nearly every school, while in the other states referred to but few of the schools employed more than one.

The next point to which I desire to call attention in the discussion of this subject is its economy. It is not difficult to show that the township system is more economical than the district plan of schools. This may not always be seen in a reduction of the cost of education; but it shows itself in the construction of better houses, in the employment of better teachers, in the building up of better schools, and in value received for the money expended. Every year in this State, owing to the small number of pupils that attend them, a large number of schools are run at a higher per capita cost than would be necessary under the township system. A few examples from the statistics will verify this statement. The average cost per capita in the country schools of this state for eight months' schooling is $8.50. In Oakland county last year five districts with thirty pupils had three months' school, with an average cost of $3.70 per month for each pupil enrolled, or $29.60 per capita for eight months. Six districts had four months' school, with an enrollment of seventy scholars, at an average cost of $20 a pupil for eight months. Crawford county had two districts with a census and enrollment of eight children, at an average cost of $80 per capita for eight months. Another district in the same county had eleven months' school and enrolled seven pupils. The average cost per capita for eight months was $52.

In Midland county we find one district with eleven months' school and an enrollment of twenty pupils, seventeen of whom were foreign. It cost the district $322 to run its schools and educate its three children eleven months, or an average per capita cost of $78 for eight months.

In Roscommon county, Richfield township, district No. 1, we find the following: Census 6, enrollment 1, cost for instruction five months $116; total expenditure $125, or $200 per capita cost for eight months. In Osceola county, Marion township, district No. 5, the enrollment was one child for two months and he was a non-resident. Cost for instruction $58. Total expenditure for the two months' school was $165, or at the rate of $660 for educating one child eight months. These cases are not peculiar to the counties mentioned. A similar showing might be made from nearly every county in the State, and in a number of instances the expenditures are found to be equally as extravagant as those last referred to. In 1886-7 the statistics show that there were two hundred and fifty-four districts in fifty-eight different counties enrolling less than ten pupils each, and with a total expenditure of $59,219. The average enrollment for each school was six and a fraction; the number of months taught, five; and the amount of money expended by each district, averaged $233. This gives a cost of $7.75 per month for each child enrolled in these schools, or $62 per capita for eight months. The total enrollment was 1,638. The average expense for educating that number of children in the country schools of the state is $13,923. These figures have been taken from the two hundred and fifty-four districts that enrolled less than ten pupils each. Had they been made to include districts with an enrollment as high as fifteen, it is safe to say that the number would have be five hundred, and that the expenditures would then have been found to be highly excessive.

There is no doubt that many of these schools that are now running with a small attendance and at a high rate of expense could be conducted under

the township organization so as to afford better privileges, and save a large amount of money to the taxpayers each year.

But some may say that such an arrangement would work injustice, as many children would thus be compelled to go long distances to school. Under our present arrangement the same injustice is experienced. It is not infrequently the case that a child has to go much farther to attend school in his own district than he would were he admitted to the school of an adjoining district, and which, under the township plan, he would be permitted to attend without a tuition fee. But supposing it did necessitate longer distances to school in a few instances? The money now expended in poor schools of seven or eight children each, at a per capita cost ranging from $3 to $10 a month, would amply provide for carrying these children to much better ones. Means for conveying the pupils to school have been provided by some of the New England states, and the plan has been successful and satisfactory. As farther evidence of the economy of the township system, I invite your attention to the experience of a number of the Eastern states. New Hampshire has operated her schools under this plan for one year, and this is what State Superintendent Patterson has to say of it in his report for 1887: "The new school law has run the gauntlet of misrepresentation and abuse for a year, and it has come forth stronger in itself and in the number of its friends than when it entered upon its course. No law ever encountered, at the outset, bitterer or more groundless prejudices than this, and none ever disarmed opposition more quickly, and demonstrated its power to benefit the state.

* *

* * Though the sum paid teachers is $10,328 less than last year, the average length of the schools has been two weeks more. There has been a more equitable distribution of educational opportunities than formerly, and, as a rule, better teachers have been employed." There were 2,644 district schools in New Hampshire in 1882; under the township organization there are now 2,276, a reduction of fifteen per cent. Should a corresponding reduction be made in the number of country schools in Michigan, and an equal ratio in the expense of the schools, it would save $300,000 school tax each year.

