Opinion ID: 1331701
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: history of public education in georgia.

Text: While with the presentation of a thousand spelling-books to James Edward Oglethorpe by James Leake, in 1732, the first step was taken towards public education in Georgia, and while many private mission schools were established and maintained by local support, education was a privilege limited to those who could afford it. Recognizing the need for systematized public education the authors of the original State constitution (1777) inserted a clause providing that `schools shall be erected in each county and supported at the general expense of the State, as the legislature shall hereafter point out and direct.' Although certain appropriations were made by the State for their support, these schools were forced to operate as private institutions and to rely on tuition fees. The rural sections of the State endeavored to meet their educational needs with small elementary institutions called `Old Field Schools,' established jointly by patrons and teachers and conducted without State or county control or aid, in which were taught, `reading, writing and the usual rules of arithmetic.' [1] Although the Constitution of 1789 eliminated the education provision of the 1777 Constitution, a new provision was included in the Constitution of 1798: The arts and sciences shall be promoted, in one or more seminaries of learning; and the legislature shall, as soon as conveniently may be, give such further donations and privileges to those already established as may be necessary to secure the objects of their institution; and it shall be the duty of the general assembly, at their next session, to provide effectual measures for the improvement and permanent security of the funds and endowments of such institutions. In 1817 the legislature made an appropriation for aiding elementary education, but this was limited to payment of tuition of children whose parents were unable to defray this expense, and such schools were known as `poor schools.' [2] This effort was followed by an 1822 act providing for the education of poor children. [3] The poor school fund provided limited elementary education for numbers of children ... [and] led the way toward tax supported schools. [4] In 1837, a bill was passed which established a general system of education by common schools. [5] There was, however, no distribution of any funds appropriated for the system because of the exhausted state of the treasury. [6] Due in part to the economic depression of 1837 to 1843, the legislature rescinded the 1837 act establishing the common schools. [7] By 1843 school funds for the poor were again available from the state, but public interest in common schools was minimal, and only fifty-three of ninety-three counties applied for their allotments. [8] The failure of this early free school system was attributed to irregular aid from the state, unfortunate administration ..., and popular indifference to the subject of common school education for all. [9] Despite these problems, the legislature in 1858 was once again encouraged by prominent citizens to establish a common school plan, and [f]or the second time in Georgia history, a common school system was set up. [10] One hundred thousand dollars annually, in addition to other state funds, was set aside from the earnings of the Western and Atlantic Railroad (a state owned railway) for public school education. [11] The provisions of the law were broad enough to allow the people of any county to establish free schools and use their share of the funds for this purpose. [12] Thus, [i]t may ... be said that by 1858 the state was well on the way to a comprehensive system of common schools. [13] Amendments to the law a year later created county boards of education. [14] In 1860, Forsyth County was successfully operating a comprehensive free school system. [15] Apparently, the 1858 legislation met with enthusiastic reception, and its benefits were being realized when the Civil War destroyed all chance to continue the work. [16] Many of Georgia's private and semi-private educational institutions were permanently closed as a result of the war between the States. [17] and neither the 1861 nor the 1865 Constitutions included a general education provision. [A]fter the war a general movement for State-supported schools resulted in a legislative act in December, 1866, providing for a `complete system of Georgia schools.' This act, however, never came into effect, on account of the consequences of the war. [18] Despite the economic conditions of the post-war period, constitutions which provided for public education were adopted generally. In every state in the South the attempt was made to inaugurate a school system under laws passed in accordance with the new constitutional requirements. [19] In Georgia, the Second Constitutional Convention was held under the Reconstruction Acts which had established a military commander for the state. [20] This convention proposed and the voters ratified a constitution which required [t]he general assembly... [t]o provide a thorough system of general education, to be forever free to all children of the state, the expense of which shall be provided by taxation or otherwise. [21] The 1868 Constitution also created the office of school commissioner. Section III of Article VI stated: The poll-tax allowed by this constitution, any educational fund now belonging to this State, except the endowment of and debt due to the State university, or that may hereafter be obtained in any way, a special tax on shows and exhibitions, and on the sale of spiritous and malt liquors, which the general