Radio Script #125
Little Talks On Common Things
December 2, 1951
What is the principal cause of extravagant government spending? It Is time we faced squarely up to that question, and we don’t like the answer. Because the answer is human selfishness. Because you and I want some special bene fit for ourse I ves or our own I oca I I tv more than we want the we I fa re of a II the peop Ie, we expect representati ves to the legl s lature or our Congressmen to trade the I r vote for another fe I low ‘s pet project I n return for a vote for ours. MaIne people want some bIg spending done on QuoddYi Kansans want subsidIes on wheat; Montana wants another big dam. So the log roiling gets under way.
I n both houses of Congress the very same men who cry loudest for cutting down expenses vate for one need less project after anothe r because on Iy by so voting can they get votes for projects wanted I n the i r own states, good or bad. Attempts to consolidate the very expensive work of the Veterans Administration have been constantly thwarted because of selfish interests. Naturally no state wants to lose a veterans hospital, but the government has the clear duty to choose the most efficient plan of operation, regardless of what happens to one hospital.
Let me give you an example of this sort of thing nearer hane. The State of Maine now operates fiw teacher-trainIng institutions for the preparation of elementary school teachers. Not one of those schools is fl lied, and three of them could each accommodate twIce as many students as they have. Maine needs five teacher-training institutions about as much as a chicken needs five legs. But you Just try to close one of those schools. You would have half the population of the town where the school is located weeping down your neck. No, I suspect we shall go right on speriding for five of these schools many years before any legis lature has the courage to close one or more of theM,.,;”
Now It is not the legis lators and the Congressmen who are to b I arne; it is you and I. We a re the ones who I ns I stth at our rep resentati ves act that way if they want to stay In offl ce. So there Is a lot of truth I n what E. A. Evans wrote In the New York World-Telegram way back last spring. ThIs is what he said:
“Suppose citizens bombarded their Congressmen with letters saying, In effect: ‘Forget our states, our districts’ special benefits for a while. It won’t ruin us to do without federal money you’ve been trying to get for us. But inflation can ruin us un less Congress stops mere Iy talking about government economy and does something about It. That’s the job we want you to help do for us.’ Well, some Congressmen might drop dead of surprise. But those who survived the shock might slash a whale of a lot of unnecessary spending out of the national budget. It’s worth tryl ng.”
Of course, nobody paid t.h8 slightest attention to Mr. Evans’ suggestion. How do I know that? Because the words I have Just quoted were reprinted In the July issue of the Readers Digest, where, I’ll bet, among some ten million people who regularly see that magazine, more than half the folks I istening to this broadcast read them. And what did you do about It?
On several occasions I have mentioned the old-time schools of Watervi lie and sane of the other Kennebec towns, but I do not reca” that I haw sa i d anythi” 9 about the Fai rfle Id schools of long ago. Recently, through the courtesy of Mr. Jotham Hobbs of Fairfield, an elderly gentleman with whom I had a delightful visit last summer, I had opportunity to examine a report of the supervisor of schools of the tOoln of Fairfield almost a hundred years ago. It was the report for the year ending March 1, 1858. let us see what the Fal rfle Id schools were like in that year when out in III inols was he I d the most famous series of poll tica I debates in our history, those between Stephen A. Douglas and Abraham lincoln. Fairfield wasn’t much interested in those far-away debates, he Id to determine who shou Idrepresent Illinois in the U. S. Senate. Fairfield folks had concems of their own, among them the ca~ of the town’s schools.
It didn’t cost much to run the schools a hundred years ago. In 1858 the town of Fairfield appropriated $1,500 for all of its schools; the State contributed $386, making the total school expenditure for Fairfield $1,846. That amount was divided among 25 school districts. There were usually a summer term and a winter term in each district, but sometimes a district had only one term In the year, and in the various districts the length of the term differed widely. In the rural districts, removed from the settlements like Kendall’s Mill s or Somerset MI lis (the 01 d names for Fal rfi e I d Vi II age and Shawmut), a chi Id was lucky if he got more than a dozen weeks of school in a whole year.
At Kendall’s Mi lis In 1857-58 there was a winter term of eight weeks, a summer term of ten weeks, and — what was unusual for those times — a fall term of six weeks — a total of 24 weeks. On the other hand in District No.3 at Nye’s Corner, there was only a summer term of ten weeks — only that one term In the district during the entire year. In District No.4 at Plshon’s Ferry (now Hinckley) there were a summer term of seven weeks and a winter term of five weeks. In District No.9 at Fairfield ~eting House (at what is now Fairfield Center) the~ were a twelve-week summer term with 72 pupils, and a winter term of nine weeks. District NIO. 6 at Quakertown had winter and summer terms of eight weeks each.
The supervi sor of school s — the man who submi tted th is report for the 25 schoo I districts to the town — was E. K. Boyle. I n that far-off day he had much to say about the disadvantages caused by having so many small schools. The school bus was then 75 years in the future; so Supervisor Boyle had no solution to the problem. But he presented the problem frankly In these words: “One of two conditions must exist in our more sparsely populated districts; either some of the scholars must walk to a school at considerable distance from their homes, where they can have decent advantages for learning, or they have a poor substitute for a schoolhouse nearby, where term after term a mere handful of scholars assemble to drag out five or six hours a day, without any suitable teacher, or any advantages to make the school hours interesting and profitable.