In Maine, the township system has been adopted in ninety-two towns. State Superintendent Luce, in his report for 1886, says: "All experience goes to prove beyond possibility of disproof, that schools managed on the town plan are more economically managed, and are in every way more efficient than those managed on the district plan."

Vermont has thirty townships organized into districts. Following are what some of the chairmen of directors reported to the state superintendent for 1886. Bolton township, after six years' experience, reports: "We like it, our schools are better, it costs less to support them, buildings are kept in better condition, and everybody is satisfied." Middletown adopted the plan in 1873, and reports as follows: "Under the district system had an average of twentytwo weeks' school. Now there are thirty-four weeks. School-houses are infinitely better in every respect, and the schools are one hundred per cent. better." Stamford reports: "Schools are the same length and cost ninety cents per week less than before the change. Out of thirty towns reporting, only three directors stated that there was any dissatisfaction with the plan, while nearly every other officer reported the system as satisfactory and the schools much improved.

Again, the friends of the independent school district claim that the adop

tion of the township plan will destroy that local interest and personal pride which every citizen feels in his district school. If such laudable feelings do exist they must be in a latent condition. The facts are, but little active interest is taken in these rural schools by their patrons. That is one of the causes of their inefficiency. As a rule, not over ten voters out of fifty attend the district meetings, unless some special attraction brings them out. This keen interest is certainly not manifested by frequent visits to the schools from either officers or patrons. Terms pass without their ever entering the doors of the school-room, unless called there by some difficulty, or by special request. This superior local pride is not seen in commodious, well-kept houses and ample school supplies, nor in the superiority of the teachers employed. Experience proves that all of these things are better provided for under the township system.

Again, the township district plan is centralization of power, say some, and this is contrary to the spirit of republican government. They have discovered the paradoxical principle that the township management of school affairs is centralization, while the same management of all other local affairs of government is not centralization.

It is difficult to understand how the educational interests of a community can be better served in the hands of petty district authority than can all those matters of local government which are now placed in the hands of township authority. The organization of districts, and changing their boundaries, the sale of district property, the collection of taxes, and the inspection of schools is already entrusted to township control. Give to it the levying of taxes, the erection of buildings, and the employment of teachers, and we have the township system. If this be centralization, then let it come. It is far preferable to the system of petty district oligarchies which now impedes the progress of education in this state. As well might the city of Lansing maintain forty or fifty schools, each under a different management, as for each township to have its schools in eight or ten independent districts. If centralization contributes to the success of schools in the city, it will also be of advantage to those in the country. What is logic for the one is logic for the other.

It has been said that the entrusting of the management of the schools of a township to a single board of three or five persons would be a dangerous gift of authority, and that it would lead to corruption in handling of public funds. It was the "one-man-power" cry, raised in the last legislature, by those opposed to the township district bill, then under consideration. The experience of Indiana, where a few trustees issued fraudulent orders in 1885, was referred to as an illustration of this abuse of power.

Whether the township system was responsible for this or not is seen in the State Superintendent's report for 1886.

He sent out circulars for information regarding the matter, and from seventy-six counties reporting, embracing one thousand townships, and covering a period of over twenty years, fifteen of the trustees had failed, ten were short in their accounts, and about twenty had issued fraudulent orders. The superintendent reports that those trustees who issued these orders were led into the crime by designing swindlers. In answer to a question as to the advisability of making some changes in the law regarding the township district, sixty-eight reported that they considered the township system the best for school administration, while only three thought it was not. In response to a letter for his views upon this subject, W. A. Bell, editor of the Indiana

School Journal, writes: "Your statement that the people of Indiana are tired of it is news to me. I know of some people who would put the township business into the hands of three trustees instead of one, as at present; but no one, so far as I know, is in favor of abolishing the township system."

A further objection to the district plan is that it requires about twenty-fivethousand persons to fill the offices. The collection of valuable statistics from so many independent, irresponsible sources is difficult and uncertain. Many districts each year fail to report correctly the few facts that the law requires of them, and thereby forfeit their portion of the state school fund. Other valuable points of information are called for, but many do not report them, as the law does not compel them to do so. Through carelessness and inability a large portion of the statistics that are received have to be returned for correction, or revised in the State Department from such data as may be at hand. With fewer and more intelligent officers, fuller and more reliable statistics might be secured.

