An evaluation of the Indiana State Board of Education and its functions

Citation preview

AN EVALUATION OF THE INDIANA STATE BOABU OF EDUCATION AND ITS FUNCTIONS

BY FRED SWALES

fYlX- ty\.

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Dootor of Education degree in the School of Education Indiana University March, 1950

ProQ uest Number: 10295235

All rights reserv ed INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this rep ro d u ctio n is d e p e n d e n t u p o n th e quality o f th e c o p y su bm itted. In th e unlikely e v e n t th a t th e au th o r did n o t se n d a c o m p le te m anuscript a n d th e re a re missing p a g e s , th e s e will b e n o te d . Also, if m aterial h a d to b e rem o v e d , a n o te will in d icate th e d eletio n .

uest. P roQ uest 10295235 Published by P roQ uest LLC (2016). C opyright o f th e Dissertation is held by th e Author. All rights reserved. This work is p ro te c te d a g a in st unauthorized cop y in g u n d er Title 17, United S tates C o d e Microform Edition © ProQ uest LLC. ProQ uest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 - 1346

Accepted by the faculty of the School of Education, Indiana University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Education*

Director of Thesis Doctoral Committee!

,Chairman

ACKNO WLEDQ-i'iiEMT

The writer wishes to acknowledge appreciation to members of his Doctorate Committee for their guidance during the formative stages of the study.

The writer feels

especially grateful to Dr. K. W. Holmstedt for his help. Appreciation is also expressed to Deane E. Walker, State Superintendent of Public Instruction in Indiana, and Herbert Lamb, Assistant State Superintendent of Public Instruction,

for their helpfulness in making available to

the writer records of the State Board of Education. Sincere thanks are expressed to the writer*s wife for her help In typing the thesis, and to both the writer*s wife and daughter for their sacrifices during the development of the study.

iii

TABU, OF CONTENTS

Chapter I.

II.

Page INTRODUCTION.................................

1

Statement of the Problem..................... Method of Procedure ......................... Sources of B a t a ............................. Delimiting the Problem....................... Definition of Terms .........................

2 2 4 5 5

THE P l a c e OF THE STa TE b o a r d o f e d u c a t i o n in THE STATE SCHOOL SYSTEM .....................

8

The Development of State Boards ............ The State Board as a Central State Agency for Public Education....................... Justification for a State Board of Education. The State Board of Education in Relation to the Legislature........................... Relationship of the State Board to Local Administrative Units....................... S u m m a r y ..................................... III.

IV.

8 9 10 16 21 22

COMPOSITION OF THE INDIANA BOARD............

25

Introduction................................. Changes In Composition from 1852 through 1944................................. Present Composition ......................... Summary of Changes In Composition .......... Criteria for the Evaluation of Comoosition. . Establishment of Criteria ................... Application of Criteria .....................

25 26 46 51 53 62 64

OFFICERS AND COMMITTEES OF THE INDIANA BOARD.

66

Introduction................................. Board. Organization, 1 8 5 2 - 1 9 4 4 .............. Organization Under the 1945 L a w ............ S u m m a r y ..................................... Criteria for the Evaluation of 13oard Practices in Election of Officers and Functions of Committees ...................

66 66 77 79

Iv

80

Rage

Chapter

V.

Establishment of Criteria ................... Application of Criteria to Present Practices.

88 89

OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES OF THE INDIANA BOARD .............................

93

93 Introduction........................ .. Board Meetings............................... 95 Order of Business ....................... 103 Introduction of Business Items In Board Meetings...................................... 110 Criteria for the Evaluation of Operational Procedures. ..................................11? Application of Criteria ..................... 13? VI.

FUNCTIONS OF THE BOARD......................... 131 Introduction.................................... 131 School Attendance ................. . . . . . 131 Classification of Elementary and Secondary Schools . . . . . ......................... 138 School Curricula and Courses ofStudy . . . . 150 Distribution of School Relief and Tuition S u p p o r t .......................... .. 166 Special Education for Handicapped Gnildren. . 188 Teacher Training and Licensing................. 193 Textbook Adoption ........................... 213 Vocational Education........................... 228 vocational Rehabilitation ................... 23? Appointment of Members to the Board of Trustees of Indiana University. . . . . . . 241 Schoolhouse Planning........................... 243 Miscellaneous Functions ..................... 244 Board Rules and Regulations................... 248 B u m m a r y ........................................ 255

VII.

EVALUATION OF THE FUNCTIONS OFTHE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION....................... 260 Principles of Function...................... Establishment of Criteria ................... Application of Criteria .....................

v

260 2?4 280

Chapter VIII.

Page CONCLUSION ANDRLGOMJtfiiNDATIONS............

301

Summary of Evaluation ..................... Recommendations ........................

301 314

BIBLIOGRAPHY...............................

320

vl

LIST OF TABhES

Table

I. II* III. IV. V. VI. VII.

VIII.

IX,

X.

XI.

XII.

Page

Membership of the Indiana State Board of Education from 1853 to1865................

29

Membership of the Indiana State Board of Education 1865 to 1899 ................

31

Membership of the Indiana State Board of Education 1899.to 1 9 1 3 .....................

36

Membership of the Indiana State Board of Education 1913 to 1933 ................

39

Membership of the Indiana State Board of ................ Education 1933 to 1945

43

Membership of the Indiana State Board of Education Under the Various Lp.ws..........

46

Membership of the Commission on General Education, Indiana State Board of Education 1945 to July 1, 1949 ............

49

Membership of the Commission on Teacher Training and -Licensing, Indiana State Board of Education 1945 to July 1, 1949..........

50

Membership of the Commission on Textbook Adoption, Indiana State Board of Education 1945 to July' 1, 1949 .......................

51

Number of Standing and Special Committees Appointed During Ten Two-Year Periods by the Indiana State Board of Education . . . .

69

Frequency of Meetings of the Indiana State Board of Education by Month end Year for Twenty Sample Years, 1857-1948 ............

96

Different Meetings Held by the Commissions and the General Board of the Indiana State Board of Education In Each Month for 1947-3.

vii

102

Table

Page

XIII.

Frequency of Business Items Introduced to the Indiana State Board of Education During Ten T?>o-Xear Periods................... 112

XIV.

Per Gent of Business Items Introduced to the Indiana State Board of Education During Ten Two-Year Periods................... 113

XV.

Frequency of Business Items Introduced to the Commissions of the Indiana State Board of Education During 1947-8 ..........

115

XVI.

Frequency of Actions of the Indiana State Board of Education on Rules and Regu­ lations According to Function During Eight Sample P e r i o d s ......................... 252

XVII.

Number and Per Cent of Actions Made by the Indiana State Board of Education on Kules and Regulations for Eight Sample Periods........................................ 254

viii

G R A F T h ii 1

INTRODUCTION In comparison to other areas of public school administration, a relatively small amount of research has been done on the practices of state boards of education* The writer was unable to find an Intensive study in which the organization and functions of a state board had been evaluated* Since education is a function of the state, it follows that the administration of the state system of public education should be adequate to tne fulfillment of the function.

The literature shows that there are many ways in

which states exercise the function.

Araong the majority of

states, state boards of education are commonly found to be held responsible for some aspects of the program of public Instruction. Indiana provided for a State Board of Education in 1852, and, as the years have gone by, the Board has been given increased responsibilities*

This study is an attempt

to Investigate the role that the Indiana Board plays in the administration of public education in the state.

2 Statement of the Problem

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the compo­ sition, organization, operation, and functions of the Indiana State Board of Education, into two parts.

The problem is divided

The first part deals with the development

of the Board and its functions, while the second part is that of evaluating the composition, organization, operation and functions of the Board.

Method of Procedure The historical method is used throughout the study. The development of each aspect is shown and followed by the establishment and application of criteria. Composition, organization, and operation.

The

developmental change of the Board's composition, organi­ zation, and operation is organized around the periods 1852-64, 1865-98, 1899-1912, 1913-52, 1933-44, and 1945 to 1949. Each of the three aspects is treated separately, and following the discussion of the evolution of each aspect, criteria are established and applied. Functions.

The functions are treated somewhat

differently than composition, organization, and operation, since the periods described above are not used as a basis

3 for organization.

Each function of the Board is dealt with

separately. There is an attempt to show the origin and to trace the development of each function to the close of 1948. Criteria are established and applied to evaluate the functions of the Board. Analysis of the minutes of the Indiana State Board of Education.

In order to determine the practices of the

Indiana Board, some of its minutes were analyzed and most of them were read.

Board minutes for twenty selected years

were analyzed In detail. Two consecutive years in each decade were selected as sample periods, and the first period selected was that of 1947-8,

The other periods are 1937-8, 1927-8, 1917-8,

1907-8, 1897-8, 1877-8, 1867-8, and 1857 and 1659. were no minutes recorded for 1858.

There

In terms of years, the

sample periods constitute slightly more than one-fifth of the years for which minutes are available. Two consecutive years were selected for two reasonsJ first, it was found that some board business is carried over into the second year; and second, the regular sessions of the legislature have been held on the odd-numbered years and enactments affecting the Board were reflected, for the first time, In the year of the enactment or the year following.

4 The minutes of the sample years were analyzed in such a manner that each board action was isolated, thus enabling the actions to be classified and counted.

In taking notes

on the actions of the sample years, the following Infor­ mation was taken:

(l) date of meeting; (2) Item of business;

(3) board action; and (4) person by whom the item was intro­ duced to the Board.

Each meeting was set up to comprise a

complete unit of actions. The samples of board minutes were supplemented by seleoting Information from the minutes surrounding the dates which marked the enactment of laws that affected the Board,

Sources of Bate Bounces of data used to show the development of the Board and Its functions are listed below: 1.

Indiana Laws

2.

Opinions of the Indiana Attorney General

3.

Court decisions

4.

Official publications of the Indiana Department

of Public Instruction 5.

Minutes of the Indiana State Board of Education

Sources of data used to select principles and criteria are as follows:

1*

State school surveys

2.

Research studies in state school administration

3.

Authentic periodicals and books

Delimiting the Problem Even though the study presents the evolution of the composition, organization, operation and functions of the Board, it is not intended as a complete history of the Board.

The relationship of the Indiana State Board of Edu­

cation and the Department of Public Instruction is very close, but it is the Board and its functions that are being evaluated and not the Department. It is true that the separateactions of

the Board

are

elements of larger functions, however, the individual actions of the Board are not evaluated.

Many of the actions are

results of deliberation upon decisions in which the Board is authorized to use its discretion.

It

is thefunctions that

are evaluated and not the actions.

Definition of Terms Since there is a wide variety of meanings attached to terms used in state school administration, it is desirable that the important terms used in this study be properly defined.

General state board of education.

As used here, a

general state board of education is a board that is given authority and responsibility for the administration of elementary and secondary education. Composition#

Composition of the Board refers to the

number of members on the Board, the method of selecting board members, the type of membership —

whether lay or

professional, the length of term served by the members, and the remuneration provided for the services of board members. Organization.

Organization of the Board is defined

as the way in which the membership is arranged to do its work. Operation.

Operation is used to mean the manner in

which the Board acts to perform its duties. Functions.

The functions are those duties and powers

which are exercised by the Board or which the Board has authority to exercise. Principle.

Principle is used here to mean a guide to

action which has been generally accepted as a result of either observation Criterion. test of the extent

or experimentation or both.^ Criterion is defined as a measure or a to which procedures and practices conform

iHolmstedt, R. Finance, p. 52.

, State Control of Public School

7 to accepted principles,

A criterion is a measure or a test

of adequacy and efficiency.^

% b i d ., p. 56

8 CHARTER XX TII£ PLACE OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE SCHOOL SYSTEM

The Development of State Boards

The state board of education is not new In the United States.

Its origin dates back some 165 years to the period

just following the Revolutionary War.

The Board of Regents

for Hew York is said to be the first state board of edu­ cation.

It was organized in 1784.

In 1885, the state of

North Carolina, created a kind of a state board to manage its permanent school fund, and this was followed by the creation of state boards in other states. The first state board of education that was assigned extensive powers and duties was that of Massachusetts in 1837.

Horace Mann was selected as the first secretary to

the Massachusetts Board, and his leadership in this capacity had a great influence upon the creation of state boards in other states.

Similar work was carried on in Connecticut

in the latter part of the nineteenth century by Henry Barnard.

Other states that established state boards of

education at an early period were Kentucky in 1838, Arkansas in 1843, Ohio in 1850, and Indiana in 1852.^

^•Cubberly, E. P., State School Administration, p. 283.

9 By 1890, there were 29 states that had established state boards of education with general powers and duties. In 1925, there were 41 states that had such boards. Sohrammel has explained this increase in the number of state boards as follows: The question naturally arises as to why such a large proportion of states should form state boards of education. A few states may have included them as a part of the state department of education because it was fashion. Undoubtedly, however, the departments of education, in states which had such organizations, functioned with such efficiency that other states were influenced to adopt like systems.2 The number and kind of state boards of education change constantly.

The wide variety of types of boards and

the rapid rate of change make It difficult for research workers to classify them.

The State Board as a Central State Agency for Public Education Each state has a chief state school officer and a a? staff of workers to assist him. Thirty-three states have general state boards of education, while nine are without

^Schramrriel, H. £,, The Orga.nlnation of State Departments of Education, p. 3. 3The Council of State Governments, The Forty-Eight State School Systems, pp. 39-43.

10 such boards,4

Most of the states have three central state

agencies for public education; the chief state school officer, the state board of education, and the state department,

Each of these three agencies is created either

by statutory or constitutional enactment, and in some cases, by both. The three agencies form the structure of the adminis­ trative organization of the state's system of education at the state level.

Since education is a function of the state,

it has been necessary for each state to construct an adminis­ trative arm of state government to carry out this basic function.

Justification for a State Board of Education It has been pointed out that nine states have no general state boards of education, and the question arises as to how these states administer state systems of public education.

It is not within the limits of this study to

try to answer that question; but if some states nave boards of education and others do not, then the question of whether or not a state needs a general state board of education is unsettled.

The general concensus of authentic opinion in

4Xbld.» p. 36.

11 the literature on school administration favors the state board as the head of the state's school system. Proper use of boards.

When should, a function be

headed by a board, and when should it have at its helm a single head?

There are some basic principles bearing on

this question in the literature on administrative law and public administration. Goodnow writes clearly on this question in his classic volumes on administrative law.

He discusses the advantages

of both systems as follows: The single headed system is well fitted for the discharge of duties which require energy and rapidity of action and for which it is advisable to have a fixed and well-defined responsibility; while the board system may be adopted with advantage in all those branches of administration in which carefulness of deliberation, regard for all sides of the case and impartial decision are particularly desired. Boards are therefore specially suited for the consideration of those matters in which a controversy between indi­ viduals involving a question of law is to be decided, i.e. for judicial authorities, while the single-headed system is usually the best for purely executive and administrative matters. It is, however, to be noticed that for many administrative matters the board system Is to be preferred for reasons already stated. , . . For these reasons we find that seldom does any system of administrative organization adopt either one of these methods of official constitution to the exclusion of the other, but that the attempt is usually made to combine the two forms in such a way as to produce the best results.5

^Goodnow, F. J,, Comparative Administrative Law, Vol. II, pp. 6-7.

570411

12 Pfiffner in discussing this problem is in almost complete agreement with Goodnow, but he goes a step further because of the influence of modern science and technology* Pfif'fner^ holds that boards should be used where: 1.

There is seemingly irreconcilable difference of

community opinion. 2.

Technology is not yet developed to the point of

complete lay acceptance. 3.

Deliberation is necessary involving policy

determination or quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial action. He holds that boards are ill fitted for use when the branches or departments of service demand quick decisions and immediate action, or where technology and procedure have been developed. from the writings of the two authorities referred to above the following conclusions may be drawn; 1.

Where deliberation and controversial issues are

involved, or where technology is not accepted by the public, tne board may be used properly. 2.

Where quick action is needed tne single head is

advisable. 3.

There are situations where a combination of the

board and the executive is feasible.

6Pfiffner, J. h., Public Administration, p. 60.

13 Responsibility for the promotion and administration of a state program of public education involves deliberation on policy, decisions on controversial issues, and encourage­ ment of experimentation with new methods as well as the execution and enforcement of laws that have been accepted by the public.

Both an executive and a state board as a part

of the state organization for education is sound; but the responsibility should be assigned to one agency, preferably the board.

Otherwise, there will be dual responsibility

which may lead to conflict. Need for the state board of education.

DeYoung7

states, "For the same reasons that the county and local school systems need a board of education, the state as a

0 whole should maintain such a group."

Reeder

presents the

following arguments for a state board of education.

A

state board of education would: 1.

Be more representative of the interests of all

the people than 2.

a single individual could be.

Help remove the state department of education

from the cloud of politics. 3.

Have greater prestige with the legislature, the

governor, and school officials than a single individual could have.

^DeYoung, G. A., An Introduction to American Public Education, pp. 49-50. BReeder, W, Cr., Public School Administration, po. 61-2.

14 4.

Give greater stability and continuity to state

educational policies which are likely to shift with each change of the directorship, Schrammel^ in 1926 studied the state departments of education and lists the following advantages of the state board of education as the head of the state school system: 1* Legislative functions are performed, expert executives are directed, and judicial decisions are given better than by a single individual. 2. Counsel and advice are brought to the educational expert. 3. The interests of all the people are better represented. 4. Greater stability and continuity of policy are maintained. 5. The state educational functions are coordinated. 6. The laws are enforced and the educational expert is held responsible for results. 7. The board is less concerned with politics than an office without a board. 8. It has greater influence with the legis­ lature than a single official. 9. It helps initiate and promote legislation upon the suggestion of the chief executive. 10. It invests and controls state funds to a better advantage. 11 . It selects a professional executive better than is possible by other means. From a study of 48 comprehensive state school surveys, Miller in 1948, shows three important needs for a state 1o board of education: w

^Schrammel, op. cit., p. 4. ■^Miller, F. A., The Development of State Boards of Education in Relation to Educational Progress in Those States, p. 290.

15 1. Policy formation requires a "balancing of judgement on matters affecting the major portion of the state population. 2. Delegating legislative power to such a body makes the system more adaptable. 3. If the body is composed of members whose terms expire at different times it prevents sudden changes In policy. In the heport of the Indiana Survey Commission of 1923, the Commission stated; A state board exists, not to conduct no board could do that - but to keep before technical experts employed for that purpose point of view, the needs, the state of mind general public*H

schools the the of the

In summarizing the needs as presented here, it may be said that the basic needs for a state board of education are: 1.

A body to represent the people of the state In

matters of general policy. 2*

A balance of representative opinion on matters

of policy. 3.

A body to which the legislature may look for

recommended legislation and which the legislature may hold responsible for the application of school laws. 4.

Provision to guarantee some continuity of policy,

^Re p o r t of the Indiana Survey Commission, rubllc Education In Indiana, p. 189.

16 The State Board of Education in Relation to the Legislature The state hoard of education is a creature either of the constitution or the legislature or of ooth.

Matzen^S

found that in some cases the constitution not only provided for a state hoard of education, hut went so far as to define some of its duties, while in others, the constitutional enactments provided that the legislature should prescribe the duties and powers of the board.

Regardless of the

origin of the hoard, it has a close relationship to the legislature, because laws are constantly being passed which affect the hoard.

In regard to this relationship Edwards

states: The growing complexity of the administration of education makes It necessary to delegate to adminis­ trative agencies many of the functions of control. It is coming to he recognized that the legislative structure is not adapted to the exercise of many necessary control functions and that legislative bodies do not possess the required technical competency to deal with many of the problems of government. State legislatures are faced with the problem of proper delegation of governmental functions to other agencies and of distinguishing between areas of general legislative policy and of administrative control.To

ISMatzen, J. M., State Constitutional Provisions for Education, pp. 30-5. T^Edwards, N., “The Legal and Governmental Bases for the Support and Control of Education in the United States, 11 p. 129.

17 The National Council of Chief State School Officers in its report of the annual meeting held at Buffalo, Mew York, February 1-3, 1946, advocated that: 1* The basic provisions for the organisation, adminis­ tration and support of public education should be contained in the constitution of each state, and the legislature should be empowered and directed to establish a general plan for carrying out the constitutional provisions for public education. 2, A state board of education should be created by the legislature, and the board should be the policy-forming body at the state level. There has been a tendency on the part of legislatures to concentrate control of education in the state board of education and to enlarge the scope of its functions. The state board of education as a quasi-legislative body.

