had some of their
schools in regularly constructed schoolhouses.[816]
[Sidenote: An old schoolroom at Merion, Pa.]
The writer has had the opportunity to visit one of these little
schoolrooms established in the meeting house. Not much is known of the
school at Merion, though the oldest of Friends meetings, but it is quite
certain that whenever their school began and however pretentious it
may have been, it must have been held in the upper part of the meeting
house. The schoolroom in the present building is quite hidden away under
the eaves. The walls are bare and the rafters low overhead. Ample light
is furnished. Rude wooden benches and tables, the latter with sloping
tops, constitute the furniture of the room as it now stands. One of the
table tops bears the date 1711, doubtless the telltale of some vandal
outcropping, which might tempt one to place a school at that early
date. It is however too meagre and uncertain evidence to justify such a
conclusion.[817]
[Sidenote: Size and cost of school houses; Goshen, Falls]
[Sidenote: Philadelphia]
[Sidenote: Manner of heating]
From a few sources of information we gather some clews as to the size
of the schoolhouse generally. The house proposed by the Goshen Meeting
in 1782 was to be 27 feet square from out to out and to cost about
£150.[818] The new one proposed at Falls some twelve years later was to
be somewhat more pretentious being twenty-two feet by thirty and having
two stories. Its cost was estimated at £200.[819] We infer from the
minutes that a building was badly needed at Falls, the old roof being
“very leaky and the ceiling about to fall.” In spite of this fact it
does not appear that the house was erected until about 1799; the final
dimensions decided upon were twenty-six feet by twenty-four, one story,
and a cellar of the same dimensions.[820] It is not certain how much
space was actually devoted to the use of the school room, since the
building doubtless accommodated the master and his family at the same
time. The schoolhouse begun in Philadelphia about 1701,[821] was to be
twenty-four by sixty feet. Another one in 1744, built on the Forrest
property, was to be about sixty by thirty-five feet, two stories high,
with a basement underneath raised three feet above the surface of the
ground.[822] The cost of the last building when completed in 1746 was
£794.[823] Anthony Benezet, who apparently was teaching in an old
building, made complaint in 1744 that it was “too hot in summer and too
dark in winter” and therefore urged that a window be put in the south
side.[824] The writer has found a single instance to indicate how the
school building was heated. Judging from such meager data we would say
that the first schools probably up to 1715 or 1720 were heated by the
old-fashioned brick stoves. They were at any rate employed in some, but
were beginning to lose their popularity in that period. One was removed
in 1715 and an iron stove substituted for it.[825]
[Sidenote: Number of children attending schools]
[Sidenote: Two classes: the “pay” and the “free” scholar]
The size of the schools, measured by the number of pupils, must be judged
mostly from material found relating to Philadelphia. It was doubtless
true that in the country regions there were fewer children within reach
of the school and it was not necessary to state limits beyond which they
might not go. The yearly meeting certainly recommended that the number
of children be specified, which the master was to teach, but this was
often taken to mean that they should promise to teach a certain number of
children for the use of the school. The schools were always composed of
these two classes, the independent or _pay scholar_ and the poor or _free
scholar_. Some of the Philadelphia reports state the number attending,
of each of these classes. In that system the teachers were required
to keep a roll, especially of the poor children, and turn it over for
the inspection of the overseers.[826] In country districts the school
committee usually kept account of the poor scholars, seeing that they
were supplied with all things necessary.[827] It may prove interesting to
examine the Philadelphia system a little more fully.
[Sidenote: Both boys and girls assisted]
[Sidenote: Everything furnished to the “free” scholar]
First, let it be noted that cases of both boys and girls were
investigated by the overseers, and if capable and in need of assistance,
they were put under the tutorage of masters or mistresses free of any
charge.[828] Not only were the children of Friends admitted, but an
effort was made to find out the needy, of other denominations, and put
them to school also.[829] All articles necessary were furnished free
to the poor scholars by the Board, the master was required to keep an
account of each item and present the bill therefor in his reports to that
body.[830] The number of poor in Anthony Benezet’s school in 1743-4,
about a year after he entered it, was 14.[831] There was very little
fluctuation as to the number for many years; in 1749 there were 17.[832]
Below are given the reports of some of the schools in 1757.[833] It
seldom or never occurred that a report for all schools was made at one
time.
Pay Free
Master Year Items Scholars Scholars Amount
CHARLES THOMPSON 1757 Books and firing for
(_Latin_) poor scholars 31 7 £150/00/00
ALEXANDER SEATON 1757 Teaching poor scholars 30 41 58/15/ 4
(_English_) Premiums 3/00/00
Books and firewood 15/ 4/ 9½
Clothing for poor 6/17/ 8½
JOSEPH STILES 1757 Teaching poor scholars 14 28/18/ 1
Books and firewood 3/14/ 7
REBECKAH BURCHALL 1757 Teaching poor children 23 36/ 9/10
Firewood 3/ 4/ 6
ANN THORNTON 1757 Teaching poor children 3/ 2/ 9
[Sidenote: Number of poor and pay scholars stated]
[Sidenote: Indication of the system’s growth in the number of schools]
Immediately following the above report, another stated there were 38 in
the Latin School, 37 free scholars under Alexander Seaton, 17 (free)
under Joseph Stiles, 30 under Ann Thornton, and 30 (free) under Rebeckah
Burchall.[834] The slight discrepancy in the figures is not explained. A
later report of 1784 shows the following schools and the enrollment of
each. (1) Proud, (_Latin_), number not given; Todd, (_English_), 88 on
the list; Isaac Weaver, 28; William Brown, 29 girls; Sarah Lancaster, 64;
Mary Harry, 15 or 16; Joseph Clarke, about 30; Mrs. Clarke, 15 or 16 boys
and girls; Ann Marsh, about 50 boys and girls; Mary McDonnell, 15 young
children.[835] From this it seems that the only two schools which have
increased considerably in number are the Latin and English, both of which
employed ushers or assistants.[836] The chief indication of the system’s
growth is the increase from five or six schools to at least ten. The
approximate number of children recorded as having attended the schools
under the overseers from 1712 to 1770 was 720.[837]
[Sidenote: Children sent from home to attend school]
Children were frequently sent away from home to attend school, due to a
lack of adequate facilities near at hand. The following letter, from an
anxious mother, is a very interesting commentary on the attitude taken by
the less educated toward the propriety of spending time for education.
Though impolite to read private letters, it may be pardoned in this case.
The 20 of December, 1702.
Dear Brother:
The few liens comes to salute thee and fore prisila which I
hope are in helth as blessed be the God of all our mersies I am
at this writing. I long to hear from you both and how prisila
likes being at scool and how the like her and whether she
thinks that shee will lern anything worth her while to be kept
at cool here. I have sent her some thred to knit me too pares
of golves and herself on if there be anough for to mak so much
if not one for me and one for her. bid her be a good gerl and
larn well and then I shall love her. if Abraham Antone have
brought ... purchas me twenty pound and send it me if thou can
by some opportunity in so doing thou wilt much oblige thy most
affectionate sister
Abigail ⸺.[838]
A fairly good mental picture of the school, and the atmosphere pervading
it, is obtained from a perusal of the list of rules which were adopted
both for the guidance of the masters and the observance of the pupils. We
cannot gain much from a discussion since they are self-explanatory, hence
there is submitted a concise digest of those issued for the masters and
mistresses in the several schools.
[Sidenote: Rules for the government of schools summarized]
1. All pupils must be at school promptly.
2. No one shall be absent without a permit from parents.
3. Strict obedience to the monitor is demanded, but if there is a real
grievance, complaint may be made to the master.
4. Be orderly in coming to and leaving school.
5. Use the plain language to all persons; be civil to all.
6. To avoid, in hours of leisure, all “ranting games” and quarrelling
with one another.
7. Shall not play or keep company with rude boys of the town, but play
with own school fellows.
8. They shall come to school on 5th day prepared to go to the regular
meeting.[839]
The rules above, which, if all followed, one must admit would have made
an almost model school so far as behavior was concerned, were shortly
thereafter expanded a little to meet the needs of the Latin and English
schools. Those rules, however, were more concerned with the curriculum
and part of method, and were doubtless a guide for the instructors more
than to be followed by the pupils. They will receive attention in the
next few pages in the discussion of the curriculum. We shall however be
interested at this juncture to read the rules adopted by Robert Proud,
schoolmaster and historian, for the government of the Latin School, in
which he was the head master for many years. They are very similar to
those already noted, though drawn up by Proud for his school alone.
[Sidenote: Rules adopted by Robert Proud while master of the Latin School]
Orders and Directions In the School
Reverentia Jehovae Caput Scientiae
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
1. Duty in attending.
Fail not to be present in school precisely at or before the
time appointed for learning, being clean and decent; except
sufficient reason require thy absense; in which case, on thy
first returning ... before the master, immediately inform him
thereof to his satisfaction.
2. On entering, remaining in and departing from school, having
taken thy appointed seat, with as little noise and disturbance
as may be, move not therefrom, to that of another during the
time of learning without absolute necessity and then, very
seldom; nor go out of the school without the master’s leave or
knowledge. And observe the same silently and orderly behavior,
in thy departing from the school, as in thy entering it.
3. How to behave and study in the School.
Be always silent, in School or during the time of thy studies,
so as to be heard, neither in voice, nor otherwise, as little
as possible; except in writing or speaking to the Master or
Teacher; and discourse not with thy Schoolfellows during
the hours of study, without the Master’s permission; unless
in asking, or giving information relating to thine or their
learning; and even then observe to whisper, or speak as low as
possible to be heard by him, who is next thee.
4. Behavior to the Master, and during the presence of
visitants, etc.
Make all thy speeches to the master with due respect; and
observe cheerfully to perform all his directions and commands,
with readiness according to thy ability. And, if a stranger or
visitant speak to thee in the school, stand up, turn thy face
towards him respectfully and give a modest and ready answer, if
any answer be required or necessary; resuming thy seat again,
with a silent application to thy study; which order and silence
are more particularly and especially to be strictly observed
and kept during the presence of any stranger, or visitant, in
the School.
5. Behavior to one another.
Behave thyself always in a submissive and kind manner to thy
School fellows, never provoking, quarreling, nor complaining,
especially about frivolous matters; but use the word please,
etc., or expressions of similar signification when asking
anything of them; and observe a proper gratitude for every
kindness received, be it ever so small; using thy utmost
to cultivate a special Friendship with them; not returning
injuries, but learning to forgive; and shew them, by thy
exemplary Deportment, how they ought to behave.
6. Not to take Another’s Property, etc.
Neither take nor use anything which is the property of another
or in his custody, without first having his permission and as
much as possible, avoid borrowing, at any time, but provide
thyself with all books, instruments and things necessary for
thy learning and studies according to the Master’s direction;
always keeping them clean and in good order.