assembly is hereby authorized to assess, and the proceeds from the commutation for militia service, are hereby set apart and devoted to the support of common schools. And if the provisions herein made shall, at any time, prove insufficient, the general assembly shall have power to levy such general tax upon the property of the State as may be necessary for the support of said school-system. And there shall be established, as soon as practicable, one or more common schools in each school-district in this State. [22] In 1870, the General Assembly enacted the first comprehensive public school law. [23] This legislation established a state board of education and provided for appointment of a school commissioner, who was authorized to apportion equitably revenue raised under the statute to the different school districts of the state upon the basis of the aggregate of youths between six and twenty-one years of age in each district. [24] In order to finance public education, the 1870 act provided that a common school fund be established comprised of the poll tax, the taxes on shows, exhibitions, spiritous liquors and various other sources, including one-half of the earnings of the Western and Atlantic Railroad. [A]nd it shall be the duty of the State Board of Education to determine the amount which, in addition to the foregoing, should be raised annually by taxation upon all the taxable property of the State, and to report annually to the General Assembly the estimate which they may find necessary to support a school in every school district in the State, of at least three months in each year, in the manner provided in this act, the same to be apportioned with other funds, as hereinafter directed. [25] The act further required that each and every county ... shall compose but one school district and be managed by a board of education, which was responsible for the daily maintenance and operation of school facilities. Funds for operation shall be raised by a tax levied upon the taxable property of [the] district ... [26] The 1870 legislation resulted in the first real school organization ... Numerous schools were put in operation, but even then the question of finances began to cast a menacing shadow across the public school system, for the legislature (as well as corrupt officials) had diverted the school fund to other purposes, leaving a debt of $300,000.00. [27] School official and teachers were left unpaid. In 1872, a new school commissioner was appointed and his efforts were directed toward eliminating the debt, and establishing sound financial funding from the state. [28] The public schools at this time were characterized by a lack of uniformity: they were as varied as the policies of the county officers. Rich communities had their teachers, and the poor were left in ignorance, unable to import and pay a private teacher. ... [29] Under the new commissioner's leadership, legislation was passed in 1872 to pay teachers who were unpaid in previous years and to replace school funds which were used for other purposes. Additional legislation sought to perfect the public school system and to clarify former inconsistencies in the school law. [30] At this time, if a county provided free schools for three months per year, then the county was entitled to draw her proportionate part of the state fund ... [31] By the mid-1870's there was a decided advance in public sentiment in favor of public schools, and the commissioner continued to work for increased school funding. [32] A new state constitution was adopted in 1877. It provided that there shall be a thorough system of common schools, as nearly uniform as practicable, the expense of which shall be provided for by taxation or otherwise. [33] Although this language was similar to the language of the 1868 Constitution, the new constitution went on to provide that [a]uthority may be granted to counties, upon the recommendation of two grand juries, and to municipal corporations, upon the recommendation of the corporate authority, to establish and maintain public schools in their respective limits, by local taxation; but no such local laws shall take effect until the same shall have been submitted to a vote of the qualified voters in each county or municipal corporation, and approved by a two-thirds' vote of persons qualified to vote at such election; and the General Assembly may prescribe who shall vote on such question. [34] While county taxation of property for schools was thus authorized under the 1877 Constitution, it remained difficult to obtain local approval. The Constitution did, however, authorize the legislature to provide funds for education through general property taxation. [35] In 1889, the General Assembly provided for the levy of a general property tax for the support of the common schools. [36] Under this legislation and later amendments, the school fund was obtained by a direct state tax of 1.4 mills. The fund reached $600,000.00 by 1896. Any development of the program for local taxation, however, was considered inexpedient by the legislature because of the general poverty. [37] Despite somewhat improved economic conditions at the turn of the century, funding for public schools remained insufficient. Although the state school fund grew to over $1.5 million, the expenditure per pupil only increased from $3.52 in 1890 to $4.84 in 1900. [38] It was felt that the great need ... in 1900, as it had been since the inauguration of the public school system, was legislation providing for local taxation. [39] With a few notable exceptions, there was little success under the 1877 Constitution in establishing local support for public schools through local taxes. In the early 1900's