hand, is too small a unit and too readily manipulated by the artful bookagent.

With the township as the district, many of the difficulties encountered in establishing uniformity would be obviated. Here I wish to add another thought closely connected with this uniformity question. It is the furnishing of the books by the district. Free text-books in the schools is the most feasible and economical way of securing uniformity. Let the township own. the text-books as it would own all the other school property, and uniformity is accomplished at once. Then the schools become free schools in the full sense of the word. This is not an untried plan. Many of the schools in eastern states have been furnished with books for years. Several cities in this State are already providing books for pupils in some form. East Saginaw has made them free in the public schools for the last two years; and it isreported that the plan is satisfactory, and saves a heavy expense in the cost of books.

Such a plan for the whole State would save half a million dollars each year to the patrons of the schools. The economy of such a scheme, as well as the fact that it settles the vexed question of text-book uniformity, demands for itself consideration. With uniformity accomplished grading is facilitated. With the township as the district, a more permanent employment of teachersis insured. With these advantages gained and a competent board of educa tion, the way is made easy for grading the schools of the district and adhering to an established course of study.

It also becomes possible to extend the privileges of a higher education to every child in the district. Under this plan each township will be at liberty to establish a central high school, and give to the children an education at home which they can receive now only in the village and city schools at great inconvenience and expense.

The change from the district to the township system does not involve such a revolution in school affairs as some anticipate; yet there are a few opponents of this system who predict that its adoption will be attended with difficulties and dissatisfaction.

Such of these anticipated difficulties as are of importance I desire now tocall to your notice for a few moments' consideration. As has already been. shown, a large share of the public school management is, under the present system, delegated to township control, and only a few essential changes in the law are required to prepare the way for the adoption of the township district.. The number and location of school-houses and the boundaries of districts, under the new system, would remain largely as they are now. Should the number be reduced fifteen per cent., as it was in New Hampshire upon the adoption of this plan, it would not average one school for each township in the State, yet it would save annually several hundred thousand dollars.

The question has arisen as to the equitable adjustment of the property: rights of each district, in the event of the adoption of the township system. The plan followed by those states that have made the township the district. unit, and the one embodied in the bills providing for this system, which were introduced in the last two legislatures of the State, are somewhat as follows: The district property is appraised by the township trustees upon their taking possession of it, and each district is credited with the amount surrendered to the township, less debts and liabilities, which are assumed by the township. A tax is then levied equal to the whole amount of property received from

the districts in the township, after deducting liabilities, and to the taxpayers of each district is remitted from this fund the appraised value of the district property, less its liabilities. Should the levying of this tax impose a burden too great to be borne in a single assessment, it could be readily distributed over two or more years. But, as a rule, the value of district properties is quite uniform in most districts, and few unequal or heavy burdens would be imposed by this method of equalization. In reality, only balances would have to be paid to those districts to which they are due. A clearer understanding of this plan of adjustment may be had from the following illustration. A township contains four districts, and the value of taxable property in each is the The appraisal of district property is as follows:

same. District. No. 1

It will be seen that the total value of the school property, less debts, is $2,500, and that each district would be assessed $625. Districts Nos. 1 and 4 would each receive $75, and districts Nos. 2 and 3 would pay respectively $25 and $125. The provisions of the law should be such as to allow the parties concerned in these property transactions to modify this plan, should it not meet with their approval, or to adopt others that were equitable and satisfactory.

In the case of fractional districts, the school-house and its appurtenances would go to the township in which they were located, and the tax-payers of that part of the district in each township would receive from the township taking the property their proportionate share of it, as determined by the amount of taxable property in the parts of the district lying in the different townships.

For educational purposes it would not be necessary to make any change in the boundaries of the fractional districts, or in the location of their school sites, unless the best interests of education demanded it. To avoid any difficulty or inconvenience arising from this source, the law should be such as to permit pupils to attend school in these districts the same as under the old system, requiring the township in which the school-house is not located, or the part of the fractional district therein, providing it is not organized on the new plan, to pay to the other township an amount for each child attending this school, equal to the per capita cost for education in this township.

