examinations even within a single county. "He who was most lenient and superficial was most patronized. A teacher failing to pass with one examiner frequently applied to another and received a license." With the increase of the powers and duties of the examiners in 1861,2 there went a corresponding centralization of authority over examinations. Licenses were limited in their authority to the county in which they were issued. The examiner was required to report to the State Superintendent the names of the persons to whom he had granted licenses,3 He had discretion to omit from the test any of the six required branches if requested to do so by the proper trustee. The mischievous effects of this clause were abated by the proviso, that such a license should be limited to the particular school in which the holder wished to teach, could not exceed six months, and could not be repeated to the same person. He had power to revoke licenses for incompetency, immorality, cruelty or general neglect of school business, the defendant having the right to appeal to the State Superintendent. That officer still had authority to issue licenses at pleasure and could revoke certificates which he had granted.5 These changes resulted in the elevation of the standard of the scholarship of the teachers at least fifty per cent. In some quarters there were at first considerable feeling and opposition, but in a short time the law proved eminently satisfactory to teachers and school officers alike. The State Superintendent expressed the belief that but few "special" or "limited" licenses were issued."

1 Rep't State Supt. Fletcher for 1861, Doc. Journ., 1862-3, pt. ii. vol. i, p. 160. See p. 81-82 above. 3 Laws, Reg. Sess., 1861, pp. 76–7. 'Orthography, reading, writing, geography, arithmetic and English grammar. Laws, Reg. Sess., 1861, pp. 78–9, 93.

Rep't of State Supt. Fletcher for 1861, Doc. Journ. 1862–3, pt. ii, vol. i, p. 160 'Rep't State Supt. Pub. Instr. for 1862, p. 10.

A tendency in the opposite direction was shown in the law enacted in 1865. It provided that if the school meeting should designate the teaching of other subjects or a less number of branches than those required by law, the teacher was to be examined in only those branches.' This change received the almost universal disapproval of teachers and examiners; and the provision was in a short time repealed.

The practical questions of the best methods to raise the standard of qualification and to provide for the issuing of licenses were annually discussed by school officials and associations of teachers and of school officers. There was a feeling that suitable provision should be made for the issuing of a teacher's license that should be good in any part of the State and for the lifetime of the holder. The difficulty of finding a suitable board to conduct the examination was solved satisfactorily in 1865, by giving the State Board of Education power to grant "State Certificates of Qualification to such teachers as may, upon a thorough and critical examination, be found to possess eminent scholarship and professional ability and shall furnish satisfactory evidence of good moral character." Such a certificate entitled the holder to teach in any school of the State without further examination, and was valid during the lifetime of the holder.3 The law very wisely left much to the wisdom and discretion of the Board, who prescribed the conditions upon which State certificates should be issued.

In the local examination of teachers there was great diversity. Each of the ninety-two examiners fixed the

2 Bien. Rep't State Supt. Pub. Instr., 1865–6, Doc. Journ., pt. i, p. 321. Laws, Reg. Sess., 1865, pp. 33-4. In 1883 the same board was authorized to grant "professional licenses," which were good in any county of the state for a period of eight years. Laws, 1883, pp. 13c-1.

standard for his own county; hence no common standard prevailed throughout the State. In some instances the questions were provokingly difficult; in others they were puerile. In 1871 the State Board of Education took a new departure by preparing a series of twelve sets of examination questions upon the branches required to be taught, and sending one set each month to the examiners with instructions to use them in the examination of teachers on the last Saturday in the month. The examiners generally accepted the questions and acted upon the instructions. The result was the elevation of the general average of the examinations and their complete unification. This is a good example of the wise exercise by the State Board of its advisory power.

An attempt was made in 1899 to constitute the State Superintendent of Public Instruction and the State Board of Education the exclusive agencies for issuing licenses. The arguments advanced in support of the proposition were as follows: It would insure the same standard in all counties; it would equalize wages and elevate the school work in the poorer sections of the State; it would remove the possibility of using personal influence to secure a certificate; it would save teachers the time, expense and annoyance in going from one part of the State to another to take their examinations; and finally, it would give the county superintendents their summer months in which to plan their work for the ensuing year, or to attend advanced schools. This seemed to many conscientious friends of education too great a centralization of power, and the law finally enacted was a compromise. The use of the questions furnished by the State Board of Education was now for the first time made obligatory. Applicants were given the right to elect 1 Bien. Rep't Supt. Hopkins for 1871-2, pp. 55-6. 2 Bien. Rep't State Supt. Geeting, 1895-6, p. 14.

to have their manuscripts sent to the State Superintendent for examination, and a license granted by him is valid in any county. The State high school licenses were made to include, in addition to the common branches, such additional subjects as the State Board may elect. The State Board also fixes the standard of all licenses by indicating the minimum per cent. in each branch and the required average for each grade of license. The authority of the county superintendent in respect to the revocation of licenses, was extended to those hereafter granted by the State Superintendent, with the right of appeal to that officer by the defendant."

The experience in respect to the subject of licensing teachers may be briefly summarized as follows: Prior to 1852, complete decentralization, with the authority vested in district and township trustees (1824-1834) and later in the county examiners (1834-1852)3; complete centralization in the hands of the State Superintendent and his deputies (1852-1853); a compromise, effected by giving this authority to county officers (examiners, 1853-1873, and county superintendents, 1873-1902) with the right to grant licenses retained by the State Superintendent until 1865. Since that date there has been a gradual extension of the powers of the State Board of Education and the State Superintendent until they have become the controlling authorities in this matter.

III. Course of Study and Gradation. A successful school system demands effective instruction, capable government, stimulation of the pupils' interest and industry, economy

1 Laws, 1899, pp. 488-491.

Laws, 1899, p. 245,

"There were numerous exceptions in favor of district trustees and patrons. 4 This power was seldom used.

of the teacher's time and labor, and the highest utilization of the school revenues. These ends can be attained only through the establishment of graded schools. A graded school is one in which a definite course of study is prescribed, through which pupils progress by regular steps, separate teachers being usually provided for pupils of different degrees of advancement. The development of such a graded system in Indiana has been due, more than to all other causes combined, to the wise foresight and prudence of the State Board of Education and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

I

The first legal utterance bearing on the subject of the course of study is found in an act of 1819, which authorized the trustees of an incorporated congressional township to distribute a part of the proceeds from the rent of school lands among the schools of the township "in proportion to the number of schools [scholars] learning the English language." But no allowance was to be "made for any scholar who is learning any other than the English language." The provision of the law of 1824 requiring a certificate as to the teacher's qualifications, "particularly as respects his knowledge of the English language, writing and arithmetic,” 2 seems to lead to the conclusion that these subjects, and only these, were required to be taught. But in general the authority to determine in what branches instruction should be given was left to the district meeting of the patrons, and after 1843 to the district trustees.3

The comprehensive school law of 1852 did not designate any branches which were required to be taught. Three years later the school meeting was empowered to determine

1 Laws, 1818-9, pp. 57-59.

1 Rev. Stat., 1824, p. 384. See also page 85 above.

3 Rev. Stat., 1843, p. 314.