Again, under the present law the best men are not always elected to the district offices; and, in many cases, when the best men in the district are elected they do not possess that ability which the duties of the office demand. A designing person, with a little quiet work, can readily secure the attendance of a few of his friends at the annual meeting, and thus hoist himself into office. It is not infrequently the case that men get into office by such means for the express purpose of defeating the objects of education. Were these officers elected by the township, the selfish purposes of a few schemers could not be so readily accomplished.

A large portion of the voters usually attend the township meetings, and the result of the election is generally a fair expression of the will of the people. Again, as the responsibilities of an office are increased more care is taken in the selection of a person to fill it, and, under the weight of these responsibilities, the person elected becomes more painstaking in the performance of his duties. Numerous instances might be cited where persons have been elected to district offices in this state who were incapable of an intelligent understanding of the laws, and in some cases unable to read them. It is but a short time since that I met a case of this kind. A teacher at one of the county institutes reported that the director in his district could not read or write, excepting to sign his name. It was no startling news. It is the kind of stuff that too many district officers are made of. Consult the correspondence of a single year in the State Educational Department, and from the twelve or fifteen hundred letters received you will discover the weakness and wickedness that prevail in the management of many of the district schools. The fact is, we have too many indifferent, inefficient officers under our pres ent system of school management. Enlarge the district to the township and a wider opportunity is offered for the selection of persons of higher official character and ability. With this as the unit, more vigor, honor, and intelligence will be infused into the management of school affairs.

The frequent changes that are made in district boundaries, and the facility with which the work is accomplished, is another objection to the present plan of district schools. Were these changes always made on the basis of equity, and in the interest of education, the objection might lose much of its force, but such is not the case. They are usually made for the purpose of avoiding the payment of a few dollars' extra school tax, and not for the purpose of securing better school privileges. Let a district vote a few hundred

dollars to build a new school-house, and almost invariably there will be some who request to be set off to an adjoining district, though they are inconvenienced by the change.

I visited a district but a few weeks since where such a change had taken place. The person sent his child to his newly-adopted district while the new house was being constructed and paid for, but, now that the burden has been lifted, he concludes that his educational interests will be as well served in the old district. These easy changes in districts, and the location of school sites are fruitful sources of litigation, and they sometimes engender personal animosities and neighborhood quarrels that continue for years. As a result, the efficiency of the schools is impaired, and not infrequently it is entirely destroyed by these difficulties. Were all these schools under the control of a competent township board, the boundaries would be so arranged and the school-houses so located as to give, as near as possible, equal privileges to all. Such a board would be removed from the influence of those local prejudices that give rise to so many difficulties in the country districts. Under the management of such a board, all would share alike, as near as might be, the burdens imposed and the advantages derived.

The grading of the country schools is another beneficial result that would follow the adoption of the township district. The aimless, hap-hazard work that is done in most of the rural schools is detrimental to their advancement. In many of them there is not even the semblance of a course of study, or any attempt to systematize the work.

There are numerous instances where teachers are conducting schools with fifteen or twenty pupils, and are hearing each day from thirty to forty recitations. It is safe to say that the average number of daily recitations is thirty in each of the district schools during the winter term. Not long since a teacher at an institute informed me that she was " keeping" a school of sixteen pupils, and had six classes in geography, five in arithmetic, four in the first reader, and a corresponding number in most of the other studies; and each day heard thirty-three recitations. Such statements may sound like fiction, but they are facts, and cannot be successfully controverted. Attempts have been made by the Department of Public Instruction to secure the grading of these schools, but the results have been meagre and unsatisfactory. The cause of the failure can be readily traced to the frequent change of teachers, the indifference of district officers, and other difficulties originating in the system of school management.

In close connection with the subject of grading, and upon which its success largely depends, is the question of text-book uniformity. This is one of the most perplexing problems connected with public education, and it is constantly being brought to the attention of legislators and educators by the patrons of the schools. The facility and frequency with which text-books are changed in the country districts is well known, and affords just grounds for complaint. Men, in their random judgment, ask as a remedy some kind of state uniformity.

Other states have tried this plan, but it does not seem to solve the problem. It gives rise to numerous difficulties and complaints, and but few are found who speak in its favor. The state is too large a unit to operate uniformity laws successfully. They prove quite as inoperative and unsatisfactory as our own laws, which provide for district uniformity. The district, on the other