7. The Language.
Let the common language, used in School, be Latin, as much as
conveniently may be, according to the speaker’s knowledge and
ability therein, but in all places let every one speak with as
much propriety and grammatical accuracy as he is capable in
whatever language he makes use of.
8. School transactions not to be divulged.
Be not forward to divulge any transaction, passed in school,
more especially, to the disreputation of any in it; nor mock,
nor jeer any of thy school fellows, for being reproved or
corrected, lest it may sometime happen to be thy own case;
but rather be assisting, than troublesome, to the masters
or teachers by rendering thyself as agreeable, both to him
and them, as possible, in all laudable and good order and
discipline, as well as in the advancement and increase of
learning and all real improvement in the respective branches
thereof: that, instead of introducing any cause of punishing,
severe reproof, or servile fear, the place of thy learning may
be a place of pleasure and delight.[840]
Rule 9 deals with the proper attitude and behavior.
Rule 10 deals with the behavior in the religious meetings.
[Sidenote: Pupils remiss in attendance]
[Sidenote: The attention of board called to the fact]
In spite of the most excellent rules, which, we have seen, were
drawn,[841] it appears the attendance problem was one which caused some
masters no little worry. Proud’s manuscripts again inform us that on one
occasion, after continuous aggravation due to absences, he felt called
upon to send a note to the overseers concerning that serious affair.
He first mentions the ends desired to be gained by such a school, and
points out that they are being fallen short of, because of the laxity in
attendance. Moreover, the worst offenders are the sons of the overseers.
He says in particular:
But the occasion of this present observation to the Board
is more particularly that of the present day, viz.—the 4th
instant, when out of six of these, who attend the said school
(the Latin School) and ought more particularly to have been
present at that time, for the example of others and their own
benefit, only one of the smallest was at the school and two at
the meeting. The rest, being grown and advanced in years, and
learning, etc., and consequently more regarded for examples,
were at that particular and important time, all absent with
about the same proportion of the rest of the school.[842]
There were, it seems, the usual causes at work which produced such havoc
in the attendance record, and such distress in the minds of masters. A
letter written by James Logan to his friend John Dickinson, in 1704,
strengthens our belief that such was the case. He wrote in part:
Dear Friend:
I shall acquaint thee that thy two rugged boys are very lusty,
love the river much better this hot weather than their masters’
countenances, and the fields and boats far before schools or
books....
Thy affectionate Friend,
JAMES LOGAN.[843]
[Sidenote: Two extremes in discipline]
We have not much information from which to judge the discipline of the
school. From the rules already considered one would expect that strict
discipline was observed, but of the master’s methods of enforcing it we
know but little. There were doubtless two extremes. On the one hand, we
might take Anthony Benezet as the very personification of mildness, and
who ruled by love.[844] On the other hand, there was John Todd who would
thrash a boy very severely, and who took great delight in getting his
victim to admit the pain that he knew he felt.[845]
[Sidenote: Premium given to most satisfactory pupils]
To secure better discipline, attendance, and also to induce striving for
scholarship, it was customary to give rewards. We noted in the items
sent in to the overseers in masters’ reports that certain amounts were
for “premiums.”[846] This policy of rewards was early agreed upon by the
overseers who sought in various ways to establish little funds for that
purpose. In 1755 it was proposed that each one pay two shillings for
missing a board meeting and one shilling for being late; the accruing
amount to be paid out in premiums to encourage industry among the
boys.[847] The fines were collected and then turned over to the masters
who applied them as they saw fit.[848] The extent of the practice of
giving rewards is not exactly known, but it seems to have been general
throughout all the schools of the Board in Philadelphia, if we may judge
from the regularity with which the bills for “premiums” were presented.
It was also true that the school committees in other monthly meetings
arranged to give rewards on visiting day to the scholars having the best
records.[849]
[Sidenote: Length of school day]
[Sidenote: Evening schools customary]
The early school days seem to have been long and tedious. Attention
has already been called to the letter of Pastorius’ children to their
grandfather, in which they complained of the long eight hour school
day.[850] The school continued, according to their account, six days
in the week excepting Saturday afternoon.[851] Besides this it was
customary in all places to attend meeting on fifth day (Thursday),[852]
save in places where it may have been too far distant, an exception was
made possible.[853] Evening schools were quite common, as has been stated
before in the case of Germantown,[854] and increased in number toward the
latter part of the century. In 1750 John Wilson, usher to Robert Willian,
expressed his intention of opening an evening school which appears to
have been acceptable to the Board.[855] The prevalence of the evening
school among people not Friends is at once apparent when one glances at
the advertisements in the colonial newspapers. A few of those private
evening schools were: one kept by William Dawson and John Gladson,
teaching writing, arithmetic, and navigation;[856] others by John
Shuppy,[857] Mr. Lyonet,[858] and Messrs. Barthelemy and Besayde.[859]
[Sidenote: Length of school day in 1795: seven hours]
The length of the school day is better indicated, and perhaps the source
of information is more reliable, near the end of the century. The rules
issued by the Board in 1795 state that the hours are to be from 8 to
12 in the morning, and from 2 to 5 in the afternoon, these hours to
be observed from third month, first to eleventh month, first; in the
remaining months the hours were 9 to 12 and 2 to 5.[860] Vacations were
very scarce and very brief.[861] In the main, according to the rules
issued at least, they were to be: (1) at the periods of the quarterly
and yearly meetings; and (2) a vacation of three weeks, commencing on
seventh day preceding the last sixth day of the week of the seventh
month.[862] The other rules issued at this date besides these mentioned
relating to holidays and length of the school day were the same as were
previously stated.[863] The hours named above appear to us rather long
for the small children; arrangement seems to have been made for them,
though no statement of it is made in the school regulations. There were,
however, the schools of (1) William Brown and (2) Sarah Lancaster, who
taught children for half days,[864] and also the Girls’ School, in which
Anthony Benezet taught (1754), was mentioned as though it were to be
conducted only in the morning.[865] It is not to be understood that the
half day arrangement was always followed in the case of younger children,
for Sarah Lancaster taught thirty-five children whole days “at 15/ per
quarter.”[866] It seems that the amount of time for them to attend was
probably determined by the desires of their parents.
