REPORT OF THE VISITING COMMITTEE OF TAUNTON IN 1801
The committee chosen by the town to inspect the schools beg leave to report their situation and examination....
January 6th, 1801. Your committee visited a school kept in Rueben Richmond’s house instructed by Mrs. Nabby Williams of 32 scholars. This school appeared in an uncultivated state the greater part of the scholars.
On the 26 of Feb., visited Mrs. Nabby Williams’ school the second time and found that the scholars had made great proficiency in reading, spelling, writing and some in the grammar of the English language.
Nov. 10th, the committee visited and examined two Schools just opened; one kept in a school house, near Baylies works, of the number of 40 scholars, instructed by Mr. Philip Lee. This School we found to have made but small proficiency in reading, spelling and writing, and to be kept only six or seven weeks; upon inquiry why it should be taught no longer, we were informed that the ratio of school money for this School was and had been usually expended in paying the Master both for his service and board, and in purchasing the fire wood which is contrary to the usual custom of the town.
The other School, visited the same day, was kept near John Reed’s consisting of the number of between 30 and 40 Scholars instructed by Mr. William Reed; This School, being formed into regular classes, appeared to have made a good and pleasing proficiency in reading, spelling, writing, some in arithmetic and others in the Grammar of the English language. This School’s share of school money is expended to pay the Master for his service only, so that the School will be continued three months.
On the 8th day of December they visited a School kept in a School house near Seth Hodges, in number 30 Scholars instructed by Mr. John Dunbar. This School appeared in a good way of learning, and to be kept four months.
On the 22nd of December your Committee visited two more Schools just opened, one in a School house near Samuel Pett’s of the number of 40 scholars instructed by Mr. Rufus Dean, and to be kept three months. This School appeared to be in a promising way of learning in reading spelling and writing and to be regularly taught.
The other School is kept in the home of Mr. Paul Chase and taught by Mr. Nicolas Stephens, consisting of 30 Scholars, and appears quite in a good way of learning especially in Spelling for scarcely a word passed a scholar misspelled, in writing some did very well and others in arithmetic appeared attentive.
January 8th, 1801 visited two Schools for the first time, one in the home of Mr. William Hodges of the number of 37 Scholars, instructed by Mr. Lovet Tisdale, the other in the home of Mr. Daniel Burt, of the number of 25 Scholars, instructed by Mr. Benjamin Tubbs. These Schools appeared in good order and attentive to their learning.
Feby. 26th, visited Mr. Dean’s School 2 times, the Scholars were crowded into a small room, the air was exceedingly noxious. Many children were obliged to tarry at home for want of room and though the school was kept only a few weeks they were deprived of its advantages. A want of books was the complaint. The committee were anxiously desirous that this evil might have a remedy and were of opinion it may be easily done. The Scholars appeared to increase in knowledge & claim our approbation.
March 5th, visited two schools, one kept at Mr. Aaron Pratt’s of the number of 30 scholars instructed by Mr. Philip Drown. This school appeared quite unimproved and uncultivated in reading and spelling, some of them did better in writing. This uncultivated state did not appear to be from a fault in the children but, as your committee were informed, from the disadvantage of having had masters illegally qualified for their instruction; of which class is their present master unauthorized by law.[7]
The situation here described was typical of all the settled towns. How much worse it was in sparsely settled districts one can easily imagine. Briefly put, one can say that up to 1830 schools throughout the country held short sessions in the middle of the winter when the pupils were otherwise unoccupied with home demands. There was no supervision except by visiting committees, no course of study, little or no material equipment, and small outlook for a higher education.
Adoption of the German Model
During the decade 1830-1840 there was an effort, especially in Massachusetts under the leadership of Horace Mann and in Michigan under John Pierce, to improve the common schools. In an illuminating historical treatise on this subject Mr. F. F. Bunker has reproduced some of the evidences that the changes made at that time in the schools of America were largely influenced by German models. The following quotations indicate how the movement began:
Charles Brooks, a man whose influence in Massachusetts was great, and who may be said to have prepared the way for the work of Horace Mann, did very much to disseminate knowledge respecting the Prussian system. He was primarily interested in establishing a normal school after the Prussian model, yet, during the campaign which he carried on for this purpose between the years 1835 and 1838 he did not limit himself to the consideration of the normal school alone, but sought to acquaint the people with the details of the German system of elementary education as well. His account of the return trip from England, which he made in company with Dr. H. Julius, of Hamburg, indicates the esteem in which he held the Prussian system:
A passage of 41 days from Liverpool to New York (with Dr. Julius) gave me time to ask all manner of questions concerning the noble, philosophical, and practical system of Prussian elementary education. He explained it like a sound scholar and a pious Christian. If you will allow the phrase, I fell in love with the Prussian system, and it seemed to possess me like a missionary angel.
Just at the time that Charles Brooks was laboring so diligently to incorporate in the Massachusetts system the results of Prussian experience, another man, John D. Pierce, in Michigan, also an enthusiastic believer in the preëminence of the Prussian organization, was laying the foundation for an educational system in his own State and building into it the best features of Prussian practice. It was mainly because of his suggestions to the chairman of the committee on education in the convention that framed the State government in 1835 that the article in the constitution respecting education was framed and provision made for the office of superintendent of public instruction. Mr. Pierce was appointed to the superintendency in 1836 and at once began the work of preparing a plan for a complete school system.
Before framing his recommendations, which were submitted in 1837 and which were approved for the most part, he visited the schools of New England, New York, and New Jersey. Prior to this, however, he had learned of the Prussian system through an English translation of Cousin’s report. This report of Cousin’s was first made known to the English-speaking people by Sir William Hamilton, who, in the Edinburgh Review, July, 1833, commended the report highly and quoted at considerable length therefrom. The next year (1834) that part of the report which treated of Prussian practice was translated into English by Mrs. Sarah Austin and appeared in London. A New York edition of the same translation was issued in 1835 and widely distributed. It was a copy of this edition which, falling into Mr. Pierce’s hands, profoundly influenced him in framing the system he later submitted to the Michigan Legislature. In describing his entrance into public life Mr. Pierce speaks of this circumstance: