teachers were divided on the question. Yet such personalities as Horace Mann and Henry Barnard had very slight influence, if any at all, on the development in Michigan. Eleventh, industrial conditions helped to increase non-attendance, illiteracy, and general ignorance. The rate-bill school could not cope with these difficulties, nor did it attempt to provide the varied types of training, such as recommended by Barnard, needed to meet changed industrial conditions. Consequently, free schools were desired so that attendance, literacy and general intelligence could be bettered. Twelfth, labor organizations of Connecticut and Michigan as distinct groups had little or no influence in securing free schools, although such groups were generally favorable to free public schools. Thirteenth, taxpayers opposed free schools (1) because of added expense, (2) because they would be required to pay taxes for the schooling of other people's children, (3) because they desired to patronize private rather than public schools, and (4) because they believed that secondary schools could not and should not be supported by taxation. Taxpayers also favored free schools (1) because they believed that the moral values of education would be a protection to property, (2) because they believed public schools could be supported more cheaply than private schools, and (3) because many of them believed the free public school to be a democratic institution. The best evidence of the favorable attitude of this group is the rapid increase in the growth of optional district taxation in both states.

ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONS OF EDUCATION

1. From 1829 in Michigan and 1839 in Connecticut, the small district was the dominant unit of local educational administration. It was too small to allow the use of any efficient mode of distribution of school money, or to have sufficient valuation to support schools well. On the other hand, it allowed for the growth of district taxation.

2. Throughout the period neither the Connecticut town nor the Michigan town (township) as such had any great control over schools. Consequently, any great influence of this unit was absent.

3. The county was not a unit of educational administration in either state until 1867, when Michigan created the office of county superintendent. As a unit of administration, its influence was practically nothing.

4. The state school funds in both states and the town deposit fund in Connecticut were largely unused possibilities so far as they are considered of influence in securing free schools. The state funds probably had some influence in maintaining a minimum term of school in both states. In general, these funds were not used to stimulate local school support, and hence did not constitute a factor of much strength favorable to free schools. The Connecticut state school fund retarded the coming of free schools. 5. In both states, rate-bills helped to prolong the school term, but the difficulties involved in their use far outweighed such an advantage.

6. In both states required town (township) taxation for schools did much to make schools free, it being the stronger in Connecti

cut.

7. In both states, optional district taxation, at first small in amount, finally came to be the largest single item of school support, and thus the most influential financial element in making schools free.

8. The state superintendents were generally favorable to free schools. From 1856 to 1870 they were usually aggressive in the demand for free schools. Hosford of Michigan, and Northrop of Connecticut were most ardent in their desires to make schools free. Barnard, at first favorable, later changed his attitude.

9. The governors of both states and the school fund commissioners of Connecticut had little influence either for or against free schools. Governor English of Connecticut is the one exception of importance.

10. The county superintendents of Michigan (1867-1869) were favorable to free schools, and helped much to create favorable sentiment for the free school law of 1869.

MISCELLANEOUS FACTORS

1. Political Theory influenced the movement as follows: (a) centralization of control was utilized to a slight degree by the establishment of the offices of state superintendent and state board of education; (b) belief in strong local control perpetuated the small district system; (c) belief in certain democratic principles, mentioned above, favored free schools.

2. The financial panics of 1837 and 1857 had but slight retarding influence on the movement.

3. The Civil War detracted public interest and support from the schools and thus retarded free school growth.

4. Private schools were, in general, a hindrance to the growth of free schools.

RESULTS

The observable results of the establishment of free schools were as follows: (1) a small increase in public school attendance and decrease in private school attendance; (2) a quite general disappearance of the old conception that free public education was charity; (3) in Connecticut, the espousal of the free school policy by the two leading political parties; (4) the establishment of the free school principle as a basis upon which many later extensions have been made in both states; (5) likewise, a basis upon which compulsory attendance laws were soon enacted in both states; (6) judicial determination in the Kalamazoo high school case of free school principle applied to secondary education; (7) provision of equal educational opportunities for all, so far as like opportunities free to all are equal opportunities.

The establishment of free schools has not produced the millennium predicted by its enthusiastic advocates. We have not yet succeeded in really equalizing educational opportunities. We still have caste-like social distinctions, and the problem of moral education is still very much an enigma. Popular suffrage is far from being all that is desired, and our percentage of illiteracy is still too high to be satisfactory. Yet the free public school is essential to a really democratic society, and it is one of the elements of any comprehensive educational system which is democratic in its own character.

The change in public opinion represented by adoption of the free school policy is one of the great sociological changes of the last century. It involves millions in money, millions of people, and ultimately a most gigantic educational program including all grades and varieties of educational institutions.

SOME PRINCIPLES DEMONSTRATED BY THE

STUDY

First. This study demonstrates the practical impossibility of using a tuition system of school support in a democratic community. The record on this is so clear that it needs no further comment.

Second. The study also demonstrates the fact that it is not necessary for parents to pay tuition fees to be interested in schools. We undoubtedly have greater interest in schools than ever before, and schools are more free than ever before. Barnard's contention that a small tuition fee must be collected in order to keep parents interested is not valid.

Third. Inasmuch as the greatest indifference toward schools existed in Connecticut when little or no taxation was used for school support, and inasmuch as the greater portion of school support came later from optional district taxation in both states when rapid educational progress was being made, it would seem that taxation is not a means of promoting interest, but rather an evidence of interest caused very largely by other factors. The fact that the taxation was optional shows that it was the result of other factors.

Fourth. The history of the Connecticut school fund shows how impossible it was in that state to support the schools solely by the income from the fund. If true for Connecticut, it would also be true for other states. Educational systems that are making progress demand continuously increasing support. This cannot be supplied by such a fund for when the need for income is greatest, the income from such invested funds is not likely to be any higher than at other times. But another type of school support can supply this need.

. Fifth. The record of both states reveals the absolute necessity of taxation as the most important single means of support for a system of free public schools. It is an evidence of interest if the taxation is optional, and may be so if required by state law. The ability to pay taxes depends ultimately upon the degree of productivity of the citizenship of the state. This ability keeps pace in its changes with the greater demands for increased educational advantages, for when people are prosperous they are more frequently inclined to make new and increasing demands.

Sixth. Local taxation should be utilized. Such taxation makes it possible for enterprising communities to make rapid advances which would be impossible under the ordinary regulations for state taxation. The record for this type of school support in both states shows its great importance. In Connecticut, Hartford, Meriden, Bristol, etc., and in Michigan, Ann Arbor, Detroit and Grand Rapids are examples of local development

made possible by local taxation and impossible under the existing state taxation.

Seventh. The study also shows the need of state taxation. The evidence is of two kinds. (1) The town and township taxes in the two states made it possible and necessary for all taxpayers to contribute something to school support, which they would not have done if the matter had been optional. In a sense, these taxes were state taxes, because the state required them to be levied and collected. (2) The record of the distribution of state financial aid in both states shows that the methods of apportionment did contribute greatly in keeping schools in session. Further, the record of the state aid to libraries in Connecticut reveals how well local support can be stimulated by proper apportionment systems. This is practically the same principle of taxation and apportionment set forth by Cubberley. (See his School Funds and Their Apportionment)

Eighth. It has also been demonstrated that the free school policy is in accord with some of the most fundamental principles of democracy. The evidence need not here be repeated. If it is in accord with democratic principles, it is the correct policy for our states to pursue in all matters of education of vital importance to great numbers of people.

The free schools of 1870-1880 were based upon the conception of an education for all consisting of but little more than schoolroom instruction in reading, writing, and arithmetic. Since then the conception of education has appreciably widened to include instruction in some half dozen additional subjects. Our conception of education widened and we assumed that this broader conception was that of the free school. Very recently we have added kindergartens, school gardens, some new types of high schools; have added new courses in language, social science, natural science, and, vocational subjects. Again as our conception of schoolroom education has expanded, we have made that the conception of the free school. This growth of the free school conception of education indicates that as our very comprehensive theoretical educational aims of the present become the actual working aims of the education provided, they, too, will be included in the free school conception of education. Such is the trend of events. If the society remains democratic, is this trend what it should be? If new elements of education are considered