a constitutional amendment was proposed (known as the McMichael Law) which granted authority not only to counties and municipal corporations, but also to militia and school districts to establish and maintain public schools. ... by local taxation if approved by two-thirds of the voters. [40] This amendment was ratified in 1904 [41] along with another which limited the state rate of ad valorem taxation for schools to 5 mills. New implementing legislation was passed in 1906 [42] which allowed county boards to lay off counties into districts of approximately sixteen square miles, unless natural obstacles required smaller districts ... The provision for discretion on the part of the county boards of education in the case of providential obstructions was made the loophole of escape from the whole law. The boards availed themselves of the privileges of the bill to fence off the richest portion of the county (often the part containing railroad crossings or corporations that could be taxed) and to vote additional school taxes for that district. The large increase in the number of schools which resulted was caused by the ignorant selfishness of a few patrons, and the unwillingness of the county boards to incur anger by resisting unreasonable demands. This shortsighted and selfish policy, together with the tendency of cities and towns to secure charters from the legislature and to withdraw from the county system, caused a multiplicity of systems to arise. Since the state appropriations were insufficient to maintain the type of school desired and since the legislature had not passed any law permitting the people to vote for a district or county-wide tax, there had arisen numerous independent and semi-independent systems in cities, towns, and villages. The independent systems dealt only with the state department and received their pro rata share of state funds directly. The others received their shares through county officials and made all required reports through the same source. Seventy chartered towns drew money from the educational department of the state in 1909, and eighty others received money from county commissioners. All charters were different, and each sought some special advantage at the expense of the county districts. The rural districts were left with the least valuable part of the property from which to derive revenue. Thousands of citizens moved to the city, and the deserted farms increased the cost of food and living expenses until the city dwellers were hurt as well as their rural neighbors. The laissez-faire system based on individualism, so long esteemed in the state, had run itself into the ground. [43] The primary focus during the following decade was on consolidation of primary schools and high schools within the county. These efforts were made under the principle of equalization, stressing that the basic unit of organization should be the county, not the district.  [44] (Emphasis supplied.) By 1917 ... the aggregate of the local tax for the support of the common school system had grown to equal the total amount of state appropriation. [45] Yet despite a constitutional amendment to require counties to levy a local tax of not less than one nor more than five mills for support of their schools [46] and new legislation to provide increased funding for consolidation of a county's smaller schools, [47] great inequities in educational advantage persisted ... It became apparent that local taxation was not the cure for all the ills that existed. Inequalities in economic conditions caused wide variations in educational advantages. In some districts, far from railroads and without any corporate property to tax, the people made heroic sacrifices to support schools. In some instances, they taxed themselves more than twenty mills instead of the required five, but their farm land had so little value that only a six months' school term could be maintained. [48] Data taken from an educational survey of elementary and high schools conducted in 1925 by the state department brought to light startling facts. The wealth of the state was highly localized in a few counties; approximately one half was found in ten counties, and the assessed value of wealth in the ten lowest counties constituted less than 1 percent of the total assessed value of the state. The concentration of wealth in cities made it possible to realize large sums from a low tax rate, especially where large industrial corporations paid taxes. Even if the tax rates were made confiscatory, these inequalities would not be overcome. As a matter of fact, the higher the valuation of property, the less burdensome taxes become in proportion to ability to pay, and ability to pay was reached only after a certain earning power had been attained. Differences with respect to ideals for school standards were far-reaching, and it seemed to be the part of wisdom to set up for each locality a minimum school standard which would represent the minimum educational opportunity in the community for which the state would assume responsibility. [49] It was obvious that better normal facilities were needed; that a better program should be developed for training teachers in service; that a fund should be created with which to equalize the length of term; that salaries of teachers and county superintendents should be based upon educational qualifications in all counties of the state; that an adequate number of supervisors should be employed; and that the consolidation of weak schools through a building fund should be brought about ... [I]t was seen that new and definite sources of revenue had to be found by which the state's contribution to the public school fund could be materially