It was reported early in 1949 that boards in 37 states

adopted rules and regulations that had the effect of law.14 This is indicative of the fact that the various legislatures have pa.ssed laws which must be administered by the state boards of education, and in administering the laws, the boards have had to provide details lacking in the statutes. In assigning responsibilities to boards for making laws

14The Council of State G-overnments,

0£.

cit., p. 37.

18 workable, the legislatures have of necessity delegated power to the boards to fill in the details.

The legislatures

enact the general legislative policy and assign the adminis­ trative details to the state boards.

Craus maintains that

the basic job of legislature is to state clearly as possible the purpose and objective of the law and to leave to the administrative agency the Job of applying detailed controls to specific situations.

15

In so far as the state board fills

in the framework of statutes with rules and regulations that have the effect of law, the board is clearly a quasi-legis­ lative body. Administrative law.

It is not uncommon for boards to

perform judicial actions when applying rules and regulations. This is especially true when rules must be interpreted and enforced.

Maurer writes in regard to this point as follows:

In administrative offices and agencies now existing there is found an admixture of law making, law enforcement, and law interpretation, - the legislative, executive, and judicial functions. . . . We have a permissable power in congress and state legislatures to delegate legislative authority within the general limitation that those bodies must lay down intelligible principles, primary standards, to serve as a basis for additional administrative legislation in the form of rules and regulations to fill in the details of the statutes. Strictly speaking, the administrative agency does not in a

*^Gaus, J. M., Reflections on Public Admlni strat Ion, p. 9?.

19 constitutional sense make law. It merely translates the legislative will into action and adapts and applies it to varying factual situations. This rule making power can not go higher than nor beyond its source, which is a statute.T6 The rule making power conferred upon the state boards of education may be justified only under certain conditions. White claims that there are occasions which call for and limit rule-making p o w e r . T h e y

are:

1.

The time limits on legislature.

2.

The unknown future subsequent to tne legislature.

o.

The necessity for complicated and technical

details which legislature is not prepared to deal with. 4,

Urgency.

5.

The desire to eliminate party strife.

Freund has developed criteria for determining when control should be delegated to administrative bodies.

He

states that administrative control is justified when, (l) it is difficult to separate the lawful from the unlawful, (2) no definite standards are available,

(3) it is necessary

or desirable to check compliance with legal enactments, (4) liberty and initiative are desired.^0

T^Maurer, H. A., Cases and Other Materials on Administrative Law, pp. 1-2. I1?White, L. D. , Introduction to the Study of lublic Administration, pp. 403-4. ■^•^Freund, E., Administrative lowers Over lersons and Property, p. 28.

20

There Is need to protect the public from wrong use of rule-making power, because such power uncontrolled could result in government without representation.

Vested

interests and unscrupulous politicians might easily capitalize upon such uncontrolled power,

White states

that rule making power should be surrounded by the following safegu&rds 1,

The delegation of legislative power should be

delegated to a trustworthy authority. 2m

Limits ought to be defined within wnich the

delegated power is to be exercised. 3.

The legislative authority should consult any

particular interests to be affected, before making its rules. 4.

Measures should be taken to insure adequate

publicity. 5.

Machinery should exist for revoking delegated

legislation as required. 6.

There should be a certain degree of stability in

administrative rules which have been set before the public. 7.

There should be precision of statements so far

as interests of individuals may be concerned. All rule-making power is delegated to execute the will of the state.

Where the statute or constitution cannot

19Vvhite, o£. cit., p. 407.

21 do this efficiently and economically, used as a supplementary method.

rule-making power is

G o o d n o w ^ defines two kinds

of administrative ordinances that are used to express the will of the state,

the general and the special.

has general and uniform application,

The first

while the latter

applies individually and not to the general public. The state board in exercising rule-making power performs a valuable function in expressing the will of the state when the will has not been expressed explicitly in the statutes.

The board is necessarily given wide discretion

in determining the conditions which are required by the laws, consequently, elements.

it finds itself in conflict with opposing

Deliberation then enters into the process.

Relationship of the State Board to Local Administrative Units The relationship of the state board of education to local units is functional.

State legislatures grant the

state board legal authority over certain functions such as the certification of teachers, determination of courses of study,

control over school building construction,

adoption of textbooks.

^G-oodnow,

21

or the

The boards operate through their

o p . cl t ., pp. 111-2.

21Deffenbaugh, W. S. and Keesecker, VV. W., State Boards of Education and Chief State School Officers, pp. 8694.

22 departments to exercise sued controls over local units. Local units sometimes deal directly witn the hoards when appeals are made by the units or when hearings are held by the boards. The statutes and board regulations form a framework in which local units operate the schools.

Legislatures

limit the controls that state boards have over local units through legal enactments.

Summary

The state board of education as a state educational agency has been in existence in the United States for over a century and a half.

Between 1837 and 1890,

the number of

states creating state boards increased rapidly.

There has

been great variation in the ways in which the boards have been organized and in the functions assigned to them. first,

At

the boards were of the advisory type and later

definite responsibilities were assigned. The majority of the states have general state boards of education that exist as one of the three central state agencies for education.

The states*

responsibility for the

function of education has caused them to construct an administrative organization at the state level to discharge

23 the obligation of the state in establishing and maintaining a system of public schools# The state board of education may be Justified because the state needs a deliberative body to guide the program of public education and to supplement legislative action.

The

people of the states need representation in matters of policy, and many matters of policy can be formulated most satisfac­ torily when made by balanced representative opinion.

The

legislature needs an authentic source of advice on proposed school legislation and a body that can be held responsible for carrying out the will of the people as expressed by the legislature.

A state board is a creature either of the legislature or the constitution or of both, and the legislature may delegate rule-making power to the board when not prohibited by the constitution. The practice of delegating rule-making power to state boards has Increased.

This has been due to the growing

complexity of the administration of education.

More and more

control has been concentrated in state boards of education along with an increase in the number of functions to be performed.

Rule-making power should be delegated witn care, since danger of misuse is great.

Proper safeguards should be

24 established to prevent misuse, and the legislature at all times should provide for the removal of such power when necessary. In applying and enforcing rules and regulations it is not uncommon for quasi-legislative bodies to perform judicial functions. The administration of the state school system transcends levels of government.

State boards of education

through staff officers have a functional relationship with local administrative units.

Statutes and board rules provide

a framework within which local units operate the schools.

CHARTER III COMPOSITION OP THE INDIANA BOARD

Introduction

The composition of a state board of education is of prime importance to the educational system of a state. there are too many members, are too few members,

the board is unwieldy.

If

If there

the people are not well represented.

This is also true if the board is composed of members from one economic or occupational stratum of society.

Politics

may enter into the appointments of board members,

or the

salary may be attractive enough that individuals will seek appointment to the board for the salary and not because of a desire to render public service. Early educators and forward-looking citizens in Indiana had advocated a state board of education In the state for several years before the General Assembly of 1852 passed the Common School Act which created Indiana*s first State Board of Education.

The Constitution of 1651 made provision

for a State Superintendent of Public Instruction but not for a State Board of Education. There were different viewpoints as to what the constituency of a state board of education should be, and there are still differences of opinion in regard to the

26 question.

In 1851, Caleb Mills recommended that the State

Board of Education should be composed of the proposed district superintendents of the state.1

The legislature of

1652 ignored this recommendation when it provided for the composition of the State Board of Education.

Changes in Composition from 1852 through 1944 During the period from 1852 through 1944, there were seven changes made In the laws which regulated the compo­ sition of the Board. changes.

Five of these may be considered major

The organization of this section of Chapter III

Is based upon the periods following major changes In the board*s composition. From 1852-64.

The legislature of 1852 passed the

Common School Daw which provided for many phases of a common school system for Indiana, and among these was the provision for a State Board of Education.

The law providing for the

State Board of Education was as follows: The State Board of Education shall consist of ine State Superintendent of Public Instruction, the Governor, the Secretary, Treasurer and Auditor of State, who shall meet annually at Indianapolis on the second day of November, for the purpose of more

1Indiana Department of Public Instruction, The State Board of Education in Indiana, p. 2.

27

effectually promoting the interests of education, by mutual conference, interchange of views and experience of the practical operation of the system, the introducing of uniform school boohs, the adoption of the most eligible means of facilitating the estab­ lishment of township school libraries, and the discussion and determination of such questions as may arise in the practical administration of the school system.** The law made the Board an ex-officio board and set the number of members at five.

Their terms of office

coincided with the terms of office for the officials designated in the law. provided for by the law.

No remuneration for members was The Board was considered a lay

board. A change in the membership was affected by an act passed in 1855 which added the Attorney General to the Board, thus making a six-member board.° Under the Common School haw of 1852, William C. Larrabee, State Superintendent, Joseph A. Wright, Governor, John 1. Dunn, Auditor of State, Nehemiah Hayden, Secreta.ry of State, and Elijah Newland, Treasurer of State, served z as a State Board through 1853 and 1854.* The first meeting

^Indiana Revised Statutes, 1852, Vol. I, Copy 2, p. 457.

^Indiana haws, 1855, p. 183. ^Indiana Department of Public Instruction, o£. cit., p . 6.

28 of the Board was held on June 7, 1853.

Table I shows the

members who served on the State Board until 1865. Joseph McDonald, served as the first Attorney General on the State Board during 1859 and 1860.

There

are no records of State Board meetings during 1858. From 1865-96. a law passed in 1865. member board.

The State Board was reorganized by 5

The law provided for a seven-

The Governor, the State Superintendent, the

president of the State University, the president of the State Normal School, and the superintendents of the three largest cities in the State were to be members, ex officio, of the Board.

The three largest cities were determined by

the annual enumeration of school children.

Since six of

the seven members were engaged in school work, the composition was predominately professional. Under the law, the Board members received a per diem and mileage equal to that of the legislators; however, in 1873, the law of 1865 was amended to allow Board members five dollars per day for attending Board meetings and five cents per mile for necessary travel.

ft

^Indiana Laws, 1865, pp. 33-5. 6Ibld., 1873, p. 68.

29

RLE I. toUBLRahli' OB THE INDIANA 3TATt, BOARo OR EDUCATION If'ROM 1852 TO 18651

Date of service

Position

Wm, 0. Larrabee Joseph A. Wright John P. Dunn ■Nehemiah Hayden Elijah Newland

1855-1854 1853-1854 1853-1854 1853-1854 1853-1854

State Superintendent Governor Auditor of State Secretary of State Treasurer of State

Caleb Judge H. E. 7/. R. E. B.

1854-185? 1855-185? 1855-185? 1855-1857 1855-185?

State Superintendent

Mills Morrison Talbott Noffsinger Collins

’ z 6 c+ to o zs

Name

Auditor of State Treasurer of State Secretary of State

Wm. G. Larrabee Ashbel P. Millard John M, Dodd Cyrus L. Dunham Nathaniel Cunningham

1857-1858 1859-1860 1859-1860 1859-1860 1859-1860

State Superintendent Governor Auditor of State Secretary of State Treasurer of State

Samuel Bugg Joseph McDonald A, A. Hammond 0. P. Morton Albert Lange

1859-1860 1859-1860 1860 1861-1863 1861-1863

State Superintendent Attorney General Governor Governor Auditor of State

W * A. jreele Jonathan Harvey Miles Fletcher Sam K. Hashour Samuel L. Bugg

1861-1863 1861-1863 1861-1862 1862 1862-1863

Secretary of State Treasurer of State State Superintendent State Superintendent State Superintendent

Oscar B. Hand James S. Anton Joseph Restine Matthew Brett

1863 1863 1863 1863

Attorney General Secretary of State Auditor of State Treasurer of State

1 xData for this table were taken from Research Bulletin No. 10, Indiana Department of Public Instruction, op. cit., pp. 6-7.

The terms of the Board members coincided with the terras of the offices held by the individuals which made them members,

ex officio,

In 1875,

of the State Board of Education.

the legislature amended the law of 1865

by adding another member to the Board.

The amendment

provided that the president of Purdue University was to be a member,

ex officio.

Hence,

the number of professional

educators on the Board increased to seven.

The Board

continued to be an eight-member board for the next twentyfour years.

Table II shows the personnel of the Board

for the period under discussion,

lor the first time,

some of the members continued in service for long periods of time.

T i b i a ., 1875, pp. 130-1.

31 TAB-ub II. ih-UBERSHIP 0£ THE INDIANA STATE SCARS OF EJUOATION 1665 TO 18991

Name

Bate of service

George W. Hass Cyrus Nutt

1865-1868 1865-1875

E. S. Greene

1865

A. C. Shortridge

1865-1874

0. P. Morton

1866

Conrad Baker Barnabas C. Hobbs A. M* Gow

1866-1871 1868-1871 1868-1875

William A. Jones Milton B. Hopkins

1870-1879 1871-1874

Thomas A. Hendricks George P. Brown

1873-1875 1874-1878

A. C. Hopkins James H. Smart John S. Irwin

1874-1875 1875-1881 1875-1888

Eemuel Moss

1875-1884

A. C. Shortridge

1875-1876

John M. Biosa

1875-1881

E. E. White

1876-1883

James U. Williams

1877

11. S. Tarbell

1878-1884

George 1. Brown John M. Bloss D. S. Kelley

1879-1885 1881-1883 1881-

John Cooper

1881-1886

Position State Superintendent President of Indiana University Superintendent, Fort Wayne Superintendent, Indianapolis Governor Governor State Superintendent Superintendent, Evansville President, State Normal State Superintendent Governor Superintendent, Indianapolis State Superintendent State Superintendent Superintendent, Fort Wayne President, Indiana University President, Purdue University Superintendent, Evansville President, Purdue University Governor Superintendent, Indianapolis President, State Normal State Superintendent Superintendent, Evansville Superintendent, Evansville

32 TABLE II.

Marne

(Continued)

Date of Service

Albert G. Porter J • W, Holcombe W . W. Parsons W. W. Alley

1862-1865 1883-1887 1885-1921 1888-1895

Albin P. Hovey

1889

Harvey D. Vories John M. Coulter

1891-1895 1891-1893

Joseph Swain

1893-1902

John S. Irwin

1893-1895

W. A. Hester

1894-1902

David K, Goss

1894-1900

U. M. Geeting J. N. Study

1895-1899 1896-1917

J. A, Mount A. E. Stone

1898-1901 1898-1921

Position Governor State Superintendent President, State Hormal Superintendent, Fort Wayne Governor State Superintendent President, Indiana University President, Indiana University Superintendent, Fort Wayne Superintendent, Evansville Superintendent, Indianapolis State Superintendent Superintendent, Fort Wayne Governor President, Purdue University

"^Indiana St ate Department of Public Instruction, op. cit., pp. 7-10.

33

From 1899-1912.

Before the legislature met in 169?,

the president of the non-state colleges urged the passage of a bill to reorganize the State Board of Education. Representatives of the non-state college presidents had inferred that the Board in its actions had shown partiality to the state colleges and universities.

The criticism arose

over the licensing of graduates from state institutions who were granted teachers' licenses upon the completion of prescribed courses without the usual license examinations. The Board appointed a committee of three members consisting of W. W. Parsons, Vi/. A. Hester, and J. N. Study to draft a bill for the reorganization of the State Board of Education.

In the report, the committee defended the

existing composition of the Board.®

To reveal the committee's

stand, the following quotation Is taken from the report as it was recorded In the board minutes! • , . To us if seems clear that in the organi­ zation of the board by the act of 1865, and by the amendment of 1875, adding the President of Purdue University, three things were sought: (l) the repre­ sentatives on this board of all branches and departments of the state's school system! (2) such a constitution of the board as would secure the services of professional educators: (3) complete freedom from all political and other improper influence„^ ®Board minutes, Meeting of Nov. IP, 1898. ^Ibid., Meeting of Nov. 19, 1898.

The report of the committee went on to explain that the Board had no control and had not attempted to exercise any control over non-state schools in Indiana.

It was also

pointed cut that the rural schools had grown, and that this p??.rt of the school system should he represented in the Board. The suggestion was made that if one or more county superin­ tendents were appointed to the Board that balance of repre­ sentation of all branches of the state*s educational system would be achieved. The Board in a communication with a committee of the presidents of the non-state colleges of Indiana recommended that three citizens of prominence, actively engaged in educational work in the State, be added to the State Board of Education.

They were to be appointed by the Governor,

and at least one was to be a county superintendent. The legislature, in 1899, passed an act which added -

three members to the State Board of Education.

10

Trie law

provided that the three members were to be appointed by the Governor, and Y^ere not to be selected from a county in which any present member resided.

The Governor was given the

power to fill vacancies occurring among the three appoint­ ments made by him.

The first members were to be appointed

for one, two, and three year terms; but, thereafter, each appointment was to be for a three-year term.

At least one

of the three was to be a county superintendent.

•^Indiana Baws, 1899, p. 4p6.

35

The addition of three members made an eleven-member

board; and the provision of this law which authorized the Governor to appoint board members was the beginning of a practice which was to grow in later years. Governor Mount heeded the complaints of the non­ state college presidents when he appointed two such presidents to the Board.

W. T. Stott, President of Franklin

College, and J. J, Mills, President of Earlham College were appointed.

E. G. Maohan, a county superintendent, was

appointed at the same time.

The personnel of the Board

from 1899 to 1913 is shown in Table III.

It Is interesting

to note that of all the members who entered service on the Board during this period about one-fourth represented non­ state colleges.

36 T a B u E III. MEMBERSHIP Oi?’ THE INDIANA STATE BOARD Ok EDUCATION 1899 TO 19131

Name

Date of service

Position

V*• W, Parsons Joseph Swain

1885-1921 1893-1902

W . A. Hester David K . Goss

1894-1902 1894-1900

J. N. Study

1896-191?

President, State Normal President, Indiana University Superintendent, Evansville Superintendent, Indianapolis Superintendent, Port Wayne

J • A* Mount W. E. Stone

1898-1901 1898-1921

D. il. Geeting Frank L, Jones E. Q. Machan

1895-1899 1899-1903 1899-1901

W. T. Scott J. J. Mills C. N. Kendall

1899-1904 1899-1903 1900-1911

G. W. Worley W. T. Durbin

1901-1903 1901

W. L. Bryan

1902-1941

F. W. Cooley F. A. Cotton John M. Bloss E. E. Robey

1902-1910 1903-1909 1903-1905 1904-1910

President, Indiana University Superintendent, Evansville State Superintendent College Professor* County Suoerintendent

J * Frank Hanly Edwin H. Hughes R. E. Kelley E. B. Bryan Thomas R. Marshall

1905-1908 1905-1908 1905-1914 1909 1909

Governor President, DePauw University* President, Earlham College* President, Franklin College* Governor

Governor President, Purdue University State Superintendent State Superintendent County Superintendent11, President, Franklin College** President, Earlham College* Superintendent, Indianooolis Gounty Superintendent* Governor

37 TAbuE III.

Name

(Continued)

Date of service

Position

Bobert J. Aley George H* Tapy J. G, Weob James Tomlin

1909-1910 1909-1915 1910-1913 1910-1916

Charles A, Greathouse George A, Mirick

1910-1917 1911

J. G. Collicot

1912-1917

State Superintendent College Fro lessor** County Superintendent* Superintendent, Evansville State Superintendent Superintendent, Indianapolis Superintendent, Indianapolis

"Indiana Department of Public Instruction, pp. 10-1* ^Indicates appointment by the Governor. are ex-offielo.

From I9I3-I952.

ojd.

cit.,

Other members

The composition of the State Board

was again changed in 1913*

Indiana enacted a vocational

education law that year, and a section of the law provided for a change in the membership of the Board.

The act

provided for seven members, ex officio, and six members to be appointed by the Governor.

The State Superintendent, the

presidents of Purdue, Indiana, and the State Normal; and the superintendents of the three largest cities were designated as members, ex officio.

One of the six gubernatorial

appointments was to be a county superintendent; and three

lllndiana Laws, 1913, pp. 37-46.

38 were to be in sympathy with vocational education.

One of

the three interested in vocational education was to be a representative of employees and one of employers. of the appointed members was set at four years, terms were to be staggered.

The term

and the

The Governor was no longer a

member of the Board under this law; consequently, now thirteen members on the State Board.

there were

Remuneration for

services remained as set by the law of 1873. In harmony with the vocational education law, the G-overnor first appointed William Dobson, Bricklayers Union,

Secretary of the

Indianapolis, Pettis A. Reid of the firm

Elliot Reid Manufacturers,

Richmond,

and H. G. Brown,

Superintendent of Lebanon Gity Schools as the three members interested in vocational education.

IP

^

The composition of the Board as established by the law of 1913 continued until 1933 when another reorganization was affected.

The membership for the period 1913-1932 is

shown in Table IV.

Board minutes, Meeting of May 23, 1913.

JuV •

i| 4Ei^Bbh£>'.i.Xl"’ Qi1

T h iU

iil.fi. ii-j

LQAJvD

O.

LDUG&TIOM 1913 TO 19331

Name

Date of service

J. U, Study

1896-1917

W . E. Stone

1898-1918

W. s. Bryan

1902-1941

H. L„ Kelley

1905-1914

George II. Tapy

1909-1915

J. G. Webb James Tomlin

1910-1913 1910-1916

Ch&rle s A . Greathouse J. G. Gollicot

1910-1917 1912-1917

. V. Livengood

1913-1915

Pettis Held William Dobson H. G. Brown George B. Grose

1913- ■1917 1913- ■1915 1913- ■1919 1914- ■1924

S. L. Scott

1915-1919

Frank Duffy L, B. Benezet

1915-1919 1916-1924

Horace Ellis Charles 0. Williams H. G. Gruver

1917-1919 1917-1921 1917

A, M. Hall E. U. Graff

1917-1921 1917-1927

iv'i

R.

Himelick

L. N. Hines Clifford Funderburg

1917-1920 1919-1921 1919-1928

Position Superintendent, Fort Wayne President, Purdue University President, Indiana University President, Earlham College Professor, Wabash College County Superintendent* Superintendent, Evansville State Superintendent Superintendent, Indianapolis County Superintendent* Employer* Labor* City Superintendent* President, DePauw University* County Superintendent* Labor* Superintendent, Evansville State Superintendent County Superintendent* Superintendent, Indianapolis Employer* Superintendent, Indianapolis Superintendent, Fort Wayne State Superintendent County Superintendent*

40 TABLE I V ,

(Continued)

sams

Name

Date of service

Mrs. E. E. Alcott Harry Fidler L* C, Ward

1919-1923 1919-1921 1920-1923

Elwood Baynes r rank IIeighway

1921-1924 1921

henry W. Marshall

1921-1922

Ben J. Burris L, K. Hines Mrs, Hichard Edwards E, C. Elliot

1921-1924 1921-1933 1922-1924 1922-1933

W, W. Borden

1923-1931

1923-192? Mrs, Nellie Warren Miss Etelka Rockenbach 1923-192? John H* Chewning 1924-1926 Henry Noble Sherwood

1924-1927

Ben J. Burris

1924-192?

Henry B. Longden

1925

William D. Moss L. C, Ward

1925-1929 1926-192?

J. F. Thorton

1097

Charles Miller William Wirt Miss Martha Whitacre Mrs. Beryl Holland L. A. Pittenger

192? 1927-1933 1927-1933 1927-1933 1927-1933

«4H fc- ul/ '

Position Layman* Labor* Superintendent * Fort Wayne Employer* County Superintendent* President, Purdue University State Superintendent President, State Normal Layman* President, Purdue University Superintendent, South Bend Layman* Layman* Superintendent, Evansville State Superintendent President, Ball State Teachers College* Vice President, BePauw University* Labor* Superintendent, Fort Wayne Superintendent, Indianapolis State Superintendent Superintendent, Gary Layman* Layman* President, Ball State Teachers College*

41 T,->BL£* iV.

Name

(Continued)

Date of service

W. Borden Hoy Wisehart Charles Miller

1927-1931 1927-1931 1927-1929

George Reitael Prank S. Reynolds

1928-1929 1929-1932

A. S. Thomas D. T. Weir

1929-1933 1930

Paul Stetson

1930-1933

George C, Cole Frank Allen M. G. Robinson

1931-1933 1931-1933 1933

Position Superintendent, South Bend State Superintendent Superintendent, Indianapolis County Superintendent** Employer** County Superintendent* Superintendent, Indianapolis Superintendent, Indianapolis State Superintendent Superintendent, South Bend Layman*

■^Indiana Department of Public Instruction, op. cit., pp. 11-14. Indicates appointment by the G-overnor. are ex-officio.

Prom 1955-1944♦

Other members

The legislature of 1955 enacted a

law which resulted In the reorganization of governmental departments of the State»

The law provided for a department

of education as one of the eight departments of state ■j

government.

r?

Provision was made for the department of

education to be under the jurisdiction of s. Board of the

-^Indiana Laws, 1535, pp. 7-8.

department of Education, and the Board was to consist of the State Superintendent, the Governor, the lieutenant Governor, and six additional persons, four of whom were to be actively engaged in school work.

The six were to be appointed by the

Governor, and the term of each was not to exceed four year s . ^ The pay remained at 15.00 per meeting day and five cents per mile for necessary travel as established by Chapter 24 of the Acts of 1873.ls The first nine members listed in Table V comorised the first Board of the Department of Education.

The Board

was still a professional body, and there were no major changes in the composition until 1941.

In 1939, an act

of the legislature required that one member of the Board be a member of the negro race.^*®

barren M. Anderson, principal

of Roosevelt School in Gary, was the first to serve as a result of the 1939 enactment.

■^Ibid., pp. 9, 12. I5Ibid., 1873, p. 68. 16Ibld., 1939, pp. 474-5.

TABLE V. MBMBER3HIF OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION 1933 TO 19451

Name

Date of service

Vi. L. Bryon

1902-1941

Paul V. McNutt M. Clifford Townsend George C. Cole Henry B. Longden

1933-1936 1933-1936 1933 1933

Joy M. Lacey Judge A. J. Stevenson trank Allen

1933-1936 1933-1936 1933-1936

Floyd X. McMurray Floyd I . McMurray

1933 1933-1941

E. Phillips Blackburn

1934-1936

E. Phillips Blackburn

1942-1945

Arthur Campbell

1937-1942

Louis H. Dirks

1937-1941

Miss Verna Hoke

1937-1941

Deane E. Walker Henry F. Schricker L. A. Pittenger

1937-1945 1937-1941 1937-1941

M. Clifford Townsend Clement T. Malan

1937-1940 1941-1947

Henry F. Sehricker Charles Dawson Virginia Kinnlard D. B. Robinson

1941-1945 1941-1945 1941-1945 1941-1942

Ralph N. Tirey

1941-1949

Position P r e s i d e n t 1ndi ana University* Governor Lieutenant Governor State Superintendent Vice President, DePauw University* Professor, X. S. T. C. Layman* Sup eri n te nd en t, South Bend* County Superintendent* State Superi ntende nt Su p e ri nt end en t, French Lick* Superint endent, French Lick* Superintendent, Anderson* Dean, DePauw University* Principal* County Superintendent* Lieutenant Governor President, Ball State Teachers College* Governor State Superintendent Governor Lieutenant Governor Teacher* President, Butler University* President, I. S. T. C.

44 TAB.bE, V.

Name

(Continued)

Date of service

V*arre n Ni. And erson 0. B. Hancock Doris Lackey Oleo W. Blackburn frank Sparks

1941 1941-1945 1941-1945 1941-1945 1942-1945

Position Principal* Layman* Teacher" Layman* President, D abash College *

1

-Indiana .department of Public Instruction, 03). oit•, pp. 14-15. Some data were taken from board minutes and the Indiana Year Book. % Indicates appointment by the Governor. Other members are ex officio.

The Board of the Department of Education was abolished in 1941, and the State Board of Education was re-established.**^ Under the 1941 act, the State Board was composed of nine members, the State Superintendent and eight other members. One of the eight was a member of the faculty of a school of education or a state supported university, or the president or a faculty member of a state supported teachers college. One was a president or a faculty member of a private college; one a county superintendent; one a city superintendent; one a public high school teacher; one a public elementary teacher; and tv/o were laymen.

Not more than four of the appointed

members were to be of the same political party.

17Ibid., 1941, pp. 552-4.

Four members

45 were appointed by the Governor and four by the Lieutenant Governor*

The first appointments were for staggered terms,

and thereafter all appointments were for four-year terms. The officer making the original appointment was to fill expired terms. The part of the 194-1 act which gave the Lieutenant Governor the power to appoint four members was held uncon­ stitutional.^*®

In Tucker v. State,

218 Ind. 614,

the court

ruled that appointive power resided In the Governor,

and that

he could appoint the entire Board. Between 1953 and 1941, ex officio, only one,

there were three members

on the State Board; but after 1941,

the State Superintendent.

there was

In this respect the law

of 1941 broke the long standing practice of having several ex officio members seated on the State Board of Education. One member,

ex officio,

was the least number of such members

that had ever been prescribed for the State Board.

With

the decline of this practice came the growth of the practice of members being appointed by the Governor. Table VI shows the number of members of the Board specified in the various laws.

Bata for the table were

taken from the statutes.

Part,

^ I n d i a n a Decimal D i g e s t , Vol. p. 49.

13,

Cumulative Pocket

46 TABLE VI. MEMBERSHIP OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION UNDER THE VAHIOUS LA&&

Date of act

Number of members

Ex officio

Appointed

Total

1852

5

0

5

1855

6

0

6

1856

7

0

7

1875

8

0

8

1899

8

3

11

1913

7

6

13

1933

3

6

9

1941

1

8

9

1945

1

18

19

Present Composition

Again in 1945,

the Board was reorganized,

and this

brought about the greatest change in composition in the board's history.

The Board in 1948 had the largest number

of members of any general state board of education in the United S t a t e s . ^

Second in size were boards of New York,

^ T h e Oouncil of State Government, State School Systems, p. 185.

The Forty-Eight

47 North Carolina,

and Washington.

Boards in those states had

13 members each* Keorganlzatlon law of 1945. the Board consists of 19 m e m b e r s . ^ appointed by the Governor and one, is a member,

ex officio.

textbook adoption.

Eighteen of them are the State Superintendent,

The Board is divided into three

commissions of six members each. general education,

Under the law of 1945,

They are commissions on

teacher training and licensing,

and

Each commission has six members plus

the State Superintendent who acts as chairman of each commission* Appointed members serve a term of four years, however, the first appointees served staggered terras.

No person is

eligible to be appointed to more than one commission,

and

not more than four from the same political party may be appointed to one commission.

Appointments to fill vacancies

are for the unexplred terms.

Not less than four appointees

to each commission shall be actively employed in the schools of Indiana. Members of the various commissions receive ten dollars per day for each day of service and necessary expenses Incident to the performance of duties.

^ I n d i a n a haws,

The law specifies

1945, pp. 1529-33.

48 that the salaries of members employed in public schools are not to be reduced because of service on the commissions. Twelve of the eighteen appointed members must be actively employed in Indiana schools, so the Board is predominantly a professional Board.

The functional division

of the Board is decidedly a deviation from precedent. Actually, the law created three separate state boards of education, each with certain functions to perform. Personnel after 1945.

The membership of the various

commissions may be seen in Tables VII, VIII, and IX. for these tables were taken from board minutes.

Bata

v i i . m e m b e r s h i p op t h e c o m m i s s i o n on g l n l r a l EDUCATION, INDIANA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION 1945 TO JULY 1, 1949.

table

Name

Date of service

Frank H. Sparks

1945-1948

Eela Gilbert Charles E. Rochelle V. C. Freeman

1945-1948 1945-1949 1945-1949

0. M. Swihart

1945-1948

Herman B. Wells

1945-1949

Clement T. Malan Ira I*. Huntington Ben Watt J. J. Maehling A. C. Senour

1941-1947 1948-1949 1947-1948 1949 1949

Deane E. Walker

1949

*Ex officio members. appointments.

Position President, Wabash College Teacher Teacher Professor, Purdue University Superintendent Kokomo President, Indiana University State Superintendent* County Superintendent State Superintendent* Junior High Principal Superintendent, East Chicago State Superintendent*

Others are gubernatorial

50 TABLE VXII. MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMISSION ON TEACHER TRAINING AND LICENSING, INDIANA STATE BOARD OF EDUGATXON 1945 TO JULY 1, 1949

Name

Date of service

Position

H. B. Allmen Ralph N. Tirey Edith Spray Dale Morehead Margaret Sweeney

1945-1946 1941-1949 1945-1948 1945-1949 1945-1949

Superintendent, Muncie President, I. S. T. G. Teacher Teacher Teacher

Ira L. Huntington Clement T. Malan G. H. Maxam

1945-1947 1941-1947 1948-1949

Ben Watt Myron D. Weldy Deane E. Walker R. E. Hood

1947-1948 1949 1949 1949

County Superintendent State Superintendent* Registrar, Butler University State Superintendent* Elementary Principal State Superintendent* High School Principal

*Ex officio members. appointment s.

Others are gubernatorial

51 TABLE XX. MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMISSION ON TEXTBOOK ADOPTION, INDIANA aTATE BOARD OF EDUCATION 1945 TO JULY 1, 1949 Name

Position

Date of service

Curtis D, Kirklin

1945-1949

Harry !. Yoder Charles Englehardt Archie Chadd

1945-1948 1945-1948 1945-1949

James G-ivens

1945-1949

Professor, Franklin College County Superintendent Junior High Principal Superintendent, Anderson Lay

Boss T. Campbell Clement T, Malan Ben Watt Jesse Boston Hay B. Linville Deane E. Walker

194 5-1949 1941-1947 1947-1948 1949 1949 1949

Teacher State Superintendent* State Superintendent* County Superintendent Teacher State Superintendent*

*Ex officio members. appointments.

Others are gubernatorial

Summary of Changes in Composition The Indiana Board has undergone eight statutory changes in composition.

From 1852 to 1899, ex officio

members constituted the Board.

From 1899 to 1949, members

of the Board who were appointed by the Governor increased in number.

Under the 1945 reorganization law, 18 of the

19 members were gubernatorial appointments.

The State

Superintendent remained as the only ex officio member.

52 Since 1865, the member ship of the Board, has been predominantly persons actively engaged in school work,

tor

many years, college presidents and city superintendents served on the Board,

It was not until 1941 that classroom

teacners and principals were represented in the group,

A

few laymen made their appearance on the Board after 1913. Terms of service have varied considerably*

Some

ex officio members have served long periods of time, while some served less than one year. of the State Normal School,

W. W. Parsons, President

served as a member ex officio,

from 1885 to 1921, a term of 36 years.

W. L. Bryan,

President of Indiana University, served longer than any other ex officio member. 1902 to 1941.

He served continuously for 39 years, from

Terms of regularly appointed members have

ranged from three to four years.

At present, appointed

members are appointed for four-year terms. The State has paid its board members, since 1865, a per diem and expenses.

State officials,

such as the

Governor and the State Superintendent, have not received remuneration for board service.

53 Criteria for the Evaluation of Composition

Composition of a general state board of education should conform to the accepted principles of constituency for such a board*

Principles generally emerge from the

practices of people who are striving for achievement,

or

from theory proposed by persons to facilitate purpose.

It

may be said that both theory and practice give rise to pr inci p l e s .^

Principles of board composition.

Trie literature

reveals considerable agreement among authorities as to the kind of membership advocated for state boards.

Chase and

Morphet state that “best practice tends toward a board . . . of able and public-spirited citizens who represent the general public Interest and are not actively engaged in educational work.“^! ^

In 1933, the Indiana Survey Commission

held that the state board of education snould represent the point of view of the public,^3

^Piolmstedt, Pi. W., State Control of Public School Finance, p. 52^^The Council of State Governments, The Forty-Eight School Systems, p. 49. ^ R e p o r t of the Indiana Survey Commission, Public Education in Indiana, p. 189.

54 S c h r a m m e l , ^ C u b b e r l y , ^ O v e r n , ^ Ch amb er s , ^

the

Educational Policies C o m m i s s i o n , C o c k i n g and G-ilmore,^

Leffenbaugh and Keesecker,'50 the Goramisslon on the Legal ■XT

structure of Rhode Island Public Education,'Miller,

33

McKendree,and

George D. Strayer,

yo

Mort, Sr,^^

advocate a lay membership for state boards of education.

04

Schrammel, Henry E., The Organization of State departments of Education, p. 150, p j-;

Lubberly, E. P., State School Administration, p.

290. ^Qvern, A. V., The Teacher in Modern Education, pp. 268-9* Chambers, M. M . , Administration, !l p. 26.

Two Major Issues in State School

^Educational Policies Commission, The Structure and Administration of Education in an American Democracy, p. 82. 9Q Cocking, W. D. and Gilmore, 0. H., Organization and Admlnlst rat ion of Public Education, p. 75. ^Deffenbaugh, W. S. and Keesecker, W. W., State Boards of Education and Chief State School Officers, p. 99. ^■Rhode Island Public Education, The Commission on the Legal Structure of, Schools for Qur Children, p. 15. ^ M o r t , p # R., Principles of School Administration, p. 549. ^Miller, F. A., The Development of State Boards of Education in Relation to Educational Progress in Those States, p. 291. 34Mc&endree, E. W., The Composition of the State Boards o f Eduoat ion in th_e Uni ted States, p. 84. 36Strayer, G. I>., Sr., A Digest of a Report of a Survey of Public Education in the State of frasnington, p. 2.

55 'Zg

Qvernu

points out that if educators are members of

the board there is danger that they will represent vested interests.

He holds that it is not necessary to have

educators on the board because the board1s function Is to determine policies after they have been recommended by the state superintendent.

Cocking and G-ilmore^? state that

there is evidence that professional boards tend to reduce the power of the administrator, because such board members feel well qualified to do the work which should be done by the administrative staff. Authorities agree on the basic principle that the membership of a state board of education should be representative of the general public. Most of the findings have indicated that the majority of state boards of education are relatively small, and for the most part, theory advocates the same.

Morphet and

Chase*5® found the most common number of members to be seven Q and the average to be 8.6. In 1938, Cocking and G-ilmore found that the most frequent number of members on state

^®Overn, op. cit., pp.

268-9.

^ C o c k i n g and

Gilmore, op. cit., p. 73.

3®The Council

of State Governments, o£. cit., p. 38.

^Cocking and

G-ilmore, qr>. cit., p. 74.

56

boards of education was seven, and that the boards ranged in size from three members in three states to 12 in two states.

Latzen,In

1931, found the median number of

aiemuers to be seven and the range from three to 45. Gvern4^ recommends five to nine members; hoehlman,4^ eight members; Deffenbaugh and iiees e e k e r , seven

nine members;

the 'Commission on the Legal Structure of Hhode Island Public Education,44 seven members; the National Council of Chief State School Officers,

45

five to nine members; Mart, °

seven members; and Miller,

47

recommends five to nine members*

ilcKendree in studying the composition of state boards found th&t state board members, themselves, favored from seven 48 to eight members to a board, Cubberly states that

^Matzen, J. M., State Constitutional Provisions for Education, p. 33. 4^0vern, op. oit., pp. 268-9. ^Moehlman,

a

. B., School Administration, pp. 619-20.

4^beffenbaugh and Keesecker, ojo. cit., p. 99. 44The Commission on the Legal Structure of Hhode Island Public Education, op. cit., p. 15. 4^The National Council of Chief State School Officers, "State Educational Organization,11 p. 58. 4®Mort, op. cit., p. 349. 47Miller, op. cit., p. 291. 4®McKendree, op. cit., p. 58.

57

"experience shows seven to be about the best number,"40 Schrammel recommends seven.50

In 1923, the Indiana Survey

^ 51 commission recommended a seven member board for Indiana, It is evident from research findings and authentic opinion that the number of members on a state board of education should be small, about seven to nine members. From the above, a second principal Is established. The number of members on. a state board of education should be large enough to represent the public and small enough so that the board will be workable. How long should the terms of state board members be? In 1949, half of the states having state boards of education prescribed terms of five years or longer, and it is thought that the trend is in the direction of terms longer than four RP

years.

c

Harris recommends long, overlapping terms.

a board of seven, Schrammel

54

For

advocates a seven-year term

49Cubberly, op. cit., p. 291. ^°Schrammel, op. cit., p. 150. ^Report of the Indiana Survey Commission, op. cit., pp. 190-2. 5^The Council of State Governments, op. cit., p. 38. 55Harris, T. H., "Organizing a State School System for Effective Service," pp. 54-5. 54 Schrammel,

o p . c i t ., p. 150.

58

with one member retiring each year*

Overn recommends

overlapping terms five years in length*55

Chambers,55

the Educational Policies Commission,57 Deffenbaugh and Keesecker,55 National Council of Chief State School Officers,59 Miller,55 and the Indiana Survey Commission5^ recommend long, overlapping terms.

In 1938, Cocking and

G-ilmore5^ found that most states provided overlapping terms for members of state boards of education, and that 35 states provided for terms four years or more In length. Long, overlapping terms make for continuity of policy.

Some authorities recommend that the number of years

of the term be identical to the number of members on the board and that one new member take office each year.

It

takes some time for members to become familiar with the duties of the office, and terms of less than four years seera to be too short to properly educate members.

When the

550vern, op. cit., pp. 268-9. 55Chambers, op. cit., p. 26. ^Educational Policies Commission, op. cit., p. 82. 55beffenbaugh and Keesecker, o_£. cit., p. 99. 59The National Council of Chief State School Officers, o p . cit., p. 58. 55Miller, op. cit., p. 291. ^ Re p o r t of Indiana Survey Commission, o p . cit., pp. 190-2. 5^Cocking and Gilmore, op. cit., p. 73.

59

terms are short, the board is at some time composed of a majority of inexperienced members. A third principal is that members on a state board of education

should servelong, overlapping terms

in order

to provide for continuity of policy. Difference of opinion is to be found in the literature on the question of how members of state boards should be selected*

The majority of authorities advocate appointment

of board members by the governor, and recent studies have consistently revealed that most states use this method of selecting board members. Harris®^ an& Moehlman^ advocate that state board members be elected by popular vote. Commission

65

governor and

The Educational Policies

points out that both the appointment

by the

the election of members by popular vote on a

non-partisan ticket have been found satisfactory.

Cubberly®®

also recommends appointment or election of board members. These writers strongly urge that members be selected on a non-partisan basis regardless of the method.

Schrammel says

the following about the selection of board members;

^Harris, op. cit., pp. 54-5. 64Moehlraan, op. cit., pp. 619-20. ^Educational Policies Commission, op. pit., p. 82. 66Cubberly,

op« Qlt., p. 291.

60 There is a strong tendency to vest the appointment of the members of the board of education In the governor. This practice is based upon the sound principle that the chief executive officer of the state should appoint the members of boards whom he may hold liable for results since he in turn, is responsible to the people who elect him.® £*Q

Schrammel

found that most new or reorganized boards

during the period 1890-1935 were appointed boards.

Matzen,

69

in 1931, found a trend away from ex officio members to a combination of ex-officio, appointed, elected type of membership.

Cocking and G-ilmore

70

found that the governor

appointed members to general state boards of education in 2? of the 40 states having such boards.

They mention the

fact that appointment by the governor is criticised because it permits excessive concentration of power, but they hold that the criticism is hard to justify since the governor is responsible to the people.

From polling the opinions of

members of state boards of education in 40 states, McKendree found that the members favored the method of selection of board members by gubernatorial appointment.

Miller,72 after

®7Schrammel» op. cit., p. 34. ®®Ibid., p. 22. S^Matzen, op. cit., p. 34. ^Co c k i n g and Gilmore, op. cit., p. 55. 73*McKerdree, op. cit., pp. 83-4. 72Miller, pp. cit., p. 290.

71

61 analyzing 48 comprehensive state school surveys, concluded that the majority of survey commissions recommended that state board members should be appointed by the governor. Chase and Morphet

73

show that, of the 33 states having

general state boards of education, the governor appoints a majority or all of the members in 27 states. and Keesecker

74

Deffenbaugh

recommend the appointment of state board

members by the governor. That members of state boards of education should be appointed by the governor is a fourth principle supported by research findings and authentic opinion. The question of remuneration for services is not touched upon as much as the other aspects of the composition of sta.te boards of education, but some writers take a positive position on the question. S c h r a m m e l f o u n d that in most cases board members were reimbursed for expenses, only.

He says that in some

cases members were paid a per diem as well as necessary expenses; however, he recommends expenses, only, for board 76 members. Cocking and Gilmore found that most states reimburse members for expenses incurred in performing their

^ T h e Council of State Governments, op. cit., p. 38, "^Deffenbaugh and Keesecker, pp. cit., p. 99. ^Schrammel,

op. cit., p. 24,

^ C o c k i n g and Gilmore, pp. cit., pp. 74-5,

62

duties.

Their study points out that educational authorities

in general doubt whether compensation should be provided because the practice attracts individuals for the salary and not for the desire to render public service.

They contend

that paid boards tend to assume administrative duties. McKendree

found that the majority of board members served

without pay.

Miller

78

found that most of the survey

commissions recommended no salaries, only expenses, for board members. Support for a fifth principle of composition is in evidence among the findings of research and the opinions of authorities.

Remuneration should be such that individuals

will not be attracted by salary to membership on the state board of education.

Establishment of Criteria Most of the experts agree that membership of a state board of education should be representative of the general public, hence the following criterion is established. Criterion I. A general state board of education should be comoosed of lay members who are reoresentative of the population of the state.

^McKendree, op. cit., pp. 83-4. ^Miller,

0£. cit., p. 291.

63 Research findings and authentic opinion support the principle that the "board should be large enough to provide a fair representation of the public and small enough to be efficient in conducting its business.

The following

criterion is established in the light of the above principle. Criterion 2* A state board of education should be composed of seven to nine members. Agreement is found on the principle that continuity of policy is facilitated by members serving long, overlapping terms, consequently criterion three is developed. Criterion 3. Members of state boards of education should be elected to long, overlapping terms of not less than four years in length, A method of selection of state upon by most authorities in the field.

board members is agreed The following

criterion is formed in the light of the practices found to exist and the common agreement of opinion. Criterion 4. Members of a state board of education should be appointed by the governor. In the light of the principle that remuneration of board members should be such that they will not be attracted to the office by salary, criterion five is formulated. Criterion J5. Members of state boards should receive reimbursement for expenses incurred in service, but they should receive no salary for services.

64 Application of Criteria Criterion 1, A general state board of education should be composed of lay members who are representative of the population of the state, Indiana*s present composition does not meet Criterion 1, except in a very small way.

The present board is composed

of 19 members, and 18 of these are actively engaged in school work.

James G-ivens, a member of the textbook

commission, Is the only lay member on the entire board,

The

1945 reorganization law provides for not less than four members on each commission to be engaged actively In school work, but the law does not require that layment be appointed to the b o a r d . ^

The membership of the present board is

representative of only one segment of the population, the teachers. Criterion 2. A state board of education should be composed of seven to nine members. The present Indiana Board does not meet this criterion. The Board now has nineteen members.

If the Board were to

operate as a unit, it would undoubtedly prove to oe unwieldy. It is seldom that the entire group meets as a unit, the time the Commissions meet separately.

Most of

The State Superin­

tendent serves as chairman of each Commission to make the seventh member.

79Indlana Laws, 1945, pp. 1529-33.

65

Criterion 3. Members of state boards of education should be elected to long, overlapping terms of not less than four years in length. Criterion 3 is met in a large measure.

The terms

of the appointive members are four years in length and staggered*

In regard to the term of the State Superintendent,

the criterion is not met, because he Is elected by popular vote to a term of two years.

Table IX shows that Ben Watt,

as State Superintendent and a member, ex officio, of the Board, served a two year terra In 1947-48. Criterion 4. Members of a state board of education should be appointed by the governor. The method of appointment of members to the Indiana Board meets Criterion 4 almost completely.

The State

Superintendent is a member, ex officio, and this constitutes the only exception.

Eighteen members are appointed by the

governor. Criterion 5_. Members of state boards should receive reimbursement for"expenses incurred in service, but they should receive no salary for services. This criterion is met only partially in Indiana. Indiana Board members receive expenses incurred In rendering service and a per diem of ten dollars for each day of service. The law of 1945 further provides that those members engaged in school work shall not lose any part of tneir regular salaries while serving on the Board.

Such an arrangement

may be conducive to members devoting an unnecessary amount of time to the performance of duty.

66

CHAPTER IV OFFICERS ANi> COMMITTEES OF THE INDIANA BOARD

Introduction

The changes in legal requirements for board officers and practices of the Board in selecting officers are shown in this chapter.

The practices of the Board in the appoint­

ment and use of committees during sample periods

is shown.

The second part of the chapter is devoted to the formulation of criteria for the evaluation of board organization. Current practices are evaluated.

Board Organization, 1852-1944 From 1852-64.

The Common School Act of 1852 which

created the Board did. not prescribe its officers,

but Chapter

84 of the Acts of 1855, made the State Superintendent president,

ex officio, of the Board.1

His duties were

defined as presiding at all meetings and proposing measures of the Board which he felt came within its jurisdiction. There is no evidence in the board minutes of the appointment of committees during the sample years of 1857 and 1859.

Since the board membership was ex officio during

1Indiana Laws, 1855, p. 178.

67 this period,

it is reasonable to believe that members had no

time to devote to oomrnittee work assigned within the Board. ■•roni 1865-98.

By the lav; of 1865, Chapter I,

section 155, the State Superintendent was again assigned the duty of being president of the Board, and in his absence the p

memoers were to elect a temporary president."*'

The law also

provided that the Board was to elect a secretary-treasurer from among its members.

The secretary-treasurer was assigned

the custody of board records and effects, and the keeping of board minutes. The board minutes of 1867 show that A. G. Shortridge was re-elected secretary-treasurer for the ensuing year.3 Secretary-treasurers were elected from board membership during the period, 1865-98.

The minutes reveal that G-. P.

Brown,4 J. M. Blosa,3 S. H. Jones,6 and David K. G-oss^ served in the office during the sample years of the period under discussion. Its minutes verify the fact that during 1865-98 the Board employed various persons to serve as clerk of the Board. The sample year of 1877, meeting of May 1, shows the first

2lbia., 1865, pp. 55-5. 3Board Minutes, Meeting of Jan. 5, 1867. 4Ibid., Meeting of May 1, 1877. 3Ibld., Meeting of April 8, 1878. ®Ibld., Meeting of June 18, 1887 and Jan. 10, 1888. ?Ibld., Meeting of Jan. 14, 1898.

68

evidence of this practice.

Minutes of the years 188?, 1891,

and 1894, Indicate that the practice was continued. D. M. Greeting resigned as clerk of the Board in 1891 and Will H. GKLascock was elected to succeed him.^

During the years 1865-98, board minutes show an increase in the number of committees appointed in the sample years.

Table X shows that in the years of 1867-8, four

special committees were appointed. committees were used.

In 1877-8,

seven special

Through 1897-8, the practice of

appointing special committees appeared more frequently than In any of the previous sample periods. The work of the Board Increased during the latter part of the period 1865-98.

This fact undoubtedly was

responsible for the general increase,

shown in the sample

years, for the number of special committees appointed in the Board, Most of the committees during 1897-8 were assigned special duties or asked to make recommendations on specific problems.

There were few committees assigned to fact finding

alone.

Bxbid., Meeting of May 27, 1891,

69

. n um ber of standing and special, committees APPOINTED DURING TEN T&G-XEAR PERIODS BX THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OB' EDUCATION

table x

Sample years

Types of Committees Special

Standing

1857-1859 1867-1863 1877-1878 1887-1838 1897-1898

0 4 7 6 12

0 0 0 0 0

1907-1908 1917-1918 1927-1928 1937-1938 1947-1948

40 34 14 10 15

0 4 7 6 0

From 1699-1912.

Although Chapter 193 of the Acts

of 1899. provided for three additional members on the Board,

Q

the law did not change the provisions of the 1865 law in regard to hoard officers.

W. W. Parsons served as secretary-

treasurer of the Board throughout this period.

The Board

still followed the practice of hiring a clerk to keep its records.

^Indiana Laws, 1899, p. 426.

70 Board minutes show a sharp Increase In the number of committees appointed in 1907-8 when compared to the number for 1897-8.

Table X shows that during 1907-8, 40 special

committees were appointed.

Many of these committees were

assigned to carry out certain duties of the Board which were new responsibilities assigned by the Teacher Training Act of 1907.10 From 1913-33. 1913,

The provisions of Chapter 24, Acts of

for officers of the Board were identical to those

of 1865.

The State Superintendent remained as president,

ex officio, and the secretary-treasurer was elected from the membership of the Board.11

The duties of these two offices

remained the same as under the 1865 law. W. W. Parsons, President of the Indiana State Normal School, served as secretary-treasurer of the Board from 1900 to September 12,

1918.

He was succeeded by £. U.

G-raff,

Superintendent of the IndianapolisSchools.1^ Graff served until March 11. 1927 when he was succeeded by 1ft. L. Bryan, President of Indiana University and Bryan served until he 1^ retired In 1941. ^

C. Gullion was clerk in the early

1QIbld., 1907,

pp. 451-3.

11Ibld., 1913,

pp. 37-46.

^ B o a r d Minutes, Meeting of Sept. 12, 1918. I^lbld., Meeting of Mar. 11, 1927.

71

part of 1917, but was succeeded by f’red Gladden In May of that year.1^

The minutes of the Board are not signed by a

clerk in any of the sample years after 1918.

Evidently

some member of the State Department had been assigned the duty of keeping the records of the Board. The appointment of committees within the Board continued in 1917-8. for these years.

Table X shows 34 special committees

The minutes indicate that there were four

standing committees serving during 1917-8, and they were assigned to inspection of teacher-training Institutions, vocational education, high schools, and substitution of courses for required courses in the high school. The Board had been given increased responsibility between 1908 and 1917.

The enactment of the Vocational

Education Law of 1913 increased the Board*s responsibility. Other responsibilities added during this period were the adoption of high school textbooks and the appointment of a high school Inspector. for the years 1927-8, the number of committees assigned within the Board was slightly over a third of the number appointed in 1917-9.

Analysis of minutes for 1^27-8

14lPid., Meeting of May 24, 1917 15 Indiana L a w s , 1913,

pp. 37-46.

72 revealed that the Department of Public Instruction had some new directors and assistants who were being assigned work that board members themselves had been doing in 1917-8 and before. Minutes for 1927-S showed the the directors of the Divisions of Attendance, Teacher Training and Licensing, Inspection, Vocational Education, and Publicity and Research were making regular reports to the Board.

The expanded

State Department was necessary as a result of the responsi­ bilities that had come to the State Board and the Department. Even though the number of committees appointed during 1927-8 represented a decline from 1917-8, the Board was still making use of special committees and had increased the number of standing committees,

The following standing

committee assignment was selected from the board minutes of April 22, 1927, to represent a typical standing committee assignment.

These committees were appointed by State

Superintendent Miller, and they were as follows: A.

Executive Committee W, L. Bryan, chairman L. C, Ward Henry B. Longden J. F. Thornton

B.

Committee on Elementary and High School Inspection L. C. Ward, chairman Benjamin J. Burris

W. Ju. Bryan Henry B. Longden C.

Committee on Attendance Clifford Funderburg, chairman 1>. N. Hines E. C. Ward J. P. Thornton

B.

Committee on Vocational Education E. 0. Elliott, chairman W. W. Borden Clifford Funderburg Wm. B. Moss

E,

Committee on Teacher Training L. N. Hines, chairman W. W, Borden Benjamin J, Burris Henry B* Longden

F.

Committee on Approval of Books and Supplies Benjamin J. Burris, chairman W, w. Borden i«. G. Ward

Or.

Auditing Committee W. W. Borden, chairman W . L . Bryan

74 A count of the membership of the committees above will show that each member served on several committees. Dr. Bryan was assigned to three; L, C. Ward to four; and Benjamin J. Burris to three.

The above committees repre­

sented only a part of the total number of committees appointed during 1927. Occasionally the Board or its executive officer appointed special committees to serve Jointly with committees from other organizations.

In 1917, the Board authorized the

appointment of a committee from the Board plus a repre­ sentative from the city superintendents to cooperate with the Federal Board of Vocational Education.*^

In 1928, a

legislative committee of the Board was appointed to work with one committee from each educational organization of the State 1? to formulate a program for the coming legislature. Minutes of the sample years of 1927-8 showed a marked decrease in the number of special committees appointed as compared to 1917-8, however, board minutes of 1927-8 showed clearly that standing committees were appointed.

No such

clear evidence of standing committees was shown in the minutes for 1917-8.

^®Board Minutes? Meeting of Sept. 21* 1917. l^Ibid., Meeting of Dec. 18, 1928.

75 The organization for officers remained as in the previous period, but board minutes did not show that the practice of employing a clerk for the Board was continued into 1927-8. From 1935-44.

Chapter 4 of the Acts of 1933 provided

for another reorganization of the Indiana Board.18

The law

did not prescribe the organization that should exist within the Board, but the board minutes revealed that the State Superintendent continued to serve as president under the law of 1913, and the secretary-treasurer was elected from among the members.

W. L. Bryan continued to serve as secretary-

treasurer until 1941.

Board minutes for the meeting of May

12, 1937, were signed by Floyd I. McMurray, President, and W. I*. Bryan, Secretary. State Superintendent.

Floyd I. McMurray at that time was The same persons continued through

1938 in their respective offices. The number of committees appointed in 1937-8 was less than that In 1927-8.

The board minutes for 1937-8 Indicated

that a great deal of the work was actually done by department employees upon authorization by the Board.

Directors of the

different divisions of the department reported regularly upon their actions, and the special problems were presented to the Board for solution.

In the meeting of February 5, 1937, six

IQlndlana Daws, 1933, pp. 7-17.

76 standing committees were appointed. executive committee;

(l) an

(2) committee on school inspection;

(3) committee on attendance; licensing committee;

They were:

(4 ) teacher training and

(5) school relief committee; and

committee on vocational education.

(6) a

A large part of the

business conducted by the Board fell within the six categories to which the standing committees mentioned above were assigned. Under Chapter 182 of the Acts of 1941,^

the State

Board was again reorganized, and the State Superintendent was made president, ex officio, of the Board with full voting rights as a member.

The law provided that in the absence of

the president the members were to select a temporary president.

A secretary-treasurer was to be elected from the

membership, and he was to have custody of all records

of the

Board and keep minutes of the proceedings. The minutes Indicated that the practice of appointing standing and special committees was continued throughout the remainder of the time that the Board operated under the 1941 law.

19Ibia.. 1941, pp. 552-4.

77 Organization Under the 1945 l*aw In 1945, the Board again underwent reorganization.^ This law provides for eighteen members to be appointed by the Governor, officio.

The State Superintendent is president, ex

The Board is divided into three commissions.

The

commissions are established in line with major functions to be performed, and they are on textbook adoption, training and licensing, and general education.

teacher This organi­

zation seems to be an extension of the practice of dividing the Board into standing committees, each of which was responsible for one category of functions.

This practice

had evolved over the years as divisions had been established within the department. Each commission is required by law to elect one of Its members secretary-treasurer who is to have custody of the records and keep minutes of the meetings.

In the organization

meeting of the Board on May 17, 1945, the following men were elected secretary-treasurers, Charles K, Rochelle, teacher in Evansville, Archie Chadd, Superintendent of Schools at Anderson, and Bale Morehead, high school teacher at Tipton. Rochelle served on the Commission on General Education, Chadd on the Textbook Commission, and Morehead on the Teacher Training and Licensing Commission.

^ I b i d . , 1945, pp. 15E9-55.

The Textbook and Teacher

78 Training and Licensing Commissions took the initiative to elect vice-chairman.

H. B. Allman, Superintendent of Muncie

Schools, and C. D. Kirklin, of Franklin College, were elected vice-chairmen of the Teacher Training and Licensing and Textbook Commissions, respectively.^ The number of members on the Board was doubled under the 1945 law, but the practice of appointing special committees in the Board did not decline.

However, the

committees were special and not standing. Luring the organization meeting of May 17, 1945, each Commission appointed a committee to make general recommen­ dations to the Board, and a Joint committee consisting of members from each commission was selected as a planning body. All committees were concerned with the allocation of power and determination of authority for the Commissions.

Table X

shows that during the sample years of 1947-8 fifteen special committees were appointed.

Fourteen of them were found to be

appointed by the Commission on Teacher Training and Licensing, while one was found to be established within the Commission on General Education.

None of them were standing committees.

During the years of 1933 through 1941, the practice of appointing standing committees was common; while during the

21Board Minutes, Meeting of May 17, 1945.

79 period from 1942 through 1946, the practice seems to have been discontinued.

A detailed analysis of the board minutes

of 1947-8 shows the appointment of special committees but no standing committees.

Summary The State Superintendent has served as president of the Board throughout the board's existence.

A secretary-

treasurer has been elected by the members since 1865.

During

the first fifty years of its history, the Board employed a clerk, but the practice has been discontinued. Board minutes for sample periods indicate that the Board has practiced the appointment of special committees from its membership.

The practice has declined under the

present law in the Commissions on G-eneral Education and Textbook Adoption.

The Commission on Teacher Training and

Licensing continued the appointment of special committees during 1947-8. Minutes of the sample periods from 1917-8 through 1937-8 indicate that the Board practiced the appointment and use of standing committees.

Minutes for the four-year period

prior to 1949 show that the practice has been discontinued,

80

Criteria for the Evaluation of Board Practices in Election of Officers and Functions of Committees There are few authentic opinions in the literature as to what the organization within a state board of education should be, and there is little evidence in research as to what the practices are. In the following discussion, criteria are developed from principles which should govern board practices in the election of officers and. the use of committees. Officers for the Board.

Board officers cond_uct and

manage board business, and the kind and quantity of the business can be expected to determine the kind and number of officers. Deffenb&ugh and K e e s e c k e r ^

show the legal provisions

for officers of various state boards.

They show that

provisions for officers are prescribed by law, and generally the law authorizes the boards to appoint such officers as are deemed necessary.

They found a variety of legal provisions

for board officers in the various states which had general state boards of education. Indiana Is the only state which by law combines the secretary and treasurer into one office.

Some states prescribe

22l>effenbaugh, W. S. and Keesecker, W. W., State Boards of Education and Chief State School Officers, pp. 11-

12

.

81 one officer, while others prescribe as many as four or more. In Idaho, the Board makes rules and regulations for its own government, and the Pennsylvania law gives the Council liberty to select the necessary offices.^ The Deffenbaugh and Keesecker study reveals that in thirty two states the laws provide for a board president. In eight of these, the governor is assigned to the office; In eight, the state superintendent Is president; in 14, the president is elected from the membership of the board; and in two, the governor appoints the president of the board. It Is Interesting to note that the method of selecting the president by election from the membership Is used by more states than any other method.

Only five states provide for

a vice-president, and in all of these the officer is elected by the membership.

Ten states provide for a secretary, and

five of these assign the state superintendent to the office, while the other five specify that outsiders shall be chosen for the position.

Ten states assign the state superintendent

as the executive officers of the board, and thirteen assign him to the office of executive-secretary.

23ibia., p. 11.

62 In the study conducted by Chase and Morphet,^4 the chief state school officer is shown as the executive officer of the board in 55 states; in 20 of the 55 states, he also serves as secretary; and in seven of the 35 states, he serves as chairman.

These data Indicate that In the early part of

1949 the majority of the states having general boards used the chief state school officer as executive-secretary of the board. M i l l e r , f r o m his analysis of comprehensive state school surveys, recommends that the president be chosen from among the membership, and that the chief state school officer be the executive-secretary to the board.

He holds that the

chief state school officer should not be a member of the board. Gubb e r l y^ recommends that the board should select its executive officer and should elect Its other officers except the treasurer.

He holds that the state treasurer should act

as treasurer for the state board.

The report of tide Indiana

School Study Commission recommends that the state superin­ tendent snould be appointed by the Board as its executive

24The Gouncil of State Governments, The Forty-Eight State School Systems, p. 186. ^Miller, F, A., The Development of State Boards of Education In Relation to Educational Progress in Those States, p. 292. £6(Jubberly, p. 292.

R*» State School Administration,

83

secretary.27

Mort in his School Code for the State of hew

Osceola recommends that the board elect its president and that the state superintendent serve as secretary to the Board. The officers needed for a local board of education have been commonly agreed upon for years.

Authorities

advocate that the local board should elect a. president, vicepresident,

secretary, and a treasurer.

for boards in large city systems, authorities recommend that both the secretary and the treasurer should be employed from without the membership.2^

Bince both local boards and

state boards are legislative bodies It Is reasonable to expect that the same kinds of officers should be elected in both types of boards.

An exception to this is the office of

treasurer for the state boards, V*ith the exception of the treasurer, the executive and the secretary, both practice and authentic opinion support the principle that state boards of education should elect

27lndlana School Study Commission, An Evaluation of the Indiana Public Schools, p. 310. 2^Mort, E. H . , Principles of Bchool Administration, p. 350. 2-American Association of School Administrators, School Boards In Action, pp. 84-5.

84

their officers from the membership.

The chief state school

officer should be assigned the duty of serving as the executive and the secretary to the board, and he should not be a member of the board. Committees within the Board.

The practices of state

boards in regard to the use of committees is treated by Miller.

He maintains that the board should act as a

committee of the whole.

The following is a quotation from

his study: There should be no standing committees. Ho member should have authority to act in any capacity except during tne time when the board is in session. Special committees should be assigned only when it is impossible to work through the superintendent. It should then be only a fact finding committee. . Mort, in section 18 of the School Code for the State of New Osceola states: Membership on the state board of education shall not clothe any person with individual powers with respect to public education, and the state board of education may not designate any one or more of its members to carry out ministerial or executive functions.31 Mort*s position certainly Is in opposition to the use of committees for any purpose other than fact finding and reporting back to the board the findings.

bOMiller, op. cit., p. 393. 3lMort, on, cit., p. 351.

65

In general, authorities are in common agreenient that standing committees on local boards of education are unde­ sirable and that special committees should be used only in emergencies and as fact finding groups.

The position Is

taken by the writer that local boards and state boards of education are legislative bodies and that organization for operation may reasonably be expected to differ very little in the two types of boards,

Blnce the literature reveals

little research and opinion on the use of committees among state boards, the writer finds it necessary to turn to the principles that are advocated for local boards of education. The number of standing committees in boards of edu­ cation in cities over 100,000 population has been gradually reduced, and this reduction has freed the board from routine administrative matters, thus giving the board "an opportunity to deal with fundamental policies and to evaluate properly the results at tained.(i

When professionally trained admin­

istrators are used by the board, standing committees have no place.

Standing committees tend to take over authority

belonging to the superintendent and to dictate to the entire board.

When special problems arise, a special committee

to serve only as a fact finding body, may be appointed.

The

^N.E.A. Research Bulletin, The School Board Member, p. 6.

86

committee should report the facts to the board and then be dismissed,35

The board, as a whole,

should make the

decision. In 1927, Almack wrote on the use of committees as follows: It is generally agreed that it is far better for the school board to leave details . • . to the superintendent, the principals, and the teachers, . . . The board could then give its time to the more important duty of planning and legislating, . , . Not only are subcommittees considered unnecessary, but they are charged with being the cause of defects in management. They are accused of blundering, undue interference with the progress of the school, and sharp politics. Instead of one board working as a unit, the committee system results in as many boards as there are committees, each struggling to dominate. . • .34 Ballou contended that standing committees play entirely too large a part in the decisions of city boards of education. He held that committee organization within a board permits the exercise of pernicious Influences, and that the practice violates the following three principles of school adminis­ tration:

(l) the duties of each committee cannot be defined

because of overlapping functions; (2) it is impossible to

55 X b i d ., p. 18.

54:Almack, J, C., The School Board Member, pp. 48-9. 55Thelsen, W. W . , The City Superintendent and the Board of Education, p. 35, (Citing The Appointment of Teachers in Cities by Ballou).

35

fix responsibility of each committee since its duties are not clearly defined;

(3 ) tiie committee system has a tendency

to contuse lay control with professional, and executive management.

R e e d e r ^ recommends no standing committees.

He

would have special committees for specific purooses only. Theisen presents the conclusions of various investigations of the committee problem as follows: 1. There is no agreement among boards as to the number or kind of committees* . . . 2. A large number of committees is to be attributed rather to the size of the board than to the amount of work to be done, merely as a way out of a dilemma*

. . .

3. Committees tend to perform executive functions. . . . 4. The committee system fosters a divided rather than a centralized or coordinated form of organization* . . . 5. Committee policy tends to become board policy, the board as a whole being ignorant of the real work of each committee. . . . 6. The functions of committees overlap, . . . 7. Committees form a means of unnecessary delay and postponement of action. . . . 8. Committees permit of pernicious influence. . . . 9. A board of proper size needs only a few if any standing committees. . . .37 The American Association of School Administrators recommends no standing committees.

This organization points

out that the committee system impairs the efficiency of

'-^Reeder, G., The fundamentals of Public School Administration, pp. 100-101.

88

boards and their superintendents because "Individual board members a.re interested chiefly in the work of the committees to which they belong, and * . . they bow and accede to the superior knowledge of the committee that is reporting,"38 Large cities apparently use tne committee systems more than small o n e s . ^ It is apparent from the evidence presented above that authorities are in agreement that boards of education should operate as committees of the whole, and that there should be no standing committees,

Special committees should be held

to a minimum and they should be appointed only in special cases as fact finding committees to present the facts to the board.

Special committees should not ore sent recommendations

to the board. The principle stated in the above paragraph will be used as tne basis of a criterion in the following section.

Establishment of Criteria Practice and authentic opinion support the principle that state boards of education should elect all their rv

r}

American Association of School Administrators, School Boards in Action, p. 40. Research Bulletin, Boards of Education, p. 63,

Status and Bractices of

89

officers from the memberchip except the executive-secretpry, and the chief state school officer should serve In this capacity. Criterion l,. A be elected annually by membership. The chief executive secretary to

president and a vice-president should the state board of education from its state school officer should serve as the board.

The principle has been established that state boards of education should act as a committee of the whole, that no standing committees should be appointed within the board, and that special committees should be fact finding committees. The number of fact finding committees should be kept to a minimum. Criterion 2. Special committees should be kept to a minimum and as such should present facts and not recom­ mendations to the board. Criterion There should be no standing committees appointed within the board.

Application of Criteria to Present Practices There Is little purpose in applying the criteria for organization to the Indiana Board as a whole, since the entire Board as such is relatively inactive.

Instead, the criteria

are applied to each of the three Commissions. Criterion 1, A be elected annually by membership. The chief executive-secretary to

president and a vice-president should a state board of education from its state school officer snould serve as the board.

90 The three Commissions meet tnis criterion only partially*

The State Superintendent is cnairman of each

Commission by reason of his office, and he does not serve as secretary*

Board minutes do reveal that he usually acts

as the executive to the Commissions* The Commissions on Textbooh Adoption and Teaoner Training and licensing elected vice-chairmen in 1945; out board minutes for 1947-8 and the first naif of 1949 do not show that vice-chairmen were elected in these Commissions. The Commissions eacn elect a secretary-treasurer in compliance with the law. annually,

Bince all officers are not elected

the Board fails to meet Criterion 1.

Criterion 2. Bpecial committees should be kept to a minimum and as such should present facts and not recom­ mendations to the board. The Commission on Teacher Training and Licensing does not meet this criterion*

Evidence wae presented to show that

this body appoints numerous special committees*

The minutes

show that many of these committees make recommendations to the Commission in the light of the facts.

Seldom does a

committee report to the Commission on facts alone. There is no evidence in the minutes to indicate that the Commissions on Textbook Adoption and G-eneral Education appointed many special committees since the reorganization of the Board in 1945.

91

Criterion o. There should be no standing committees appointed within the board. The minutes show that the Commissions of the Indiana Board have discontinued the practice of appointing standing committees.

Neither the minutes for 1947-6 nor those of

1945-6 show that this practice is being carried on by the Commissions.

Between 1920 and 1940, the practice of

appointing standing committees in the Indiana Board flourished. Probably, the organization of the Board into functional groups has reduced the need for such committees; but the three Commissions of the Board constitute a type of organi­ zation far more rigid than that which results from the appointment of three standing committees within one board. Under the present law, each Commission is the final authority within its own right.

No other Commission may

contest a decision or action made by another Commission. Tne entire Board is given the authority to allocate functions to the Commissions, but the law for the most part is clearcut and decisive in assigning functions. The Indiana State Board of Education, as a whole, does not pass upon actions of any of the Commissions.

Any action

on teacher training and licensing is made by the Commission of Teacher Training and .Licensing, and only seven out of the

op

19 members of the Board pass upon the action.

There are

always 12 members of the present Board that have no voioe in any action taken by any Commission. to be sound.

This does not seem

A board should exert a unifying and an inte­

grating influence in the administration of the state school system.

93

CHAPTER V OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES OF THE INDIANA BOARD

Introduction The working procedures utilized by state boards of education are known only to those persons wno serve on boards or who work closely with such bodies.

There are

numerous questions concerning the way in which state boards of education act to perform their duties that are as yet unanswered. Some of the operational procedures that were employed for several years by the Indiana State Board of Education are disclosed in the following pages.

The writer sought

answers to only the following questions: 1.

What have been the practices of the Indiana Board

in holding meetings?

Hasthe Board held regular meetings?

Where have meetings been held? 2.

Has the Board followed an order of business in

its meetings? 3.

Who introduces items of business to the Board?

What has been the practice over the years in this respect? Answers to these questions have been taken largely from an analysis of the minutes of the Indiana Board for the twenty sample years described in the introductory chapter.

94 Minutes of the Board vary in their completeness from one period to another depending largely upon who kept them. In the main, it is extremely difficult to get a clear picture of how the Board actually operated.

For the most

part, the minutes reveal the date and place of the meetings, the persons present, the items of business considered, by whom motions were made and seconded, and the actions of the Board on the motions. In many oases, the final action of the Board is not shown, and the reader is left to guess at the outcome. Seldo m does the record of the business reveal the ways in which members voted individually.

Occasionally a member

has requested that the minutes show how he voted.

Usually,

members voted in the negative wnen this request was made. The writer found it necessary in reading the board minutes to resort to an interpretation of the records In order to arrive at answers to some questions.

For that

reason, the writer presents the material in this chapter with a great deal of hesitation and caution. The organization of Chapter V is somewhat different from that of Chapters III and IV.

Where those chapters

showed development by chronological periods, this chapter Is organized by topics.

Each topic is developed by snowing

its status in various chronological periods.

95 Evolution of board practices is shown in regard to meetings, order of business, and introduction of business to the Board.

At the close of the chapter, evaluative

criteria are established and applied to the present practices of the Board.

Board Meetings The number of meetings that a board has and the regu­ larity with which those meetings are held may be said to be indicative of the responsibility assigned the body and the way in which that responsibility is discharged. From 1852-64.

During the sample years of 1857 and

1859, the Indiana Board met six times.

In 1857, it met once

in January and twice in March, while In 1859, the Board met monthly in April, June, and July.^

Table XI shows the

frequency of meetings of the Indiana Board by month and year for the 20 sample years.

During 1857 and 1859, the Board

operated under the law of 1855^ which did not govern meeting dates.

The Board evidently met on call.

^Board Minutes, 1857 and 1859. ^Indiana Laws, 1855, p. 185.

T A B bE X I . FREQUENCY OF ifiEETINGb OF THE I N D IA N A ST a I E HOARD OF e d u c a t i o n by m o n t h a n d YEAR FOR TWENTY SA mFE E y e a r s ,

1857-1948

Years

Meetings per month*

Total

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1857 1859 1667 1868 1877

1 0 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0

0 1 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 1

0 1 1 0 0

0 1 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1 0

3 3 1 1 3

1878 1887 1888 1897 1898

0 1 1 1 2

0 0 0 0 1

0 0 0 1 0

1 0 0 0 0

0 1 1 1 2

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0

0 1 1 1 1

0 0 0 0 2

0 0 0 1 1

2 3 3 5 10

1907 1908 1917 1918 1927

2 1 1 1 1

0 0 1 1 1

2 1 1 1 2

0 0 0 1 1

2 1 2 1 0

2 1 2 1 1

0 0 0 0 1

1 0 0 0 1

0 0 1 1 1

1 1 0 1 1

0 0 1 1 1

1 1 1 2 2

11 6 11 11 13

1928 1937 1938 19471948-

1 0 1 0 3

1 1 2 0 2

1 1 1 2 3

1 1 1 2 1

1 1 1 1 3

1 2 1 4 3

1 0 0 3 0

0 1 0 1 1

1 0 1 2 3

1 1 1 3 2

1 1 1 2 2

2 1 2 2 6

12 10 12 22 29

*1-J&nuary 2-February 3-March 4-Aprii 5-May 6-June to

7-July B-August 9-September IQ-October II-November 12-Deeember

“For 1947-8, the numbers snovin are for all three Commissions of tlie Board*

97 From 1865-98>

Board minutes reveal that there was

only one meeting of the body in each of the years 1867 and 1868.

The reorganization law of 1865 provided that the

Board would meet on call by its president or a majority of its members.

3

In 1877, the Board met once in each of the

following months, January, May, and October.

The group came

together two times in 1878, once In April and again In September.

Meetings were held In January, May, and October

in each of the two years 1887 and 1888.

The frequency of

meetings Increased in the next sample years.

In 1897, the

Board convened five times, and In 1898 it met 10 times. Meetings were neld twice in each of three months during 1898. This Increase was due to added responsibilities.

Textbook

adoption, inspection of high schools, and preparing and giving teachers® examinations kept the Board very busy.

It was not

uncommon for a meeting to last two days. Throughout the first two decades of Its existence, the Board is reported to have held on an average of slightly less than three meetings per year.4

The Board evidently, during

these early years, considered its duties routine.

It had not

yet entered Into some of the important work wnich It later

^Ibld., 1865, pp. 35-5. ^Indiana State Department of Public Instruction, The State Board of Education in Indiana, p. 16.

98

undertook.

The years of 1897-8 represent a definite increase

in the number of meetings held each year for this early period. Meetings, for the most part, were held in the of!ice of the State Superintendent which is located in the Statehouse at Indianapolis.

Occasionally, a meeting would be held

in the Governor's office or the court room of the Supreme Court, From 1899-1912. six times in 1908.

The board met 11 times in 1907 and

In 1907, the members came together twice

each month for four months, January, March, May, and June. Meetings frequently held for more than one day.

” &hen the

frequency of meetings was not increased, often the length of meetings was.

During this year, the Board became a Teacher

Training Board and its responsibilities were increased considerably.

It was also serving as a State Library Board.

By 1908, the Board had organized some of its work more efficiently and consequently fewer meetings were necessary. From 1913-52.

The reorganization 18W of 1913 did not

change the provisions of the law of 1865 In regard to meetings.

They were still to be called by the president or a

majority of the board's members.5

The Board met 11 times in

^Indiana Laws, 1913, pp. 37-46.

99

1917 and 11 times in 1918.

When there was an unusual amount

of business, the Board usually met for more than one day. In 1987, the minutes show that the Board came together 13 times, and in 1926, it convened 12 times. no important increase over 1917 and 1918.

This represents

Bven though the

duties of the Board had multiplied during the period from 1916 to 1927, the Board had increased only slightly the frequency of its meetings,

This can be accounted for by

the fact that the State Department had added staff members who relieved the Board of some of Its burden. During 1927-8, meetings were held regularly.

In some

months two meetings were held, but In the main the Board met monthly.

The meetings were held usually at the St&tehouse in

the State Superintendent's office. From 1933-44.

The law of 1933 again changed the

organization of the State Board, but the provisions of the act did not govern meetings of the Board.

Table XI shows

that 10 meetings were held in 1937 and 12 were held In 1938. The meetings usually occurred monthly and occasionally twice monthly with the exception of one or two summer months in wnich no meetings were held.

BessIons convened, as indicated

in the previous period, in txie State Superintendent1s office.

^Indiana Department of Public Instruction, pp. cit.,

p. 16.

100

Present meetings.

The 1941 Act which reorganized

the State Board provided for board meetings on call by Its president or the majority of Its members at places designated in the call.

The records reveal that the Board usually

convened each month until the body was again reorganized under the 1945 law. Under the 1945 law, each of the Commissions meet separately, except on call for joint meetings.

The law

provides that nthe board of each commission shall meet at such times as it shall determine.

The first meeting of the

Board of each commission shall be called by the State Buperin tendent of public instruction within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this act. On May 17, 1945, the

. . members of the new Boardwere

sworn in by Judge Frank N. Bichman of the Indiana Supreme Court.^

At 11:30 A.M, the members were received by the

Governor In his office.

The three Commissions then met

separately to plan for the organization of each Commission and the operation of the Board as a whole. it was

At this meeting,

planned that a joint meeting of all Commissions would

^Indiana -Laws, 1941,

pp. 552-4.

8Ibia., 1945, p. 1529. ^Board Minutes, Meeting of May 17, 1945.

101

be held on March 25.

On this day, the group came back to

the Statehouse to organize for action.

The group decided

to meet as an entire Board on the Second Friday of May each year to further the coordination of work among the Commissions.^

On May 10, 1946, the Board changed its plan

for an annual meeting to that of a quarterly meeting. Table XII snows the total number of meetings held by the Commissions, Individually, and the entire Board, as a whole, for each month in the sample years 1947-6.

A total

of 23 different meetings was held in 1947 and a total of 30 was held in 1948. Table XII snows no particular pattern of regularity of meetings for the Commissions.

The Commissions on General

Education and Teacher Training and Licensing held more meetings than the Textbook Commission. Joint meetings of the Commissions on General Education and Teacher Training and licensing were held on two different occasions during 1947-8.

On March 23, 19^7, they came

together to discuss the duties of the two Commissions in the light of the Acts of 1945 a.nd 1947; and on September 10, 1948, the two bodies met to discuss the matter of granting high school credit for cadet teaching in approved schools in Indiana.

^ Ibid., Meeting of May 25, 1945.

102

TiibLE XII. DIFFERENT MEETINGS HELD BY THE COMMISSIONS AND THE GENERAL BOARD OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION IN EACH MONTH FOR 1947-8

Year

Comm. and G.Bd.

Total

Months* 1

O

xv

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1947

G.E.

0

0

1

0

1

2

1

1

0

1

1

0

8

1947

T.T.L.

0

0

1

2

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

8

1947

Tbk.

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

6

1947

G.Bd.

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

1948

G.E.

1

1

2

1

1

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

10

1948

T.T.L.

2

0

1

0

1

1

0

0

2

1

1

1

10

1948

Tbk.

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

1

0

3

9

1948

G.Bd.

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

*1-January 2-February 3-March 4-April b-May 6-June

7-July 8-August 9-Be picember 10-0ctober 11-November 12-December

Meetings were usually held in the Statehouse.

Joint

meetings were held in the Supreme Court Room, while Commissions meeting singly usually met in the Superintendent^ office which Is located in the Statehouse at Indianapolis.

103

Summary.

Since the origin of the Board, the number

of meetings for each sample year for the first thirty years was rather low.

From 1897 until 1945, the number of meetings

per sample year remained almost constant at about 10 to 12 per year.

After the Board was reorganized in 1945, the

sample years show that the number of meetings per year showed a marked increase. Since 1917, meetings have usually been held one or more times each month during the year, except July and August. Most of the board meetings were held in the State Superin­ tendent's office which is located in the Statehouse at Indianapolis.

Order of Business The order of business as described by Almack Is "the working program of the board."-**1

It is a device that

deliberative bodies commonly use to prevent oversight of routine business.

It Is used to plan the Introduction of

business items at appropriate times. From 1852-98.

In meetings of the first twenty years

of the board's functioning, the agenda of business for each meeting was very simple.

In some cases, only one item of

^Almack, J. C., The School Board Member, p. 89.

104 business would be taken up in a meeting.

IP

As the responsi­

bilities of the Board Increased, the agenda of business for each meeting became more complex.

In 1888, the average

number of business items taken up per meeting was about nlne.1^

The number of items per meeting did not materially

increase In 1897-8, but the number of meetings did as shown in Table XI.

The order of business for the January 7

meeting of 1897 Is presented below as typical for the latter part of this period. 1.

Boll call.

2.

Heading of the minutes of the previous meeting.

3.

Heard request of an individual for a state

license. 4.

Granted professional license.

5.

Issued commissions to certain high schools.

6.

Appointed a committee to select a state librarian

for recommendation, 7.

Assigned questions for construction of teachers

examinations, 8.

Presented a resolution on the law governing the

organization of town and city school boards.

12hoard Minutes, Meeting of Jan. 5, 1857. l3Ibid., Meetings of Jan. 10, ^ay 15, and Oct. 22, 1888.

105 9.

Discussed a bill on school legislation prepared

by the State Teachers' Association. 10.

Presented claims for various items of expense.

11.

Meeting adjourned.

In the above agenda, the first and last two items appear consistently in the minutes of each meeting throughout the period.

There was no particular order in which other

Items appeared. From 1899-1944.

Throughout 1907-8, the minutes reveal

that the Board, conducted its business In the same manner as In the latter part of the previous period.

In 1917-8, there

appeared regularly reports by the committees on vocational education and high school inspections, but they did not appear consistently in the same order in the various meetings.

When

the Board met in the capacity of a State Library Board, it usually did so either at the beginning or the end of the meeting. In 1927-8, the routine business was disposed of by reports from the different divisions of the Department of Public Instruction, and special problems were presented at the close of each report.

Usually, the report of the

Division of Teacher Training and Licensing was presented first, and following that was the report of the Inspection

106 Division.

Reports were heard on teacher training and

licensing, inspection of schools, vocational education, attendance, and actions of some standing committees. The business of the meeting of May 4, 1928, Is presented below to represent the way in which the Board conducted its business in 1927-8. 1.

Roll call.

2.

Read minutes of previous meeting.

3.

Report of Teacher Training and Licensing. a.

Teacher Training, (1).

Approved critic teachers.

(2).

Recommended accreditment of Huntington College for teacher training in certain areas.

(3 ).

Regulation recommended to control residence requirements of elementary majors when transfering from one insti­ tution to another.

b.

Licensing. (1).

Heard the financial report for April, 1928.

(2). 4.

Presented two special license cases.

Report of Inspection Division. a.

Recommended granting of high school equivalency certificates.

b.

Recommended approval of requests of different schools to introduce special subjects.

c.

He commended classification of various schools.

Report of Attendance Division. a.

Recommended regulation governing time allotment in vocational home economics classes.

b.

Recommended same for trades and industry classes.

o.

Recommended regulation to govern number of pupils in related subjects that are nonvocatlonal pupils.

d.

Recommended transfer of supervising teacher in agriculture at Purdue.

e.

Statement of Board presented in regard to cooperating with farm Bureau in preparation of courses of study in marketing,

f.

Authorized State

Superintendent and Vocational

Director to autnorize for payment valid claims in vocational education. g.

Requested approval of vocational budget for July 1, 1928 to June 30, 1929.

h.

Recommended approval of vocational transfers.

i.

Recommended standards for various aspects of vocational education.

Report of Book Committee. Report of Auditing Committee.

108 9.

Considered suggestions for improving the services of the Board.

10.

Resolution presented in regard to claims for the month of March.

11.

Report on ways and means of doing business in the State Board of Education.

12.

Request presented from a book company to make corrections in print of recently adopted books.

13.

Committee appointed to investigate unincorporated colleges*

14.

Passed motion that State Board Meetings be held on central standard time.

15.

Passed motion that State Superintendent supply the Board with information on supply and demand for teachers.

16.

Reported on the progress of the state course of study.

17.

Meeting adjourned.

The order presented above indicates that routine reports were followed by special problems involved in each report and then new business which was not identified with any division of the department was presented. Board minutes show that the same general plan for the conduct of business was carried over into 1937-8.

The number

of reports for each meeting had increased by this time due

to

the fact that more responsibilities had been given the Board.

109

Present practices.

An analysis of the minutes of

1947-8, shows that the three Commissions of the Board did not follow any consistent order of business in their meetings.

Public hearings on rules appeared usually first

on the agenda when such hearings were held.

The Commission

on Ceneral Education held three public hearings on rules in 1947 and two in 1948.

In each case these hearings were taken

up as a first order of business after roll call and the reading of the minutes of the previous meeting. In 1948,

the

Commission on Teacher Training and Licensing held two hearings on proposed rules.

One was the first order of business in the

meeting of January 30, 1948, and one was the last in the meeting of November 15, 1948. Minutes of the Textbook Commission reveal that it generally followed a practice in its meetings of first disposing of the following business Items!

(l) calling the

roll; (2) hearing minutes of the previous meeting; and (3) approving claims of members for per diem and travel.

The

duties of the Textbook Commission are not nearly as numerous and diverse as those of the other two Commissions.

Usually

the Textbook Commission met for a singular purpose, and possibly this explains why it was able to follow some consistency in the presentation of business from one meeting to another.

110

There Is no evidence in any of the minutes of the Commissions to indicate that an order of business was followed. Summary.

Board minutes for the sample years in the

period from 1852 to 1899 show that the agenda of business became increasingly complex as the Board was given Increased responsibilities.

There was no evidence in the minutes for

the sample years in this period that the Board followed consistently an order of business in Its meetings.

The same

was found to be true for sample years of the period from 18991944.

Throughout the sample years of 1929-8 and 1937-8,

much of the business was transacted by hearing reports from various staff members and giving blanket approval of reports In their entirety. Board minutes for the years of 1945 through 1948 reveal that the Commissions of the Board did not follow, consistently, orders of business In their meetings.

Introduction of Business Items in Board Meetings Sources from which items of business were Introduced in board meetings have been classified in this section. classes are:

The

(l) the State Superintendent; (2 ) members of the

Board; (3) committees of the Board; (4 ) staff members of the

Ill

State Department; (5) persons who were neither on the Board nor In the Department; and (6) not shown. In some cases, the minutes show clearly from whom an item of business came, while, in other cases, the source of origin Is not shown at all.

In the latter case, the intro­

duction of the item was placed in the "not shown* category. Even when the minutes showed who introduced an item of business to the Board, there was always, In the writer's mind, the question as to whether or not the State Superin­ tendent prompted the person to present the item in the meeting. The contents presented In this section of the chapter are no more reliable than the board minutes for the years studied or the Judgement of the writer used in determining who introduced items In certain cases.

When there was no

clue to the identity of the initiator, the item was placed in the "not shown" group. From 1852-98.

The sample years of this early period

show that there was an Increase in the amount of business presented to the Board from 185? through 1898.

Table XIII

shows the sources of the different business Items brought before the Board during the sample years.

Table XIV shows

the same information in percentages of the total number of items Introduced in each two-year period.

For the years

of 1857 and 1859, the State Superintendent introduced 50 per

cent of the items brought before the Board, while in 1867-8, he was responsible for introducing 15 per cent.

In the

years 1877-8, the members evidently assumed leadership by introducing 25 per cent as compared to 10 for the State Superintendent,

This trend continued through the years of

1887-8, and in these years, individual members introduced 24 per cent as compared to 9 for trie chief state school officer.

Board committees in 1887-8 introduced as many items

as the State Superintendent.

TABLE XIII. FREQUENCY OF BUSINESS ITEMS INTRODUCED TO TliL INDIANA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION DURING TEN TWO-YEAR

PERIODS Introduced by

1857 1867 1877 1887 1897 1907 1917 1927 1937 1947 1859 1868 1878 1888 1898 1908 1918 1928 1938 1948

State Supt.

4

3

9

7

4

13

50

47

9

109

Bd. Membs.

1

2

23

19

3

43

76

90

12

81

Bd. Cmtees.

0

2

5

7

4

30

41

15

14

7

Staff Membs

0

0

0

0

0

1

55

220

304

42

Outsiders

2

2

4

4

1

7

20

2

10

12

Rot shown

1

11

51

42

73

52

87

24

34

167

Total

8

20

92

79

85

146

329

398

383

418

113 TAJ3JLE. XIV,

FLR CENT OF BUSINESS ITEMS INTRODUCED TO THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION DURING TEN TWO-XEAR PERIODD

Introduced by

1857 1867 1877 1887 1897 1907 1917 1927 19-37 1947 1859 1868 1878 1888 1898 1908 1918 1928 1938 1948 50$

15$

10$

Bd. Membs.

12

10

25

24

4

Bd. Gratees.

0

10

5

9

5

Staff Membs.

0

0

0

0

0

0*

Outsiders

25

10

4

5

1

5

6

Not shown

13

55

56

53

85

36

27

Total

9$

9$

State Suot,

5$

15$

12$

2$

26$

29

23

23

3

19

21

12

4

4

2

17

55

79

10

Q*

3

3

6

9

40

100$ 100$ 100$ 100$ 100$ 100$ 100$ 100$ 100$ 100$

*Less than one per cent.

The minutes for the years of 18°7-8 were less revealing In this respect than those for the other years.

Since the

records show no source of origin for 83 per cent of the items, the situation hardly merits comment. Throughout the period from 1852 through 1898, the members presented a greater percentage of the items of business to the Board than did the State Superintendent. Table XIII shows that board committees became rather active In presenting business to the Board after 1865.

As the

114 number of items presented to the Board increased, the proportion of those presented by outsiders decreased. From 1899-1944.

The percentage of items of business

introduced by Individual members was greater than that of the State Superintendent for the sample years of this period. The percentage of items Introduced by board committees was larger than that of the State Superintendent for 1907-8, but the percentage Introduced by board committees shows a decrease in 1917-8 and 1927-8 as compared to lQQ7-8, A sharp Increase in the percentage of items introduced by staff members is shown by Table XIV for 1927-8.

There is

a marked trend in the last three sample periods of 1899-1944 In the direction of staff members introducing a large percen­ tage of Items of business to the Board.

In 1927-8 and 1937-8,

much of the board business was disposed of by reports from the various division directors of the Department. types of requests made in these reports.

There were two

The board was

requested to approve either actions already performed by staff members or recommendations made by them.

The percentage of

items introduced by board committees in 1937-8 lessened in favor of the percentage Introduced by staff members. Initiation of business at present.

During 1747-8,

the State Superintendent introduced 50 per cent of the items of business to the Commission on General Education.

T^ble XV

shows that staff members introduced approximately 1C per cent of the Items.

Board committees and outsiders introduced

less than one per cent each.

115 The picture is somewhat different in the Teacher Training and Licensing Commission for 1947-8.

Table XV

reveals that the State Superintendent introduced seven per cent of the business items, while tue individual members introduced 23 per cent.

Staff members introduced 12 per cent

of the items and board committees three per cent.

Outsiders

were responsible for initiating five per cent of the business items.

TABLE XV. FREQUENCY 0* BUSINESS ITEMS INTRODUCED TO THE COMMISSIONS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOa RU OF EDUCATION DURING 1947-8. Introduced By

Gen. Ed.

% of Total

Tchr. Tr. L.

State Supt.

80

50$

14

Bd. Membs.

15

10

47

Bd. Cmt ee s .

1

Staff Membs.

16

0* 10 0*

% of Total 7$

Tbk.

r of Total

15

27$

23

19

35

6

5

0

0

24

12

2

3

11

5

0

0

Outsiders

1

Not shown

49

30

99

50

19

35

162

100$

201

1QQ/&

55

100$

Total

*Less than one per cent

116 In the meetings of the Textbook. Commission held In 1947-8, the State Superintendent introduced approximately 27 per cent of the items as compared to 35 per cent by Individual members. Items.

Staff members Initiated about three per cent of the The minutes failed to reveal the source of 35 per cent

of the Items for this Commission, T'hen a comparison is made between the Commissions, it is apparent that the State Superintendent was much more active in Initiating business in the General Education Commission than in either of the other two.

Individual board members

were most active in this process In the Textbook Commission, Both the Textbook and the Teacher Training and Licensing Commissions showed a greater percentage of items introduced by individual members than did the General Education Commission.

Staff members were more active in Initiation of

business in the Commission on General Education and Teacher Training and Licensing than in the Textbook Commission. Persons outside the Board and Department presented more items to the Commission on Teacher Training and Licensing than to either of the other two.

Table XIV indicates

that for all three Commissions the State Superintendent In 1947-g introduced 26 per cent of the items of business, while individual members presented 19 per cent. initiated 10 per cent.

Staff members

Outsiders and board committees

Introduced three and two per cent of the ite:: . respectively.

11?

Summary.

The sample years of 1947-8 when compared

to all previous two-year periods, except 185? and 1859, show tnat the State Superintendent was most active in presenting business to trie hoard in the last sample period,

he not only

presented more items, but ne presentee a larger percentage of items to the Board.

Individual members were more active

in this respect than the State Superintendent in all sample periods except the first and last.

Board committees were

much more active In initiating business In 1907-8 and 1S17-8 than they were in later sample periods. Staff members were most active in the presentation of business to tne Board in 1937-6 and 1937-3.

The percentage

of items Introduced by staff members declined markedly In 1947-6 when compared to 1937-8 and 1937-6.

during the sample

periods, the per cent of items initiated by outsiders was consistently small; and in tne last three sample periods, the percentages Indicated a proportionate decrease in items presented by this group.

Criteria for the Evaluation of Goerational Procedures since there are no studies on trie working procedures of state boards of education, the principles thet are commonly accepted for local boards are use" here.

From these

118 principles, criteria for evaluation are established. Principles and criteria are formulated for each of the three aspects of the Indiana Board's operation that were discussed In the first part of this chapter. Board meetings.

Boards

may meettoo often and

waste

time on unimportant items or fail to meet often enough to really be effective,

Almack^*~ maintains that a board should

hold its meetings at

a regular time and in anestablished

place.

“the best solution is to provide a

He says that

special room in a centrally located schoolhouse, the city hall, or in a building erected for administrative purposes.f! The size of the board room will depend imon the size of the board and the number of visitors that might be in attendance regularly. In regard to the frequency of meetings Almack. states: The frequency of meetings must, of course, depend upon the amount of business to be transacted. , . As a general rule, a board that meets regularly oitener than once every two weeks is attending to matters that it should delegate or is working too slowly. The better managed schools will be able to get along with a monthly board meeting except when special subjects are under consideration. . , .16

■^Almack, QP« oit., pp. 76-31. 15Ibld., p. 77. 16Ibld., p. 80.

119 Monthly board meetings are advocated by the National Education Association.17

This authority also recommends

that the board should adopt a regular schedule of meetings, and that the group should have a regular place and time for meeting.

Regular meetings should be held in a space large

enough to accommodate guests.

Reeder18 recommends that the

board should set a regular time and place for its meetings. He also contends that most boards find it possible to conduct their business in monthly or semimonthly meetings and that special meetings should be provided when necessary. The National Education Association in a study published in 1946 reported that 98 school boards out of 100 have fixed schedules for their regular meetings.1^

The average number

per year for city boards was reported to be 12.9 and for non-city boards, nine.

City boards reported more special

meetings than non-city boards.

The larger the city, the

larger was the average number of meetings held.

This study

also reported that in cities above 2500 in population the school board had a regular meeting place.

In cities over

100,000 In population, 58 per cent had board rooms.

ir7N.E.A. Research Bulletin, The School Board Member, P. IV. ■^^Reeder, V»r. 0., The Fundamentals of Public School Admlnistration, p. 95. l^N.E.A. Research Bulletin, Status and Practices of Boards of Education, p. 64.

120

The American Association of School Administrators recommends the following in regard to a meeting place: There should be a definite time and place for school board meetings. The place should be one which is oonducive to good work.. With few, if any, exceptions, the office where the records are available is the best place for the meeting. In a large system there will usually be a board of education room suitably furnished to accomodate the board, the superintendent, and any others who regularly attend, as well as committees, delegations and the public generally. . . .20 The above reference holds that the number of meetings will depend upon “the volume of business to be transacted, the manner In which the meetings are conducted, the preparation that has been made in advance, and the efficiency of the superintendent in presenting his reports and proposals. .

. .21 There is unanimous agreement among the above authorities that the board of education should have a suitable place in which to hold regular meetings.

The authorities

agree that the volume of business will determine the frequency of meetings, and most of them recommend at least regular monthly meetings.

Practice on the average seems to support

this viewpoint.

^American Association of School Administrators, School Boards in Action, pp. 86-7. ^ I b l d ., pp. 86-7.

121

Criteria for state board meetings.

From the above

principles, the following criteria are formulated. Criterion 1. The state board of education should have a meeting room adequate in size, and located in or near the capitol building of the state. Criterion 2. State board meetings should be scheduled regularly once each month, and special meetings should be called when necessary. Order of business.

The order in which business is

taken up by a board is indicative of the efficiency with which the meeting has been conducted.

Almack recommends

that school boards should have an order of business which is followed regularly.

22

He states that the order itself

Is not so important as having an order of business and following It.

Almack lists the following principles which

should be followed in formulating an order of business: 1. The order of business should be complete. . . 2. The order of business should be fairly definite and specific. 3. The order of business should apoly to affairs which actually come before the board. . . . 4. It should be arranged so that things which ought to be attended to first come first. 5. It should also take account of complexity, difficulty, and delicacy of the tasks. The purely formal and simple should be taken up first; the more difficult and that which is more likely to cause different opinions should be taken up last. ^

^Almack, op. cl t., p. 90. ^ i b l d ., pp. 90-1.

122

Almack suggests that the order of business should be, (l) call to order and roll call, (2) reading of the minutes, (3) communications, officers,

(4) unfinished business,

(5) reports of

(6) new business, and (7) adjournment,^4

O l s e n ^ recommends that copies of board minutes be prepared Immediately following each meeting and that a copy be sent to each board member.

He holds that when this is

done there Is no need to take meeting time for the reading of the minutes.

Unless a correction is necessary the minutes

should stand approved as sent to the members. The National Education Association in its Research Bulletin of 1933 advocates a definite order of business for board meetings.

The above study reports that many boards

find it a good plan for the secretary to send each member a copy of the minutes of the previous meeting and a statement of business items to be presented at the next meeting.

The

study also takes the position that even though an order of business is Important that it is not solely responsible for the efficiency of the board meeting.

The board must organize

its work so that a minimum amount of time is spent on routine matters and that major problems receive major attention.

24Ibld., p. 91. 2®01sen, H. C., The vvprk of Boards of Education. 26u .e .a . Research Bulletin, The School Board Member. PP. 17-8.