[Sidenote: Student papers, and magazines, etc.]
An interesting and instructive light is cast upon the inner life of
the school in Philadelphia, by some of the manuscript collections of
the very old Philadelphia families. For instance, we learn that in
the public school there were published certain magazines, gazettes,
chronicles, and so forth, a few of them named as follows: _The Examiner_,
_The Universal Magazine_, 1774, _Students’ Gazette_ (about 1774 to
1777), _The P. S. Gazette, Latonia_, 1777 to 1778, the _Public School
Gazetteer_, containing the freshest advices, foreign and domestic (a
palpable imitation of the newspapers in the city of that date), and _The
Students’ Magazine_.[867] The contents of all of them were no doubt very
interesting to the boys and girls at the time of their publication, and
are so even now, and at times give light on topics of importance. It
may perhaps interest the reader to see some of the entries. We find the
following which gives a clew to the book used for instruction in grammar.
[Sidenote: A few items of interest and value]
Was lost on Wednesday in The Public School Rudiman’s Grammar
newly bound—Whoever has found the same and will bring it to me
... shall receive 1 sheet of paper reward.
S. FISHER.[868]
Another of interest bewails the departure of Thomas Lloyd from school to
go into Lancaster County.
[Sidenote: Thomas Lloyd]
This worthy Gentleman, was admitted about a 12 month ago into
the society of freeholders, since which time he has been a very
distinguished member of our community and a firm supporter
of our institutions. He has been twice elected Clerk of the
Supreme Court and twice raised to the dignity of President
of the Honorable House of Assembly, which offices together
with Treasurer he filled with most unblemished reputation
and unshaked fidelity. His character in the literary world
is sufficiently established by many genuine productions of
judgment and humor. His affable disposition, his engaging
address and behavior endear him to all that had the happiness
of his acquaintance and render his departure a cause of great
regret.[869]
Another brief notice indicates that the Quaker preferment for plain dress
was also made to prevail in the schoolroom.
[Sidenote: Gay clothing disagreeable]
From a certain expression which lately drop’d from one of the
overseers, we would have the greatest reason to believe that
Mr. Webster’s gay appearance is rather disagreeable.[870]
[Sidenote: Supervision]
[Sidenote: Somewhat irregular]
[Sidenote: Monthly visits decided upon]
Some supervision of the work on the part of overseers and school
committees seems to have been at all times expected, though attention
hardly needs be called to it after the presentation of so many reports
made by committees, in the chapters relating to the establishment of
schools in the several counties. From the irregularity in the reports we
judge, however, that the visitation must have likewise been irregular
in many places. In 1755 the Board in Philadelphia decided that for the
encouragement of masters and scholars there should be visits made each
month, preceding the usual monthly meetings. Also if “play days” were
thought necessary they were to be arranged for between the masters and
the committee of visitors.[871] The minutes indicate that these monthly
visits were regularly performed. The Negro School, established in 1770,
was also in charge of a committee to visit, superintend, and advise
regarding its affairs.[872]
THE CURRICULUM
[Sidenote: The curricula are in general in harmony with the
recommendations of the yearly meetings; and the Frame of Government]
If we go back to our references on the advices of the yearly meetings
of London and Philadelphia we shall find there the basic reasons for
the subjects which are to be mentioned as taught regularly in the
schools. We recall that there was an emphasis placed on the _moral_, the
_useful_ and _practical_, and the subjects first to be mentioned were:
writing, reading, and arithmetic, which constituted the necessities.[873]
Furthermore, the Frame of Government of 1696, the product of Quaker
minds and hands, recommended to erect and order all public houses
and encourage and reward the authors of useful sciences and laudable
inventions.[874] It is seen also from later advices of the yearly
meeting that the _useful_ was not limited necessarily to the four R’s,
religion, arithmetic, writing, and reading. In 1737, they recommended
that as opportunity could be found, children should be permitted to learn
“French, High and Low Dutch, Danish, etc.”[875] The use of Latin, Greek,
and Hebrew is also justified by Crouch,[876] and it is well known and
evident in all their writings that Penn, Barclay, Fothergill, Lloyd,
Proud, Pastorius, and innumerable others were classically educated men.
