This section is from the "The Subvention In The State Finances Of Pennsylvania" book, by Frederic B. Garver.
The revelations concerning the Bloomsburg school caused the passage of more stringent regulations for the management of the schools and the adoption of a different method of making the appropriation for their assistance. In 1873 the sum of $50,000 was appropriated for the benefit of the normal school companies, but no distribution of this amount was made by the General Assembly. The Governor, the Superintendent of Common Schools, and the Attorney General were named as a board to distribute the appropriation, "on such terms and conditions as they may [might] determine, looking to the interest of the state as well as the welfare of the school. . . . " *90 The act also provided that a certain number of members of the boards of trustees should be appointed by the state superintendent, the number being in proportion to the state's contributions to each school. Thus, if the state had appropriated $15,000 while private persons had contributed $30,000 to the building of a school, the state would be entitled to five out of the fifteen trustees. *91 The legislature made at least one exception to this rule. *92 The purpose of this plan, was not, of course, absolutely to control the boards of trustees. *93 The stockholders still elected a majority of the members of these boards, but it would have been possible, had the right men been appointed, to hold the other members somewhat in check, and what was still more important, the power to appoint a minority of the boards gave the superintendent the opportunity to obtain intimate information as to the conduct of the schools.
87 Legislative Journal, p. 805, col. 2.
88 Mr. Harry White, idem, p. 805, col. 1.
89 "See statements of Mr. W. B. Waddell and Mr. Depuy Davis, in the Senate, 21 March, 1873, Legislative Journal, p. 806, col. 1, and of Mr. Harry White, idem, col. 2.
90 Act 9 April, 1873, P.L. pp. 9-10.
It is impossible to discover from the reports of state officers what was the proportion of the total cost of buildings and equipment contributed by the state at this time. So too, the figures that should show the proportion of the annual revenues received from the state are either entirely lacking, in certain years, or are so inaccurate as to be useless. The total annual contributions of the state to the support of these schools are shown in Table II in the Appendix.
In conclusion, it should be pointed out that in some respects the subvention to normal schools was successful, while in others it was not. In the first place, the intention implied in the law of 1857, of not contributing to the support of these schools, was not maintained. The policy of making grants to the school companies, which was begun in 1860, was supplemented, about the close of the Civil War, by assistance to prospective teachers and additional assistance to disabled soldiers who desired to enter the teaching profession. After 1864 the policy became more liberal and the method of appropriation more lax, until in the years 1869 to 1872, grants were made to schools that not only were not in existence, but could not command the support of the people of the communities in which they were to be located.
But the policy was successful in that it called into existence, within a relatively short period of time, eight training schools for teachers, counting Lincoln University, whose curricula and methods were subject to state supervision, though probably of a very mild sort in practice.
91 Act 9 April, 1873, P. L. pp. 9-10.
92 The board of trustees of the Mansfield Normal School was reduced, in 1873, to nine in number, of which three were to be named by the state superintendent. Act 10 April, 1873, P.L. pp. 711-712.
93 See Act 15 April, 1872, P.L. pp. 16-17.
The total subvention for all purposes amounted, for the period 1860-1873 to $325,222. *94 It is scarcely possible that the state could have established and maintained eight schools for that amount, if it had undertaken to administer them directly.
As has been pointed out, the subvention was very complex. In some cases it was conditional, in others unconditional. The financial accountability of the trustees was very slight. On the other hand, the power of the state superintendent to supervise the methods of instruction and other details of the conduct of the schools was very great. How effectively this power was exercised cannot be determined. Much must have depended upon the man who occupied the office of state superintendent. Two desirable restrictions were placed upon the grant for the assistance of teachers. It was provided that all students drawing an allowance from the state should receive instruction in the science and the art of teaching for the whole term for which the allowance was drawn. It was also required that the examination of graduates should be conducted by a board of professional educators, appointed by the state superintendent, only one of whom might be connected with the school whose students were being examined. *95 The state superintendent was clearly given the power by the latter provision to set, in a large measure, the standards of proficiency for the graduates of the various schools. Here again it is impossible to ascertain the quality of the control actually exercised.
94 Supt. of Common Schools, Report (1873), p. lviii, $68,800 more was due from the state but unpaid.
95 Act 27 May, 1871, P.L. pp. 212-213.