It has been said that a majority of the graded school districts, as now organized under the general school laws of the state, would not consent to their schools being merged into the township system, and controlled by township authority. This prediction is, doubtless, correct, but no such result is expected or need follow the adoption of this system throughout the State. The plan contemplates leaving to the larger towns the control of their schools, the same as is now left to them the management of all other local affairs. Under our present laws, a large number of the graded schools are organized by special charter, and are known as independent districts. In case of the adoption of the township unit system, it should be left to the option of the graded districts, with certain restrictions, to retain or not their present or

ganization. In the bill upon this subject before the last legislature it was provided that each graded district of three hundred children or more could, by a two-thirds vote of the qualified voters, continue their organization and constitute itself an independent district.

Such an arrangement would leave the control of the graded schools in the same hands that it is now, and it would obviate any real or fancied objection to the plan under consideration on account of these schools. Where the graded school is not too large and centrally located, it would be most convenient and beneficial to all parties concerned to merge it into the township system, and thus make it the high school for the new district.

A similar provision would also enable the establishment of new districts. Should one or more districts, with the required number of children, desire to organize into an independent graded district, the same permission could be granted as would be given to the existing graded districts to maintain their present autonomy. With such provisions as these in the law, all property claims would be impartially adjusted, and no one would be deprived of his educational rights or privileges by the change from the district to the township system.

Teachers and educators are universally in favor of the township district. Through the aid of the State Department and some personal correspondence, the opinions of twenty state superintendents and commissioners of education were recently secured upon this subject. I desire to give a few of them here as confirmation of what has already been said concerning this important question.

State Supt. W. E. Coleman, of Missouri, says: "I greatly favor the township as the unit for the district. We have too many districts and, therefore, too many school boards. One board in a township, and a township tax to maintain the schools, would greatly simplify our system, giving more uniformity to the schools, length of term, and efficiency in school work and discipline."

This plan is in operation in some townships in Wisconsin. State Supt. J. B. Thayer writes: "I think in most cases sparsely settled communities have been furnished with school facilities earlier than they would have been under the independent district system; have better school-houses and better furnished school-houses. I am of the opinion that the adoption of the township system in Wisconsin would pave the way for the correction of many evils that now stand in the way of the improvement of our common schools. We are selfish in the hope that Michigan will provoke Wisconsin to good works by early adoption of the system, but should also hail such action as an indication of progressiveness and good sense in educational affairs on the part of our neighboring State."

Supt. A. S. Draper, of New York, writes: "I am, myself, inclined to favor the proposition, in the belief that it would result in securing a better class of men for trustees in the rural districts, and that the levying of a tax upon the entire town for the support of the schools of the town would operate to the advantage of the weaker outlying districts."

Commissioner T. P. Stockwell, of Rhode Island, says: "So far as the towns have changed, the people are thoroughly satisfied that they get better schools for less money. I do not believe that there is a single advantage to be gained by the so-called district system, as a system."

Supt. Richard Edwards, of Illinois, writes: "As a consequence of the

establishment of this system, I should expect to see better organization, better grading, an elevation of the standard of teachers' qualifications, more methodical and efficient work in the schools. Under that system schools. would not be isolated as they are now. They would be each a part of a reasonable system."

Justus Dartt, Supt. of Education of Vermont, writes as follows: "There are in Vermont thirty towns now using this system and it is working well. The old district system has served its day and should be now made to give place to a better. This town system is right in the line of progress and it cannot be stopped. It will move on in spite of ignorance, prejudice, and parsimony. Let us work for it. We are right, and I believe the right will prevail."

State Supt. M. A. Newell, of Maryland, says: "There are no townships in Maryland, nor, so far as I know, in any of the Southern States. The unit of authority and direction for schools and other purposes is the county. I am glad that such a monstrosity as the district system has never been known among us. If we had it we should make every effort to get rid of it."