[Sidenote: Studies pursued in Flower’s school]
[Sidenote: In Benezet’s]
[Sidenote: Walby’s]
[Sidenote: Seaton’s]
[Sidenote: Girls’ School]
[Sidenote: Godfrey’s]
The curriculum of the first school (Enoch Flower’s) consisted of reading,
writing, and casting accounts,[877] and it seems entirely probable that
these were the chief constituents, along with moral instruction, for
many years, in all save the Latin School. At any rate there occur no
disproving factors in that early period. In 1742, when Anthony Benezet
came from the Germantown school to Philadelphia, he was employed to teach
arithmetic, writing, accounts, and French.[878] John Walby, employed
about ten years before him (Benezet) was to teach reading, writing, and
arithmetic.[879] Alexander Seaton was employed in 1751 to teach a school
“in the upper part of the City,” the subjects being writing, arithmetic,
and parts of the mathematics.[880] In 1754, when Benezet first began in
the Girls’ School (mornings), he was required to instruct in reading,
writing, arithmetic, and English grammar.[881] Then, besides what we may
term the English School, in which Seaton and Benezet taught for some
time, there were others which we might term “petty schools,” for example,
one kept by Debby Godfrey,[882] who taught some poor children to learn
to sew and read, and another, taught by Ann Redman (1761), previously
occupied by Rebeckah Burchall, where were taught reading, writing, and
plain sewing.[883]
[Sidenote: Letter writing]
Since writing letters was an art much used and cultivated in the Colonial
Period, and writing was greatly emphasized in the schools, it may be
of interest to insert a letter written by a school boy in 1735. The
letter is written in a fairly regular boyish hand, and is probably the
production of a youngster about 12 years of age.
Nov. 21, 1735.
Dear Uncle,
I think in duty, I ought to wait on you with my first letter,
which I hope will plead excuse for all faults. I remember what
you told me, and write or go to school every day—I am much
obliged to you for your kind present of tickets, and hope I
shall have good success.—Pray give my duty to Uncle and Aunt
Penn and all my Cousins. My love to Mr. Philaps, Mr. Jervice
and Farmer Dill. With all my Friends.—So conclude.
Dear Uncle
Your Affct. Nep.
THOMAS FREAME.[884]
Phil. d. Novbr. 21, 1735.
[Sidenote: Curriculum of later dates]
[Sidenote: Spelling]
[Sidenote: Quaker school curricula compared with others]
At later dates than those above mentioned the records of the overseers,
reports made in the monthly meetings of Philadelphia, Horsham School
Minutes, Darby, and others, indicate that the curriculum consisted of
reading, English, writing, arithmetic, branches of the mathematics,
sewing, spelling, needlework, and other things suitable for girls.[885]
The only one which is mentioned at this latter date, and not at the
former, is spelling. This of course does not mean, necessarily, that
spelling had just been introduced. In 1756 the visiting committee
reported that spelling books and Bibles were needed in the schools for
the poor children,[886] and since Benezet’s spelling book came to a
second edition in 1779,[887] and Fox’s _Instructions for Right Spelling_
was published in Philadelphia in 1702,[888] we may be certain that
spelling as a regular study began at a very early date. If we compare
this curriculum with those mentioned by private tutors at the same
time, we find them essentially the same. There was, however, frequent
mention of such subjects as navigation, calk guaging, mensuration,
bookkeeping,[889] surveying,[890] dialling,[891] astronomy, and
fortification,[892] which are not mentioned definitely in the curriculum
of the Friends’ schools. It is quite probable that those above, dealing
with higher mathematics, were included in the higher mathematics taught
in the Classical School. But one cannot imagine that “fortification” was
granted a place. Those studies of the mathematics may be mentioned again
in studying the curriculum of the Latin School.
[Sidenote: Studies pursued in the Negro School]
The curriculum in the Negro School (1770) consisted approximately of
the same subjects, though they may have been modified to some extent in
presentation, and restricted more or less to the rudiments. The subjects
of instruction mentioned when the school first began were reading,
writing, and arithmetic, and were to be taught under “prudent” and
“competent” direction.[893]
What books were used for the instruction in this curriculum of the
English and Lower schools? We cannot state absolutely in the case of all
studies, but we can judge with comparative certainty what books were most
available for their use.
[Sidenote: Books prominent for religious instruction in the schools]
[Sidenote: Bible]
[Sidenote: _Apology_ of Barclay, and Penn’s _Reflections_, _Maxims_, and
_Advice to His Children_]
In the case of those used for religious instruction, the meeting
records usually mentioned the name, which enables one to state with
absolute certainty that certain books were used. Bibles for the use of
schools were requested by the visiting committees of the overseers in
Philadelphia, for the use of poor scholars.[894] Other books of religious
and denominational character such as Penn’s _Reflections_, _Maxims_,
and _Advice to His Children_, are mentioned definitely by Darby,[895]
Horsham School Committee,[896] Sadsbury,[897] and Byberry Preparative
meetings[898] as being received for use in connection with the schools.
Byberry Preparative,[899] Radnor[900] and Sadsbury[901] monthly meetings
mention further the receipt of Barclay’s _Apologies_ for school use.
Besides these, which were undoubtedly used for school instruction, there
was a long list of journals, essays, letters, epistles, histories of
Friends, etc., which always were in the possession of each meeting and
may have been used indirectly at least. They will be mentioned more at
length in pages following.
[Sidenote: Books probably used in spelling]
The spelling book prepared by Fox and published in Philadelphia in
1702,[902] must have claimed a place in the Friends’ schools, though the
books are nowhere mentioned by name. The title of this book includes
reading, writing, spelling, and other things useful and necessary,
and may easily have served for other purposes than use in spelling
instruction. Other spellers, which became available from time to time,
were Benezet’s _Pennsylvania Spelling Book_ and _The Alphabet_ printed
by Henry Miller, 1770.[903] Among those which were used later in the
century, Prowell, in speaking of the schools in York County, notes
Comly’s, Cobb’s, and Webster’s.[904] From this array, which is no doubt
incomplete, we may judge the schools were well supplied.