increased. To meet the situation the Georgia Education Association originated and sponsored the Equalization Fund Law. [50] The Equalization Act as drawn up by a legislative committee had substantial support. On March 13, 1926, the Act was approved. It provided an extra appropriation in addition to the regular appropriation for the purpose of equalizing the educational opportunities for the children of the state, but the fund to put the scheme into operation was to be furnished by the legislature in 1927. [51] In 1927 an appropriation of $1 million was made. A tax consisting of one half cent on each gallon of gasoline and one cent on each gallon of kerosene oil sold in the state was collected for the fund and distributed in 1927. In apportioning the fund among the counties, the state board of education had to take into consideration the possible returns from taxable values for school purposes, the extent to which the local tax aid had been utilized, the educational needs, and the local inequalities existing in the several counties. No county or independent system could share in the equalization fund for any year unless it had levied five mills for a local tax for schools for that year. After the passage of the Equalization Act in 1926, many towns asked to have their charters repealed so that they might function as part of the county system and take advantage of the distribution. [52] Despite the passage of the 1926 Equalization Act, the financial load upon the weaker counties was still too great... [53] Educators focused their efforts on shifting the tax burden from the local to the state level in order to equalize more nearly opportunities for rural children. This approach was heightened when the great depression caused the collapse of local support and many schools closed or had shortened terms. [54] In response to these difficulties, groups such as the Georgia Teachers' Association and the Georgia Education Association advanced legislative proposals relating to public education. The latter association called for the following: (1) a strong state board of education; (2) state support of all public schools for a period of seven school months each year; (3) dual (state and local) support for public education; (4) a state salary schedule for teachers; and (5) higher qualifications for teachers. [55] Based on these proposals, a legislative committee drew up a bill which provided for the equalization of educational opportunity and for a school year of nine months minimum duration. Local school systems were classified in four groups, based on census figures. [56] After several amendments giving rural and small-town schools a larger proportion of the funds, the bill passed the legislature. It was vetoed, however, by the governor. [57] The Georgia Education Association continued to press for improved educational conditions. Their president, S. V. Sanford, maintained that the solution of public education was dependent upon the tax problem and that equality of opportunity rather than equality of expenditures should be the unit of service. The inequalities which existed in the system of taxation indicated the need for a new tax act. [58] (Emphasis supplied.) A well-planned campaign was arranged to push the educational program in 1936. Three bills were prepared: one to provide for a seven-months' school term; another, free schoolbooks; and still another, a lay board of education. [59] The three bills endorsed by Governor E. D. Rivers were introduced on January 15, 1937. House Bill No. 123, known as `Seven Months State Supported School Bill,' guaranteed a minimum of a seven months' school term for every child in the state by providing for the state to pay teachers for seven months and the administrative costs of running schools for seven months. Each county was entitled to a certain number of teachers to be paid from the state fund, the number depending upon the school population of the county and the density of population. To secure the fund each county had to levy a five-mill tax and, if this yielded an amount less than one-third of the amount alloted for teachers' salaries, the state fund made up the difference. The fund was distributed on the basis of the excess of the local need over the ability of the local system to meet it. The need was determined by the amount required to maintain the standards set by the state minimum program, and the ability was measured by the amount allotted by the state under the seven months' school law added to the amount received under the five-mill local tax. However, no system could receive more than $40,000 in one year. The amount to be received varied from year to year. [60] The two other bills provided for free textbooks to be furnished by the state and a state board of education with one lay member from each congressional district. In the Act of 1937 ... the principle of per capita apportionment of funds was abandoned. [61] Teacher salaries were based on certificates issued by the state and local systems were allotted teaching units based upon average daily attendance... In addition, the Equalization Fund was distributed on basis of need for aid in extending terms beyond seven months, for transportation, etc. In short, with funding of the 1937 Act the Minimum Foundation Program for Education (MFPE) had begun. The older equalization concept was incorporated into the new formulas to more nearly equalize educational opportunities statewide. [62] Nevertheless, disparities continued. One report entitled A Survey of Public Education of Less Than College Grade in Georgia showed wide variations in wealth, reflecting differences of financial abilities ... to support schools on local levels. [63]