123

Reeder says In regard to the handling of business in a Board that:

A procedure whereby the business to be transacted at a meeting of the board may be handled efficiently and expeditiously should be arranged. One excellent guarantee that the business will be thus handled is to see that a definite routine or order of business, is established. An order of business saves time and gives greater assurance that no Item of business will be forgotten during the meeting, buch order of business should be made a part of the rules and regulations of the board. Another guarantee to an efficient and expeditious conduct of the board's business is to formulate a definite parliamentary procedure to follow. . . .27 In regard to the handling of business In board meetings, the twenty-fourth Yearbook of the American Association of School Administrators takes the following stand: In preparation for the meetings the suoerintendent, or the secretary, or the two working together should prepare an agenda or schedule of topics for discussion and send it to all board members well In advance of the meetings. With the agenda should go copies of the resolutions to be proposed and pertinent data to support recommendations made. This advance material will enable board members st their convenience to give prior thought to the questions which will come up for decision and thus not only speed up the meeting but will also permit more mature study of the various orobiems under consideration. It should be understood that this agenda Is servant, not master. It will therefore be flexible and should not limit the meeting to the consideration of items listed.

^Reeder,

og. clt., p. 96.

124 A board of education should have an order of business from which variation should be made only for good reason. A good order of business will include the following, preferably in the order listed: call to order; roll call; establishment of quorum; reading and approval of minutes or approval without reading as mailed to members, with amendment if any changes or additions are made; hearing of delegations; report of superintendent; unfinished business; new business; communications; miscellaneous; and adjournment. It is important that tne report and recommendations of the superintendent come early In the meeting because they should determine largely the course to be followed. That there should be a method of transacting board business efficiently Is commonly agreed uoon by the above authorities.

Also, the manner In which that can be

accomplished Is commonly agreed upon. Criteria for the transaction of business.

The

principle has been established that there should be followed a method of transacting business efficiently in board meetings.

In the light of this principle, the following

criteria are established. Criterion 1. A state board of education should follow an order of business In its meetings. Only under exceptional conditions should deviations from the order be made. Criterion 2. Copies of minutes of the previous meeting and the agenda of business for the next meeting should be mailed to board members.

^American Association of School Administrators, op. cit., pp. 87-8.

125

Initiation of business.

Theisen^ examined the

fields of business and oity government to find principles that were followed in administrative organization.

He

found tne following three principles: 1.

A v^ide scope of authority is given the chief

executive. 2.

Responsibility for results is centered in the

chief executive. 3.

The board of control demands that the chief

executive and his assistants shall take the Initiative in matters of policy. Theisen found that school boards do not usually 30 follow the above principles. Olsen claims that the executive officer of the board should initiate business.

He says:

Except in rare or special Instances, nothing should be Introduced for consideration in board meetings unless it first has been submitted to the superintendent and he has prepared for the board all the available facts concerning it and incorporated these in a report to the board. . . .31

— The1 sen, W. W . , The City Superintendent and the Board of Education, pp. 99-100. 30Ibid., p. 124. 3^-Olsen, ojo. clt., p. 165.

126

Almack places the responsibility of initiating business in the board meetings upon the executive officer.32 Gubberly^ holds that it is the executive's duty to furnish information and to make recommendations, and it is the duty of the board to sit in judgement of the recommendations. Gubberly even goes so far as to say that in strictly professional matters a board snould be deprived by law of the right to act except upon the recommendation if its super intendent.

In 1923, the National Education Association

described the superintendent’s duty as that of presenting facts and making recommendations to the board.’ 34

In this

respect Reeder sayss Boards of education, however, should not enact legislation, should not make policies, without recommendations of their professional experts, particularly the recommendations of their chief executive officer; namely, the superintendent. . . . One of the chief functions of the superintendent of schools is to secure, organize, and to present to the board such information as it may desire or need. In a well-administered school system, not much, if any, legislation will be enacted by the board of education which has not been recommended by the superintendent.

^Almack,

op.

cit., pp. 44-60.

330ubberly, £. P.* Public School Administration, p. 207. 34N.h.A. Research Bulletin, The School Board Member, p. 16. 35Reeder,

o p . c i t ., p. 36.

127

The American Association of School Administrators describes one duty of the school superintendent as that of recom­ mending policies to the board for the improvement of the i*>/%

school system. Since Theisen made his study of city superintendents and boards of education in 1917, there has been little disagreement by authorities in school administration with the principle that the executive officer and his staff should initiate policy for the board's consideration. Criterion for the initiation of business.

From the

principle set forth in the paragraph above the following criterion is established. Criterion 1. Except in rare instances, all recom­ mendations brought before a state board of education should be made by the state superintendent or members of the department of education.

Application of Criteria Criteria established in the preceding section of this chapter are applied to the practices of the Indiana State Board of Education in regard to board meetings, the order of business pursued In meetings, and the initiation of business.

^American Association of School Administrators, o p

• olt., p .

.

128 Board meetings. Criterion 1. The state board of education should have a meeting room adequate in size and located in or near the Capitol building of the state. Criterion 1 is not met in Indiana.

When each

Commission meets separately, the meeting is held in the office of the State Superintendent; but when the entire Board meets it convenes in a larger room.

Usually the

meeting is held in the Supreme Court room or in a chamber of the legislature.

There is no room in the Statehouse

at Indianapolis that is set aside for board use. Criterion 2. State board meetings should be scheduled regularly once each month, and special meetings should be called when necessary. It has been shown that the 1945 law leaves the number of meetings up to each Commission, and under the law, each Commission is to meet separately.

When the frequency of

meetings is studied in Table Xli it is seen that the Commissions did not hold regular monthly meetings in the years of 1947-8.

Criterion 2 is not met in this respect.

Transaction of business. Criterion 1. A State Board of Education should follow an order of business In its meetings. Only under exceptional conditions should deviations from the order be made. The practices of the Indiana State Board of Education do not meet criterion one.

The Commission on Textbook

Adoption partially meets criterion one. for either of the other two Commissions.

This cannot be said

129

Criterion 2. Copies of minutes of the previous meeting and the agenda of business for the next meeting should be mailed to board members. At the present time, members of all Commissions of the Indiana Board reoeive copies of minutes of previous meetings.

Members are not sent an agenda of business for

the next meeting.

Therefore, criterion two is met only

partially at present. Initiation of business. Criterion 1. Except in rare instances, all recommendations brought before a state board of education should be made by the state superintendent or members of the department of education. The practices of the Indiana State Board of Education for the years of 1947-48 do not entirely meet this criterion. Table XIV shows that only 36 per cent of the business introduced to the Board came through the executive officer and staff members of the Department.

Table XV reveals that

board members Introduced a large percentage of the items of business In meetings of each of the Commissions.

In this

respect, the practices of the Commission on General Education meet the criterion more favorably than either of the other Commissions.

Practices of the Commission on Textbook

Adoption meet the criterion more completely than do those of the Commission on Teacher Training and Licensing.

^^Letter from State Superintendent Deane S. Walker to the writer, Nov. 16, 1949.

130

Board members, as individuals, and board committees were more active in introducing business in meetings of the Teacher Training and Licensing Commission than In either of the other two Commissions.

Board members and board

committees were slightly less active In initiating business in meetings of the Commission on General Education than In those of the Textbook Commission.

In Table XIV, the

percentages shown were taken for the Board as a whole and this presents a picture more favorable than the picture presented for each Commission, individually.

131

GhAfThh VI FUNG’ flONb OF THE BOARD

Introduction This chapter Is devoted to showing the development of functions of the Board. as follows:

It is divided Into fourteen sections

(l) school attendance; (2) classification of

elementary and secondary schools; (3) curriculum and courses of study; (5) special education for handicapped children; (6) teacher training and licensing; (?) textbook adoption; (8) vocational education; (9) vocational rehabilitation; (10) ap/^ointment of members to the board of trustees of Indiana University; (11) schoolhouse planning; (12) miscel­ laneous functions; (13) board rules and regulations, and (14) sumraary.

School Attendance The State Board of Education has had some responsi­ bility for trie enforcement of school attendance since the State passed its first compulsory scnool attendance law in 1S9?.1

Under this law a State Board of Attendance was

estn oil shed to enlorce school attendance.

Trie State Board of

Education appointed one of its members to serve on tne State

•^Indiana h a w s , 169?,

pp. 248-50.

132 Board of Attendance, and the first person appointed in this capacity was B. M. Greeting.*'

The State Board of Attendance

was responsible for the enforcement of school attendance until 1913.

In 1913, a law was passed which created a State

Board of Truancy.^

Two members of the State Board of Edu­

cation served on the State Board of Truancy.

The State

Superintendent, another member of the State Board of Edu­ cation, and the secretary of the Board of Charities comprised the membership of the new board.

The law gave increased power

to the new board. School Attendance Act of 1921.

Under this law, the

State Board of Education was made the State Board of Attendance.4

The law provided that the State Board of

Attendance should “elect from its membership annually a president and a secretary, and shall meet once a month at the call of its p r e s i d e n t . U n d e r the law the Board was required to: 1.

Appoint a state attendance officer and fix his

salary and his duties not otherwise provided for. 2.

Fix qualifications of attendance officers.

^Boqrd Minutes, Meeting of May 13, 1897. ^Indiana Eaws, 1913, pp. 16-25. 4Ibld.. 1921, pp. 337-54. 5lbld., 1921, p. 339.

133 3.

Design and require the use of a uniform system

of attendance reports, records and forms needed for the enforcement of the act. 4.

Perform all other duties necessary for full and

complete enforcement of the act. The Attendance Board was empowered to remove the state attendance officer at any time for just cause.

The

state attendance officer was made the executive officer of the Board of Attendance.

On April 15, the State Board of

Attendance voted that two members and the State Superin­ tendent were to select a person to become the state attendance officer when the new law became effective,^ In the next meeting, the Board voted the Committee the power to elect the state officer and to fix qualifications of local attendance officers.

On June 21, 1921,

Blanche Merry was appointed as state attendance officer.

In

this same meeting, Miss Merry recommended qualifications for local attendance officers which were approved by the Board. The Board also set the date for the election of county and city attendance officers.8

In the meeting of July 19, 1921,

Miss Merry reported on local attendance officer examinations that had been given. 6Board Minutes, Meeting of April 15, 1921, 7Ibid., Meeting of May 17* 1921. 8Ibid., Meeting of June 21, 1921.

134 Bower to remove local attendance officers.

Under the

blanket power granted the State Attendance Board by the law of 1921, the Board found it necessary to remove from office some local attendance officers.

Upon evidence presented by

W. H. Frazier, County Superintendent of Warren County, the state attendance officer recommended that the Board remove from office an attendance officer of that county for neglect of duty.

The Board adopted the recommendation and ruled

that the person was ineligible to serve further as an 9 attendance officer in Warren County. In 1924, a similar action was taken by the State Attendance Board in regard to the election of an attendance officer of Clark County.

The trustees of Clark County had

elected the individual to office In the face of a notice served on them that the said individual was not qualified. The State Board of Attendance on January 26, 1924, removed the individual from office.

Thus, the power of the State

Board to remove an individual from office because he could not qualify as an attendance officer was exercised.^ The State Board of Attendance and work permits. In 1929, the School Attendance Law of 1921 was amended to grant the State Board of Education or the State Industrial Board the power to revoke work permits at any time. ^Ibid., Meeting of November 1, 1922. ^ I b l d ., Meeting of January 26, 1924. ^ Indiana Laws, 1929, pp. 250-1.

135 Either of the above boards was authorized by this law to: 1.

Investigate the true age of any employed minor*

2.

Subpoena witnesses,

3.

Hear evidence,

4.

Require the production of relevant books or

documents. Both the State Board of Attendance and the State Industrial Board were required by the law to make such rules and regulations as were needed from time to time for the issuance of employment certificates.

The law specified that

the regulations must be consistent with the law and must promote uniformity and efficiency of the act. Changes in attendance laws.

In 193$, the Division

of Attendance was dropped from the Department, but in 1943, an act to amend attendance laws of 1921 and 1932 was passed^ The amendment placed the state attendance officer1s salary at a maximum of $3200 per year and provided that the State Superintendent was to prescribe his duties.

The State Board

of Attendance was reauired to appoint the officer.

The

Board was empowered to remove the officer at any time for cause.

The term of appointment was for four years. By an act of 19-5, the power to appoint the state

attendance officer was removed from the State Attendance Board and placed with the Governor. p Ibid.. 1943, p. 888.

The length of term of

136

the office was reduced to two years.

Under this law, the

State Superintendent was given powers formerly held by the Board,

The section of the law transferring powers from the

Board to the State Superintendent is as follows! . • . Governor shall appoint a state attendance officer w.,ose salary shall be thirty-two hundred dollars per year and the State Superintendent of Public Instructions (Instruction) shall prescribe his duties not otherwise provided for; fix the qualifications of attendance officers; design and require the use of a uniform system of attendance reports, records and forms needed for full enforcement of any or all of sections 1 to 17, inclusive of this act; and shall perform all other duties necessary for the full and complete interpretation and enforcement of sections 1 to 17, inclusive of this act. 13 The above act amended the Attendance Law of 1921. Even though the State Superintendent was given the power to fix qualifications of attendance officers, the Indiana Attorney General rendered an opinion to the effect that the power to license attendance officers still rested with the Commission on Teacher Training and L i c e n s i n g . I t is difricult to understand why the legislature would prescribe a btate Board of Attendance and in the same act give it little If any power.

Tne board minutes of IP47-48 reflect

no actions of tne Commissions on attendance.

•^ I n d i a n a L a w s , 1945, p. 1584.

^ O p i n i o n s of the Indiana Attorney General, 1945,

pp. 361-72.

137 Summary.

Even though the State Board of Education

was represented on the State Board of Attendance from 1897 to 1921, the State Board of Education was not given full responsibility as the State Board of Attendance until 1921. Under the law of 1921, the State Board was given the power and duties necessary to enforce the attendance lav/.

In

1929, the board’s powers were broadened to control work permits issued to minors.

The Board was authorized by the

1929 act to Investigate and hold hearings in regard to the validity of work permits.

In 1939, the Division of

Attendance of the Department of Education was discontinued, and in 1943, the law of 1921 was amended.

This amendment

made the state attendance officer responsible to the State Superintendent, although the state officer was appointed by the State Attendance Board* In 1945, the 1921 law was revised again.

Under this

law, the Governor appointed the state attendance officer and the State Superintendent was assigned all the cowers and duties formerly assigned to the State Attendance Board.

The

State Board of Education under the law is still designated as the State Attendance Board, but in the sample years of 1947-48, none of the Commissions acted upon any Item of business in regard to the administration or enforcement of the compulsory school attendance laws.

138 In 1945, the Attorney General of Indiana rendered an opinion that the authority to license attendance officers rested with the State Board of Education as designated under the license law of 1923.

Classification of Elementary and Secondary Schools In the following section of this chapter, the development of the classification of elementary and high schools is shown.

The actions of the Board performed in

exercising this function are also shown. Early efforts of the Board.

The first efforts of

the Board to commission high schools seem to have been brought about by action of the board of trustees of Indiana University.

The State University was desirous that its

freshmen should come to college with a sound background of academic subjects. To show the action of the trustees of the University, the following quotation is taken from a copy of a letter entered in the minutes of the State Board of Education; . . . In order to bring the University Into closer connection with the High Schools of the State — we recommend the following plan, viz., A Certificate from Certain High Schools (the Schools to be hereafter named by the State Board of Education) of a Satis­ factory examination sustained in the Preparatory Course, will entitle tne bearer to admittance to our Freshman

139 Glass, and the Faculty propose to admit no one as a student of the University (except those admitted to select studies) without such certificate from the Authorities of the High Schools,15 As a result of this letter, the Board appointed a committee to study the proposal and report at the next meeting.

The Board also in this meeting constructed a

questionnaire which was sent to various school corporations having high schools.

It notified them of the action of the

Indiana University Board of Trustees and requested infor­ mation concerning the high schools.

The questions were on

enrollment, length of course in years, number of teachers, extent of education of teachers, and whether or not the officials wished their high schools to become commissioned. Under the plan for the 1873-4 school year, 15 high schools were commissioned and action on seven requests for commissions was postponed. Dean reports that: The standardizing and accrediting procedures were to be based, at first, uoon the reports filed by the schools applying for this classification. The reports were supplemented later by information obtained from personal visitations of individual members of the State Board.

l5BpsLrd Minutes, Meeting of July 21# 1873 15Ibld., Meeting of December 4, 1873.

140

The minutes of the meetings of the State Hoard of Education clearly show that the reports were influenced by University requirements. There are numerous references to schools which were weak In Latin and science courses, and as n consequence, were denied the authority to issue certificates to their graduates.17 Board minutes show that much of the inspection of high schools was done by individual board members.

Bach

member would report on the high school he had visited and would recommend that the school be denied or granted a commission. In 1899, the Board divided the State into districts and assigned each board member to visit the schools in his district.

This plan was continued until 1913.^

From 1873 to 1913, the Board classified schools without direct legal authority.

The Board proceeded with

this action on a basis provided by the law of 1865.

The

general provision of the 1865 law was that the ^Board shall take cognizance of such questions as may arise in the practical administration of the school system not otherwise provided for and duly consider, discuss and determine the same.

^Dean, 0. R., The Development of State Control of Secondary Education in Indiana, p. 209. 18Indiann Department of rubiic Instruction, The State Board of Education, p. 41. •^Indiana Laws,

1865,

p. 34,

.

141 Delegation of school Inspection.

Inspection of

high schools along with the accreditation of teacher training Institutions and the development of regulations to supplement the teachers minimum salary law made the work of board members quite heavy.

The number of committees

appointed In the sample years of 1907-8 is evidence of the amount of work done by members* In 1913, a law was passed which authorized the State Superintendent with the approval of the Board to apooint a high scnool inspector.^

The duties undertaken by the State

Board in regard to Inspection of high schools under the 1865 law were assigned to the new high school Inspector.

A. 0.

Neal, previously superintendent of schools at Kokomo, was appointed under the 1913 law as the first state high school inspector.

PI

During the period between 1913 and 1921, the new department member Inspected the high schools of the State and reported regularly to the Board.

The reports Included

recommendations for various classifications of the schools that had been inspected.

The Board usually approved the

reports and recommendations of the Inspector.

Thus, the

Board delegated to a staff member a large portion of the work that it had previously performed.

20Ibld., 1913, p. 429, 2^Board Mlnutee, Meeting of Ji.y 22, 1913.

142

In 1921, a law was passed which made it mandatory that the State Superintendent with the approval of the State Board appoint one person to Inspect elementary and high O O

schools.It

was possible under the law to appoint one

additional assistant inspector if in the Judgement of the majority of board members such an employee was necessary. The new inspectors were to work under the direction of the State Superintendent and the State Board of Education. The duties of the inspectors described in the law were: 1.

To visit and inspect all public schools and to

confer with private and parochial school authorities with the purpose in mind of standardizing and improving the schools. 2.

To report at least once each year to the State

Board of Education who may authorize certificates of classi­ fication to such public schools as shall have met the standards and requirements of the State Board. For the first time in Its history, Indiana had a law which gave the State Board direct legal authority to classify schools according to standards of Its own making.

The law

gave the State Superintendent with the approval of the Board the cower to set the salaries of the Inspectors.

When

the law of 1921 became eftective, the Superintendent with board approval appointed an assistant school inspector.

^ I n d i a n a h a w s , 1921, pp. 512-14.

143

As a result of a bill passed in 1921, the State Superintendent or his representative was required to inspect the boys behoof at Plainfield,

upon a request by Amos W.

Butler, secretary of the State Board of Charities, the Dtate Board of Education authorised the inspection of the State's benevolent, charitable and correctional Institutions for children.^ The Board took the stand that It has the right to recognize a privately controlled high school and determine Its equivalency to the public high school.

Furthermore,

it took the position that the Board could not refuse to determine such equivalency.

Private and denominational

schools were issued certificates of equivalency.

This type 94

of action was decided upon by tne Board in 1907.^

Whlsier^u points out that school Inspectors function in two major ways; (l) they recommend schools for classifi­ cation on tne basis of existing requirements and conditions and (2) they revise standards and regulations to direct schools into more constructive and efficient procedures. Elementary and secondary school inspections are conducted under the authority given the Board by the lew of

2^honrd minutes, Meeting of May 17, 1921. QA

Ibid., Meeting of October 3, 1907. BSlndiana Department of Public Instruction, ojo. clt., p. 43.

144 1921.

At the present time, this function is under the

jurisdiction of the Commission on General Education. Development of standards for classification.

Board

minutes show that in the early years inspections were confined largely to:

(l) an examination of the curriculum;

(2) teacher licenses and training; (3 ) library; and (4) sanitary conditions existing in the schools.