[Sidenote: Primers likely to be used]
Of the primers available, and likely to be used, there were a host.
The first which should be mentioned was that published by Fox in 1659;
it is not known whether this primer was used in Philadelphia. It seems
that it was not printed there.[905] In 1677-8, the monthly meeting
authorized the purchase of “primmers,”[906] however, and the choice
must have been either Fox’s or Pastorius’. No student of early printing
in Philadelphia has yet been able to determine when the latter’s was
published. Hildeburn is in doubt,[907] while Smith thinks the “primmers”
ordered by the meeting 1697-8 must have been those of Pastorius.[908]
The minute, however, does not state which. In 1696 Pastorius indicated
his willingness to take charge of a printing press for Friends,[909]
but, since it had to be brought from England, it is not likely, though
possible, that he himself could have printed the book, before the
time of the “primmer” purchase was mentioned. Since Pastorius lists a
Fox’s _Primmer_ among the books in his possession,[910] that book must
have been known in the monthly meeting too, and may have been the one
used.[911] The data are inadequate and uncertain for reaching a decision
in the matter.
[Sidenote: Other primers available for use during the century]
Other primers published and available in Philadelphia and which may
well have gotten into Friends’ schools were Franklin’s, 1764; _The New
England Primmer Improved_, 1770; _The Newest American Primer_, 1779; _The
New England Primmer Improved_, 1779; and _A Primmer_, 1779.[912] The
minutes of the meetings give little guidance as to which were or were
not used. We know only they had this list (and perhaps more) from which
to select. Still other books which were probably used in the English work
were Dilworth’s _A New Guide to the English Tongue_ and _The Child’s New
Plaything or Best Amusement, intended to make the Learning to Read a
Diversion instead of a Task_, both of which were published in 1757.[913]
[Sidenote: In the writing schools]
[Sidenote: Quality of some samples noted]
For use in the writing school, we find one definite reference made to
Bickam’s _Universal Penman_, which was purchased for use in Alexander
Seaton’s School in 1762.[914] The various primers and spellers already
mentioned dealt largely with writing also, giving models which were to
be set before the pupil in the books or to be written out for him by the
master. Some of the mottoes called to mind were: “Command you may your
mind from Play” and “A man of words and not of deeds, is like a garden
full of weeds.”[915] The first exercises in writing were the making of
elements such as straight lines, curves, and then single letters, and
words. The various samples which the writer has noticed in the boy’s
letter quoted,[916] and the student manuscript papers,[917] were of
very good quality, the median grade of them being about “eleven” on the
Thorndike Handwriting Scale.[918]
[Sidenote: Arithmetics used in some of the schools]
[Sidenote: Ms. collection indicates the nature of the arithmetic work]
Various arithmetics may be mentioned. There were Gough’s _A Treatise
of Arithmetic, Theory_, etc., 1770, and _Practical Arithmetic_, 1767,
neither of which appears to have been published in Philadelphia, but
may have been better recommended than others, since gotten up by a
Friend. Dilworth’s _Schoolmaster’s Assistant_ published in Philadelphia,
1773,[919] was no doubt a close competitor with Pike’s, Park’s, and
Daboll’s arithmetics, which Prowell mentions as being common in the
latter part of the century.[920] He also describes a book gotten up by
Elihu Underwood, schoolmaster at Warrington, in which he copied very
orderly all the exercises of the arithmetic.[921] The _Norris Collection_
likewise contains a few pupils’ copy books filled with neatly arranged
exercises in addition, multiplication, division, both decimal and vulgar
fractions, and another one which would correspond to our present-day
commercial arithmetic, but which Isaac Norris probably called his
merchants’ accounts.[922] The books vary in dates from 1729 to 1779.
[Sidenote: Classical school curriculum]
The curriculum of the classical school is best indicated by statements
made on employing teachers for that place, which, though they indicate
the _subjects_, do not state _what materials_ were used for study.
Whether the materials used in the study of the Greek and Latin tongues
included the so-called “profane authors” is a matter for speculation.
Robert Willian in 1748 was brought from England to teach Latin and
Greek and other parts of learning.[923] The “other parts” may have
included some English grammar, writing, and mathematics, as these are
frequently mentioned elsewhere as being a part of the Latin school
course.[924] Several masters employed from time to time for instruction
in these subjects were (after Willian): Alexander Buller,[925] writing,
mathematics, and the Latin tongue; John Wilson, as usher[926] to the
master in the same school, and later as master;[927] King;[928] William
Johnson;[929] Charles Thompson;[930] and Robert Proud.[931] Others
might be named, all of whom seem to have been employed for teaching
substantially the same curriculum. Arithmetic and reading are at
times mentioned as being taught in the Latin school, usually by the
ushers.[932]
[Sidenote: Curriculum in the English school]
The curriculum of what was known as the English School overlapped in some
respects that of the Latin. Among the subjects usually taught there may
be mentioned: arithmetic, writing, accounts, French,[933] reading,[934]
and probably some mathematics.[935] The Girls School’s curriculum, taught
by Benezet in 1754, consisted of reading, writing, arithmetic, and
English grammar.[936]
[Sidenote: Methods used in language instruction]
[Sidenote: Latin to be used in school as much as possible; Scriptures,
Penn, and Barclay required]
Some light is cast on the method of instruction in the English and
Latin schools by instructions given by the Board for the use of the
master. Latin scholars were to be accustomed to analyze and parse their
several lessons; and the English scholars to learn it grammatically.
Moreover the double translation method for Latin and Greek was required
for instruction in those subjects; and practice in handwriting and
spelling.[937] The reader is also referred to page 183 to the rules of
Robert Proud, in which he states that Latin, as far as the pupils are
able, must be used in the school. The reading of the Scriptures was
required three times a week,[938] and in later rules (1795), they name
also the works of Penn and Barclay as being required. They are placed in
the same category with the Scriptures.[939]
[Sidenote: Grammar used; others that were available]
[Sidenote: French grammars]
[Sidenote: School books possessed by Daniel Pastorius]
Of the grammars used we made reference previously to that of
Rudiman,[940] which was published in Philadelphia in 1776.[941] This was
the first American edition. Another, Davy’s _Adminiculum Puerile_,[942]
or a help for school boys, containing fundamental exercises for
beginners, syntax, cautions for mistakes, English for Latin verses, and
so forth, which was made easily available by a Philadelphia reprint in
1758, may have been in use. We might expect to find that some of the
worthy masters, Pastorius, Willian, Thompson, Wilson, Proud, and others
made some contribution in the way of Latin text-books; we are, in that
respect, disappointed. Another grammar, but of the English tongue, was
that prepared by James and John Gough, which, after being duly inspected
by the Board, was adopted for use in the English School in 1761.[943]
Since English grammar was also taught in the Latin School, it may have
been used in that department also. Concerning the French book or grammar
which Anthony Benezet may have used when he was engaged to teach that
subject in 1742,[944] we cannot state definitely. However, there was
a _French School Book_ published in Philadelphia in 1730,[945] and it
may safely be assumed to have been available for his use. The character
of the book we do not know. Perrin’s _Grammar of the French Tongue_
was printed in Philadelphia, 1779,[946] and was no doubt the best book
available for use of the schools at and subsequent to that time. It may
be well to mention here some school books which were in the possession
of Daniel Pastorius; their presence may indicate that they, or a part of
them, were used in the school. They were: _Education_, _The Young Clerk’s
Tutor_, _Elements of Geometry_, _A Short Introduction to Grammar_, _The
English School Master_, G. Fox’s _Primmer_, and _Teacher’s Instruction
for Children_.[947]
[Sidenote: Mathematics]
Some idea of the extent to which mathematics was taught may be gained
from certain old exercise books. Some of those, which doubtless belong
to the lower schools, dealt with arithmetical exercises, with whole
numbers, vulgar and decimal fractions, and commercial arithmetic.[948]
Others, clearly more advanced, and doubtless belonging to the Latin
school, though some were taught in the English, are chiefly filled with
theorems and proven solutions in geometry, trigonometry, conic sections,
and spherical trigonometry.[949] This compares quite favorably with the
courses suggested in the newspapers, as we have already mentioned.
METHOD
[Sidenote: Methods]
[Sidenote: Catechetical method in religion]
[Sidenote: Drill in spelling and writing]
[Sidenote: Parsing, double translation in classics]
Concerning this topic little is to be added to what has already been
suggested in connection with the discussion of the subject matter. Some
points of method, of which we are reasonably certain, will be stated. In
religious instruction, where the Bible, Penn’s, Barclay’s, Fox’s, and
other works were used as the material, a catechetical method was used by
parents in the home, by the masters and mistresses in the schools, and
in the youths’ meetings, which were always among the first established.
This method still prevails to some extent for the young children.
Drill in spelling and handwriting has already been mentioned as urged
by the overseers in their directions to the masters and mistresses in
the Latin and English schools.[950] The chief elements of Latin and
Greek instruction were: analysis, parsing, double translation, and the
necessary memory drills. The pupils in Proud’s school were also required
to speak Latin so far as able to do so. We have also mentioned that in
teaching writing the practise was to begin with simple lines, curves,
etc., and proceed to the more complex performances.[951] In the majority
of subjects “copybooks” were required to be kept. All of these the writer
has been privileged to observe, being kept in a very neat and regular
fashion.[952]
OTHER LITERATURE USED IN THE MEETINGS
[Sidenote: Books circulated regularly among meetings]
[Sidenote: Usually purchased by the meetings; not always]
Besides the books already mentioned that are known to have been concerned
directly with schools, there were innumerable others which were printed
by Friends and circulated at their suggestion among all the meetings.
They are largely religious and doctrinal treatises; many of them, though
not found thus stated, may have been used in instruction. They were at
least of educational importance to the communities that read them. They
are mentioned in the minutes of every meeting. Though usually paid for
by the meeting, the Board of Overseers in Philadelphia went on record
to the effect that fines for absence from, or tardiness in coming to
their meetings should be applied to the purchase of books for the school
library.[953] Sometimes they were given by bequest, as in the case of
the Philadelphia school, which received through the monthly meeting a
large collection (for that day) from Thomas Chalkly.[954] The list, as
given below, is made up from records of Sadsbury, Westland, Warrington
and Fairfax, Uwchlan, Concord, Radnor, New Garden, London Yearly,
Philadelphia Yearly, Gwynedd, Falls, Exeter, Wrightstown, Darby, Byberry,
Horsham, Abington, and Buckingham meetings, and though perhaps it does
not contain all, it does have those most commonly used. This list is as
follows:
[Sidenote: A list of books most commonly found in the meeting]
Banks, _Journal, Life and Travels_.
Barclay, _Anarchy of the Ranters_.
Bathurst, _Truth Vindicated_.
Benezet, _Account of the Friends_ (in the German language).