There are too many schools scattered over this town. It is better for a scholar to walk two mi les to attend a ,,::’School of sufficient numbers to make him emulous of keepi ng pace wi th the smartest schol ars, than to wa I k ha I f a mi Ie to attend a school where he is the only scholar in a class.” These oid-time school reports were decidedly frank in their conments, and this one of Falrfie Id in 1858 is no exception. Of District No.3 the supervisor said: “In this district Is nothing that can be dignified by the name of schoolhouse.
In the district are some fine scholars, though most of them are young; and they go to school in 8 bui Id1ng hardly fit for a sheep pen. What seats they have in the building are entirely unsuited to convenience or health, and in cold weather nothing has power to render it comfortable against the cold except a gigantic fire apparatus capable of warming all out of doors. If the powers of evil could invent some prison-house, and make it as repulsive as possible to the free and Joyous spirit of a child, they could not hope to surpass this schoo I house. “In District ‘No. 4”, continues the report, “there is another hut in which the scholars attend school. It is not quite so bad as that in No.3, but it is bad enough, and the schools in this district can never be the kind to keep young people out of state prison or county Jail until there is a more suitab Ie bui 1- ding.”
Not all that Supervisor Boyle says atJout the teachers are words of praise. “In Miss Fossett’s school at Kendall’s Mi lis”, he wrote, “there was manifest, toward the close of the term, a lack of interest among the scholars.;’ Mr. Norton’s school”, says the supervisor, “was not very profitable. He is quite young and is too I nexperl enced to take charge of a schoo I. Mr. Johnson worked hard, yet he wanted much of the energy requisi te to the successful management of a school of this size. Irregularity of attendance had very injurious results, and Mr. Johnson did little to cause the pup! Is to have a des I re to attend.
James Freeman Is a young man of good parts, excellent character, and a fine scholar. His discipline was not so good as could be wished, but his system of instruction was excel lent. We noted to our regret, when we visited the school, that The younger scholars seemed fl lIed with an Inordinate desire to exhibit the I r powers of locomoti on.”
The supervisor Is even more critical of the school at Fa! rfield Center taughT by I. N. Richardson. “On our first visit to the school”, he says, “It appeared satisfactory; the teaching seemed active and the scholars industrious and orderly. Having occasion to visit the school again, at the request of parents In the district, we found it, so far as progress is concerned, stationary — the scho lars drl vi ng around at random among the i r books and stud I es, like a ship set afloat without helm or rudder. Satisfied that the school was doing the scholars little good, we advised the teacher to leave, which he accordingly . did.”
Supervisor Boyle often tempered his praise of a teacher. In Miss Rebecca Norton’s school at Ohio HIli, he admitted were to be found some of the best mathematl clians and best grammarians in town. “The scholars he17e”, he wrote, “rank far above the average il,n other districts. Yet”, he added, “there Is one great fau It I n Miss Norton as a teacher, and that is want of energy.” The suprevisor had an eye out for likely teacher material, however. He noted that MI ss Marl a Lawrence at Oistri ct No. 7 was “a young I ady possess i ng a refined and critical mind, who with experience will make a grand teacher.”
Mr. Boyle complains that It Is hard to get reports from the school districts., even accurate word-of-mouth Information about the schools. ‘~e visited the schoolhouse at Somerset Mi lis three times during the winter term,” he says, “but each time we found no school in session. It was with this school as with many others; we had to guess when it would commence, when it would be keeping, and when it was like Iy to be comp leted.”
“In District No.7”, the supervisor says, “we understand a winter term was taught by Mr. Newell Hoxie, but since we had no notice of its commencement or close, we did not visit it.” Of District No. 10, Mr. Boyle wrote: “We have now received a register iaforming us that there has been a winter term taught by Miss Marinda Jewett. It was our first notice of the existence of such a school, and it was therefore not visited.”
What we today consider essential school statistics are missing from this report. It gives us no inkling of the total number of pupils in the town:’,s 25 school districts. Only occasionally does it give the enrollment in anyone school. The whole thing was quite haphazard, and the school supervisor evidently had trouble finding out whether some of the schools held sessions at all, to say nothing of how many pupi Is attended. It is difficult to determine how much the teachers were paid, but the average appears to have been about two dollars a week. One interesting fact brought out by this old-time report is that, in the summer term, all the teachers were women, whi Ie in the winter term all but six were men. Those male teachers were supplied by students from the colleges, all of which had a long winter vacation for the sale purpose of giving the i r students a chance to earn someth i n9 toward the i r co liege expenses by teaching a term in the oommon schools. If the pay was two dollars a week, they couldn’t have earned much toward college expenses. True enough, but they could have made a start, for tuition at Colby was then $15 a term.
Among the possessions of Mr. Jotham Hobbs, who showed me this Fai rfield school report for 1858, is a letter written to an ancestor of his concerning teaching school in Fai rfield. The letter was indeed written in the very year we have been talking about, for it Is dated Apri I 21, 1858. It reads: “Mr. Hobbs. Dear SI r: Upon reflection with regard to the school In your district, have come to The cone I us i on that I cannot take I t for less than three doll ars a week. I would like it at that price, but should not feel that I was doing myself justice to take IT for less. If you wish Ire to have it, please let me know th is week. Yours tru Iy, Jenny T. Ware.”
Year: 1951