Need more be said to establish the superiority of the township system of public schools? Precedent favors it. It was the first system of public education on this continent, and it served the colony of Massachusetts a century and a half in managing her schools. The weight of statistical information, the force of successful experience, and the opinion of educators and advanced thinkers, are all on the side of the township district. The fact is that where this plan has been tried and given a fair chance it has become popular, and there is no disposition on the part of the enlightened friends of education to change it. On the other hand, where the district plan prevails, people are constantly finding fault with it, and seeking remedies for its defects. We hear no such complaints from the village and city schools. Their success is the result of centralization and system. In them we see unity of purpose, harmony of action, and the strength of concentrated authority and support. The old district system must go. The merits of the township plan are so apparent and well-established that traditional respect for the "old district" must yield to progress and reform. System and centralization constitute that economic law which gives success to all the enterprises in which men engage. It is an axiomatic truth that applies with equal force to the control of an army, the running of a factory, or the administration of the educational affairs of a township. Let the school district be made to coincide with the civil township. No man's rights or real interests will be adversely affected by the change. Old district boundaries may be obliterated, and fifteen or twenty thousand petty school offices may be abolished, but the people will have as absolute control over their school matters then as they do now. The means of education must conform to the laws of progress as well as the appliances of labor to the increasing demands of industry. The sickle and the scythe gave place to the reaper and the mower. So must the old independent school district give way to plans better suited to the demands of the times and the conditions of society. Our system of education has brought credit to the State and her citizens, but the country schools are not abreast with the times. Here a large proportion of the children will receive their entire education. From these schools will go forth a large majority of those who engage in the productive industries, and they will constitute the most important element

in the body politic. Upon them the State and society must largely depend for safety and support.

The State, in turn, should maintain with a liberal hand, and guard with a jealous care those institutions that contribute so much to her thrift, her safety, and her renown.

"The common school. Oh! let it's light

Shine through our country's story.

Here lies her wealth, her strength, her light;

Here rests her future glory."

DISCUSSION.

H. R. PATTENGILL: I think the paper so complete as to require no supporting speeches, and so invulnerable as to defy attack. I am not the best one to criticise the system, as I am heartily in favor of it. I became a convert to it on reading the summary of facts given by Supt. Gass in his report of 1883, which, by the way, I consider as one of the meatiest reports ever sent out by the department.

To me the fact that the system is now, and has been in use by so many states, is a convincing argument in its favor. The paper just read proves conclusively the necessity of it here, and also answers with good arguments the objections usually made. I hope each one present will begin the work of enlightening the people concerning it. Explain it to pupils, discuss it in county associations. We can at least get an act through the legislature, allowing any township that desires to make the change to make it. Alpena county now has several townships working on this plan, and they like it.

Now, I see Hon. Mr. Simpson, member from Van Buren county in the last legislature, and who did loyal service on the county supervision bill. I found out that he does not favor this measure, and I want to hear him advance his reasons at this time, that we may be the better able to answer him. If I remember correctly, one of the arguments advanced by Mr. S. was that it tended to centralize the power. Now, if all people were like neighbor Simpson, the nearer the school came to them, the better; but there are districts where the further the patrons are from it, the better it is. I yield the floor to Mr. Simpson.

HON. MR. SIMPSON asked some pointed questions about the work of the district schools, asking if the people are not as a rule satisfied.

SUPT. GASS said that the people are not satisfied, as he found by the thousands of letters received.

SUPT. ESTABROOK: The system is sure to prevail. We shall come to look on our present system as if under dark ages. But I would ask what is to be done with fractional districts and the graded schools?

SUPT. GASS: Allow children of one township to attend school in the nearest district, but allow the primary school fund to this amount to be transferred to the district of the town in which they attend school.

The

SUPT. BARR: Much has been done to advance education, but not enough. strong pupils of the graded schools come from the strong rural schools, and those that come from the weak ones are not strong. There is no supervision of rural schools, not enough power or wisdom brought to bear on the schools by authorities. The township district system is a remedy for nearly all the ills that district schools are heir to.