_On the Keeping of Slaves._
Churchman, _Journal_.
Claridge, _Posthumous works_.
Crisp, _Epistles of Stephen Crisp_.
Davis, _Journal_.
Edmundson, _Journal_.
Elwood, _Works_.
Fothergill, _Journal_.
Fox, _Journal_.
Fuller, _Catechism_.
Hall, _A Mite into the Treasury_.
Holme, _A Serious Call in Christian Love to all People_.
Keith, _Way to the City of God_.
London Yearly Meeting’s Epistles.
Penn, _No Cross No Crown_.
_Rise and Progress of the Quakers._
_Travels in Germany._
Philadelphia Yearly Meeting’s Epistles.
Richardson, _Life of John Richardson_.
Sewell, _History of Friends_.
Scott, _Journal_.
Spaulding, _Reason for leaving the National Mode of Worship_.
Stanton, _Journal_.
Treatises on Tythes.
Treatises on _Reasons for Silent Waiting_.
Turford, _Grounds of an Holy Life_.
Woolman, _Journal_.
SUMMARY
[Sidenote: Support]
[Sidenote: Weakness in the organization]
[Sidenote: Forms of support]
[Sidenote: Subscription plans generally adopted]
The first problem presented was how to establish some satisfactory means
of school support, which should be permanent, and thus conducive to
better schools in every way. Recommendations from the yearly meetings
dwelt upon this point in the yearly advices, but being of a general and
advisory character, could not compel the lower units to act at once.
This lack of power in a control authority was the greatest weakness,
and because of it, educational development was not so rapid as it
might otherwise have been. The chief forms of school support were:
(1) _subscription_, (2) _rates_, (3) _bonds_, and (4) _legacies_. In
accordance with suggestions made by the yearly meeting, plans were
adopted by most meetings (in the latter half of the century) for the
establishment of permanent funds. These plans were based upon the
subscription idea. The chief characteristics of the plans adopted were:
1. Voluntary subscriptions; interest-bearing notes given.
2. Trustees always named in the monthly meetings.
3. Reports to be made regularly to the trustees.
4. All money received was to be invested, real property
preferred.
5. The monthly meeting to decide any disputes arising among
trustees.
6. Funds were to pay salaries, and provide and repair buildings.
[Sidenote: Organization]
The organization was headed by the yearly meeting, whose advices were
distributed among the lower units. The quarterly meeting was nothing
more than a supervisory and directing group. The real work of organizing
schools was performed by the monthly and preparative meetings. The
other quarterly and monthly meetings worked through specially appointed
committees.
[Sidenote: The school lands]
[Sidenote: Houses]
Several schools, in Philadelphia and Abington, for example, very early
acquired permanent lands for their foundation. Others did not gain
such foundations until the latter part of the eighteenth century. Even
where land was possessed, the schools were quite often held for a time
in the meeting houses. Sometimes the meeting house was used until late
in the 19th century, as in the case of the Merion School. Other schools
were held in the home of the teacher. The buildings were not large, and
were often used for the masters’ families, or parts of them let out to
tenants. In one case in Philadelphia the schoolhouse was heated for a
time with a brick stove.
[Sidenote: Two classes of pupils]
[Sidenote: Growth of schools]
There were always two classes recognized, the _pay pupil_ and the
_free pupil_. Every necessity was furnished the latter by the board or
committee in charge of schools. Teachers (in Philadelphia, at least)
had to keep a list of scholars and their expenditures and report to the
board. The size of schools remained about the same, but the increase in
number of schools indicated the growth of the system in Philadelphia.
[Sidenote: Length of school week and day]
[Sidenote: Vacations]
[Sidenote: Supervision]
Very explicit rules were laid down for the government of the pupils’
behavior, both in school and out. By some masters they were enforced
mildly; by others harshly. In spite of excellent rules and premiums
offered, the masters were perplexed with the discipline and attendance
problems. School was kept for five and one-half days per week and from
seven to eight hours each day; however, some were kept only half days.
Vacations were brief and seldom. The various student papers indicate the
presence of a student organization. To promote the interest of the pupils
and assist the master, visitations were performed at periods by the
committee on schools.
[Sidenote: Curriculum of Latin School]
[Sidenote: Grammars used]
[Sidenote: Method]
The curriculum of the Latin School consisted of Latin, Greek, English
grammar, writing and mathematics. There was some overlapping of the
curricula of the English and Latin schools. Rudiman’s _Grammar_ was
used, and Davy’s _Adminiculum Puerile_, Gough’s _English Mannor_, and
Perrin’s _Grammar of the French Tongue_ were available for use. Whether
classical authors were or were not included in the materials used in
Greek and Latin classes is not shown by the records. It has been stated
that parsing, analysis, double translation, and speaking Latin as much as
possible in school, were the chief elements in the method of instruction.
Mathematics included anything as advanced as spherical trigonometry and
conic sections.
[Sidenote: Curriculum of lower schools]
[Sidenote: In the Negro School]
The curriculum of the lower schools consisted of reading, writing,
casting accounts and arithmetic. No mention is made that French was
taught before Benezet’s coming in 1742. Though no early explicit
reference to spelling is made, we infer it must have been taught at an
early date. Many schools were kept for poor children in which were taught
reading, writing and sewing. The curriculum of the Negro School consisted
of reading, writing and arithmetic.
[Sidenote: Literature used in the meetings]
A large amount of literature of religious character was circulated
through the meetings, and probably constituted a good part of the
materials used in the schools.