Inspections

emphasized the physical facilities of the schools to a much greater extent than the Instructional programs. for classification were frequently revised.

Standards

They were

usually stiffened as the years went on. The weakness of classifying schools on the basis of Inspecting only the physical facilities of schools was recog­ nized.

This is revealed in the board minutes of a meeting

held on March 18, 1927.

State Superintendent Charles Miller

in this meeting suggested a change in policy for the Inspection Division.

He advocated that more time be spent In

inspecting teaching and not so much in Inspecting physical facilities.

There is no evidence In the minutes that the

Board accepted his suggestion. The standards established by the Board evolved as certain phases of the educational program of the State changed.

For the most part, standards pertaining to certi­

fication of teachers were changed after certification

145

requirements were raised.

Standards were affected by

conditions that existed In the field. In many cases, legislation altered standards that had been developed and adopted by the Bo»rd.

The standards

adopted undoubtedly served as an Incentive for schools to meet those standards.

Evidence of this fact is found in the

constant Increase in the number of schools meeting various classification requirements. It Is not the Intent of this study to set forth the specific standards that have been or are now used to evaluate schools.

Those may be found in various nubile?tions of the

Btate Department.

The most recent such publication is The

Administrative Handbook for Indiana Schools, 1948.

Standards

at present include all legal requirements for schools and rules adopted by the Board. Regulations are used in two ways.

They are used to

regulate chases of the school program not covered by law and to build upon the le-pal requirements.

Standards are not in

conflict with the law, and they are established as minimum requirements.

At present, they include the following:

1.

Meeting all statutory requirements for schools.

2.

Length of term.

3.

License qualifications and training of teachers.

4.

Records and record systems.

146 5.

Requirements for graduation.

6.

Amount per pupil spent on library materials.

7.

Ourrloular and extra-curricular offerings.

8.

Physical facilities.

9.

Length of periods.

10.

Teaching materials.

11.

Supervisory and administrative praotices.

12.

Promotional practices.

13.

Definitions of schools in which principals must be

employed. 14.

Guidance practices.^

There are four classifications of schools in Indiana* (l) certified; (2) continuous commission; (3) first-class commission; and (4) special first-class commission. In order for a school to be eligible for a continuous commission, it must meet all the requirements for a certified school plus those for a continuous commission.

A first-class

commissioned school must meet all the reouirements for a continuous commission plus those for the first-class commission. The special first-class commissioned school must meet all the requirements for a first-class commission plus those for the special first-class.

^Indiana Department of Public Instruction, The Administrative Handbook for Indiana Schools, pp. 92-112.

147 The present day standards for classification are different from those of the earlier days in that more emphasis is placed upon instructional, supervisory, and administrative practices that are carried on in the school. The legislature enacted a law in 1931 that prohibited the State Board from revoking the commission of a school because of the physical condition of the building.

The law is

still in effect,^ Board actions involved in the classification of schools.

An analysis of the board minutes for the sample

years of 1877-8, 1887-8, 1897-8, 1917-8, 1927-8, 1937-8, and 1947-8 reveal that the Board has performed the following duties in relation to the classification of schools. In regard to rules which set minimum standards the Board acted to*.

II.

1.

Bear suggestions and protests on proposed rules

2.

Formula!e rule s•

3.

Hold public hearings on rules.

4.

Adopt rules.

5.

Interpret existing rules.

6.

Enforce rules.

7.

Waive or relax rules In special cases.

The Board approved teaching materials.

^Indiana Department of Public Instruction, School L,aw of Indiana, 1946, p. 385.

148 III.

The Board classified schools from the following sources of information: !•

Hpon recommendations of individual hoard members, board committees, or staff members in the Department.

2m

From rej>orts submitted by local school officials.

3.

As a result of the Board, as a whole, making the inspection.

IV.

In classifying schools the Board acted to: 1. Raise the classification. 2.

Lower the classification.

3.

Unclassify.

4.

Continue the present classification*

5.

Warn schools that classification

was in

jeopardy. V.

The Board directed board members or staff members In the Department to Inspect schools.

VI.

The Board provided for a study of classification methods used in other states.

VII.

The Bo^rd approved the appointment of school inspectors upon the recommendation of the State Superintendent.

VIII.

The Board received delegations of citizens and school officials protesting proposed action in regard to classification.

149 Summary.

The hoard of trustees and faculty of

Indiana University are credited with initiating the Idea of commissioning high schools in Indiana.

The State Board of

Education In Indiana started commissioning high schools In 1Q73 and the practice has continued.

The original idea

behind the commissioning of high schools was to make high school graduates better college entrance material. Board members themselves inspected the high schools and made recommendations to the Board for classification in the years prior to 1913.

After 1913, the functions of classi­

fying high schools was directly legalized and a high school inspector was employed to do the inspecting.

The practice

of classifying high schools had been carried on forty years before it was given direct legal sanction. The classification of both high and elementary schools wa 9 direotly legalised in 1921*

An additional school

Inspector was employed to help In the inspection of schools as a result of the 1921 law. Since 1940, there has been a change in the emphasis in school inspections.

The change has been from inspecting

only the physical aspects to that of inspecting both physical aspects and Instructional and administrative practices. with this, the standards have been developed to cover all phases of the school program.

Along

150

At present, the Commission on General Education has Jurisdiction over the classification of elementary and secondary schools. The duties that have been performed by the Board, in exercising the function of classification of schools are summarized below: 1.

The Board, has established minimum standards, in

harmony with statutory requirements, which are used to evaluate schools for classification purposes, 2.

The Board has classified schools upon the results

of evaluations made by the application of minimum standards and statutory requirements. 3.

The Board has authorized the inspection of State

institutions for children. 4.

The Board has followed the practice since 1907 of

inspecting and classifying private and denominational schools.

School Curricula and Courses of Study The development of the responsibility of the Indiana State Board of Education in regard to the control of curricula and construction of courses of study is shown in this section of the chapter.

The duties of the Board

performed in the discharge of this responsibillty are also shown*

151 Early curriculum standards.

The first evidence of

an attempt to prescribe minimum curriculum standards for high schools appears in a questionnaire sent out by the Board.

The questionnaire was sent out by the Board on

August 15, 1873, and it proposed a curriculum to be met by schools wanting a commission.

The curriculum proposed

included Orthography, Reading, Geography, Grammar, Arith­ metic, United Four Books

States History, Composition, Word Analysis,

of Geometry, Algebra to General Theory of

Equations, Latin Grammar, Latin Prose Composition, Caesar*s Commentaries (two books), and Virgil (two books or an amount of Latin equal thereto).

op

This apparently was the first

attempt of the Board to prescribe courses for the high schools that sought a commission. Statutory provisions.

The legislature In 1907

enacted a law which required courses of study offered In non-commissioned high schools to be uniform.29

The uniform

course was

to be prescribed and amended by the State Board,

and it was

to be amended as theBoard saw fit*

The act also

enumerated courses that could be taught In the commissioned high schools.

Local school trustees were permitted to

^^Board Minutes, Meeting of July 21, 1873. 29Indiana Laws, 1907, pp. 323-4,

152

provide additional courses which were subject to review and approval by the State Board of Education.

Board minutes^

reveal that a committee on non-commissioned high schools was given the task of drawing up a course of study for non­ commissioned high schools.

On March 17, 1907, the report of

the committees on high school subjects was adopted.

In this

manner, the Board carried out the provisions of the 1907 act. The Board, by an act of 1909, was given the responsi­ bility of requiring the singing of the Star Spangled Banner In schools of the State upon all patriotic occasions.^1

The

Board was also to arrange to supply words and music in sufficient quantity to carry out the act. Under the Indiana Vocational Act of 1913, the Board was assigned the duty of outlining courses of study in agri­ culture, industrial work, and domestic science for elementary 32 grades. This was also required In the sarae areas for the high schools.

The Board was authorized and directed to

investigate and aid in. the introduction of industrial, agri­ cultural, and domestic science education.

Through 1914 and

1915, board minutes Indicate that the Board had a heavy burden placed upon it by the act of 1913.

One of its biggest

problems was to educate the people of the rural areas In the purposes of vocational education. ^ B o a r d Minutes, Meeting of March 14, 1907, 31 Indiana L a w s , 1909, pp. 353-7,

32I b l d . , 1915,

pp. 37-46.

153 In 1917, the National Congress passed the Smith-Kughes Law which purported to stimulate vocational education below college grade in the schools of the various states. Indiana reacted to the federal law by passing an act to accept the provisions of the Smith-Hughes L a w . ^

The

Indiana Act granted full powers to the Board to take steps to promote vocational education.

The plans required of the

State Board under the Smith-Hughes Act included those for courses of study and methods of instruction.

Among other

things, the Board was to show how appropriations were going to be used. In 1921, the State Board was made responsible to prescribe and provide courses of vocational training for vocational rehabilitation. Considerable pressure was being placed upon the State Board from outside groups to liberalize the requirements for granting credit in the so-called ‘'lighter subjects" and to liberalize high school graduation requirements. The Committee of Eleven headed by Mil Stewart, principal of Arsenal Technical High School of Indianapolis, protested the rigid requirements prescribed by the State 34 Board for high school graduation. The Committee of Eleven represented city and town superintendents and principals of the state.

As a result of the protest, the State Board

5SIbld.■ 1917, pp. 344-5. 34Board Minutes, Meeting of April 12, 1918.

154 appointed a joint conference committee, consisting of an equal number of representatives of the State Board of Edu­ cation and of the Committee of Eleven, to recommend a working plan for the substitution of subjects and courses for the prescribed requirements for high school graduation. Out of the report of the Joint committee came recom­ mendations that were to set the general curriculum pattern for Indiana high schools for the next thirty years.

The

following quotation sets forth the recommendations and the philosophy of the committee.

The report recommended:

1. A basic group of academic studies to be taken by all students in all high schools, amounting to 16 credits. 2. A choice of additional subjects varied in character to suit the needs of different pupils to the extent of 16 credits. The combination of the two groups of studies constitutes a four years high school course of 32 credits, capable of being organized into group curricula of the following types vis. - General, Academic, Household Arts, Agriculture, Industrial Arts, Commercial, Music or Art. These type curricula adapt themselves to the needs and resources of the various school communities and what is equally important provide elasticity for meeting the needs of individual pupils. College entrance requirements have been provided for, but pupils not Intending to go to college may, under tills plan, obtain four years of high school training In which approximately one-half their time may be given to vocational or commercial subjects and from which the study of foreign language may be omitted.35

^ I b l d .t Meeting of June '21, 1918.

155

The report of the joint committee set forth recom­ mendations which were compatible with the theory of the times and well ahead of practice.

It is interesting to note

that the Committee of Eleven was made up of public scnool superintendents and principals. Was this a rebellion against the academic influence of a State Board that was dominated by the thinking of college professors?

Board minutes indicate, that from this

time up to the present, public school employees consistently influenced the action of the State Board. The Indiana General Assembly, in 1917, passed a law that permitted local school corporations that had commissioned high schools to establish junior high schools.'

Under this

act, the State Board was assigned the duty of approving junior high school curricular offerings and of publishing suggested courses of study for junior high school subjects. In July of 1919, the Junior high school committee of the State Board recommended courses of study for junior high schools.57

The recommendations prescribed course require­

ments for grades seven and eight, courses for six-year high schools, courses for city junior high schools, and requirements for graduation.

^ I n d i a n a L a w s , 1919, 5 7 hoard Minutes,

pp. ^40-i.

Meeting of July 14, 1919.

156

The State Board, under an act of 1919, was given the responsibility of prescribing "suitable courses of instruction in physical education for all pupils enrolled in private and public schools of tne State."58

The act applied only to

schools in cities or towns of 5000 or more population. The law prescribed that the courses of study should be adapted to the ages and capabilities of children.

The

Board was given discretionary power In prescribing the courses of study.

The act empowered the Board "to determine

when courses In physical education shall be established and where teachers of physical education shall be employed,rt39 The State Superintendent upon the advice of the Board was authorized to employ special assistants to secure the establishment and maintenance of courses in physical education in the schools.

As a result of this act, the Board employed

an Indiana University professor of physical education to construct a course of study in physical education. In 1923, the legislature passed an act prescribing the courses to be taught in commissioned high schools. Section one of the act Is quoted below*.

58 Indlana h a w s , 1919, pp. 682-6. 39Ibid., 1s sed a/}lieh

required the Btate Board to furnish questions to county suoerintendents for the examinations.

7Q

There were to be

six grades of licenses Issued and the 3tnte Board

s

rso aired to fix the standards for all classes of the licenses. Dean

summarizes the function of the State Board in

licensing teachers during this period by saying:

^ X b i d ., 1889, n , op.

p. 86.

cit.,

Indiana Laws?

p. 134.

1899,

pp. 486-90.

195 • • . Prior to 1907, much of its time was devoted to matters connected with teachers' exami­ nations* Some of the more important duties included the development of certificating standards; the preparation of examination questions; the super­ vision of examinations; and the grading of manu­ scripts* Each of these areas presented numerous problems. But in all cases the State Board was more or less free to exercise its own discretion. Many of the problems are recorded in the official minutes of the meetings of the State Board. For example, there were occasional irregularities in examination practices. The State Board conducted investigations and made suggestions for the solution of problems. The control involved in legislative action relative to certification was usually delegated to the State Board of Education. This legislative policy apparently tended to strengthen still further the control of the Board over certification. It was not until 1899, however, that the high school license was separated from the license required in the common schools.

The work of the State Board of Education had been extended so greatly by 1899 that the office of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction was delegated the license-issuing function. Although the State Board continued its general supervision over the certificating procedures the new agency assumed many of the details and matters of routine. The State Board of Education, under a law enacted in 1907, became the State Teachers Training Board.81

In this

capacity, it was to prepare teacher training curricula and to accredit teacher training institutions.

80Dean, op. clt., pp. 135-6. 81Indiana haws, 1907, pp. 451-2.

In 1919, an act

196 was passed authorizing the State Teachers Training Board to establish two and four year courses in accredited schools.88 The act also authorized the Board to approve curricula for special teachers and supervisors which were to be valid for four years.

This act, as did previous acts, authorized

the Board to revoke certificates upon presentation of adequate evidence.

The 1919 law authorized the State Superintendent with the approval of the Board to appoint a person to Inspect teacher training institutions.

The Board was also authorized

to make regulations which governed the conversions of some licenses to life certificates.

Along with this, the State

Board was authorized to validate out-of-state licenses. The 1921 law granted the Board additional power. This law enabled the Board to establish a three year training course for teachers and authorized the Board to credit some military service toward life licenses.

Dean points out that:

The examination system was continued after 1907 but additional training was required for the higher certificates. In some cases certificates were granted without examination. But those were the exceptions and not the general practice.84

82Ibld., 1919, pp. 753-6. 83Ibld., 1921, pp. 266-7. 84Dean, op. clt., p. 136.

197

From 1865 to 1921, there was a change in legislative provisions for the licensing of teachers.

The State Board

was given more responsibility for issuing licenses and controlling offerings of teacher training institutions.

The

trend was away from the examination system of licensing to granting licenses upon the completion of prescribed curricula. Board actions on teacher training and licensing from 1665 to 1925.

Board minutes were analyzed for the sample

years of 1857 and 1859, 1867-8, 1877-8, 1897-8, 1907-8, and 1917-8, to discover what the Board did in regard to carrying out the law during 1865 to 1923.

Minutes for some years were

read that were not among those years listed above.

It was

revealed that tne Board acted in the following ways: I.

Board members constructed examination questions,

gave them, and graded the answers. II.

Relative to the certification of teachers, the

Board:

III.

1.

Formulated certification requirements.

2.

Authorized the Issuance of certificates.

3.

Validated certificates.

4.

Revoked certificates.

5.

Suspended one certificate, for a time.

The Board sought Interpretations of teacher

training and licensing laws.

198 IV.

The Board constructed and published bulletins

and forms pertaining to teacher licensing and training. V.

In regard to the adoption and use of rules

pertaining to teacher training and licensing, the Board acted to: 1.

Hear suggestions and protests on proposed rules.

VI. VII. VIII.

2.

Formulate rules.

3.

Adopt rules.

4.

Interpret existing rules.

5.

Enforce rules.

The Board formulated teacher training curricula. The Board approved teacher training curricula. The board members inspected teacher training

institutions. IX.

The Board granted or refused accreditation to

teacher training institutions. X. XI.

The Board approved one critic teacher. The Board endorsed and promoted in-service

training programs (county institutes). XII.

In one case, the Board regulated the teacher

training courses offered In summer school. XIII.

The Board acted once to regulate the description

of teacher training courses In college catalogues.

199 XIV,

The Board acted to regulate the transfer of

credits among teacher training institutions, The certification law of 1923.

The certification

law of 1923 gave complete responsibility to the State Board for the licensing of public school employees.

Section one

of the act reads as follows! The licensing of all superintendents, super­ visors, principals, teachers, attendance officers, and of all other regular public school employes (employees) shall hereafter be vested in the state board of education.®5 The law provided that the Board should issue all licenses provided for in the act through its executive officer, the State Superintendent.

Sections four and five

of the act are quoted below to show the powers and duties of the Board! All details not provided for In this act connected with the licensing of regular public school employes (the requirements as to aoademic and professional preparation for each kind and grade of license issued, the conversion of one kind of license Into another kind, the Issuing of permits to teach a high school branch related to branches for which the teacher holds a license, the accrediting of teacher-training institutions, the issuing of licenses on credentials, the exchange and renewal of licenses, the endorsement of licenses of other states, the acceptance of credentials from Institutions of other states, the kind and grade of license required for given positions, the size of elementary school requiring a principal with a ^ 5Indiana h a w s , 1923, p. 36.

200 principal's license, etc.) shall be determined, on the recommendation of the state superintendent, by the state board of education. To encourage the professional training of teachers, and to facilitate the licensing of them, the state board of education is authorized and directed to arrange for a regular system of professional instruction throughout the state; to accredit such schools and professional departments of schools for the training of teachers as comply with the rules and regulations of the board and to inspect the same; to recommend and approve courses of study for the training of particular kinds of teachers in such accredited schools and accredited departments of schools; and to specify the kinds and grades of licenses that will be granted to graduates of given courses. . . .86 Other duties and powers assigned to the Board by the law are as follows: 1.

The Board was authorized to require local school

superintendents to help in the licensing of teachers. 2.

The Board was authorized to discontinue licenses

other than first grade licenses. 3*

The Board was to prescribe standards by which

licenses lower than first grade could be raised or renewed. 4.

The law empowered the Board to revoke licenses

upon the written recommendation of the State Superintendent. 5.

The lav/ required the Board from time to time to

publish bulletins containing information on licenses for school employees. Charles h, Curry, State Supervisor of Teacher Training discussed the 1923 licensing law with the Board at SBIbid., 1923, pp. 36-50*

201

a meeting held on March 13, 1923,

87

He pointed out the

chief features of the hill as follows! 1.

All licenses are to be granted by the State Board

through the Superintendent. 2.

The State Board on recommendation of the State

Superintendent must determine the details necessary for carrying out the act. 3.

The Board is given complete power in the matter

of accrediting schools and courses for teacher training. 4.

After December 1, 1923, all licenses are to be

issued only on credentials.

Examinations, therefore,

cease

in October. 5.

Beginning teachers in the elementary school after

December 1, 1923, must be graduates of four year high school courses with 36 weeks of professional training beyond such graduation. 6.

All superintendents and principals as well as

teachers and other regular school employees must hold licenses under the act, 7. to be

All licenses in force on December 1, 1923, are

exchanged

for new licenses after being equated on

the basis of the standards set forth in the law.

87Board hl n u t e s , Alee ting of March 13,

1923.

202

8.

The grade average wage attached to each kind of

license for minimum salary purposes must be designated by the State Board. The above review of Mr. Curry's report presents the bill as the Board had to face It after its passage.

The

bill was prepared under the direction of the Indiana Survey Commission and introduced in the House by L. A. Pittenger, representative of Delaware County.

It passed both houses

and was signed by the Governor on February 19, 1913.

No

change was made In the law during its course of passage. On April 10, Charles Curry again came before the Board with plans for moving from the old laws to the new law.

He outlined some of the problems that the Board

faced In developing rules and regulations with which to administer the new law.

The problems as he saw them are

listed below. 1.

Conditions must be established governing the

exchange of licenses. 2.

Requirements must be set up for specialized

licenses. 3.

Requirements must be developed which are not

specified In the law.

&Q X b l d ., Meeting of April 10, 1923

203

4.

There must be plans for required experience for

the various kinds of licenses. 5.

There must he plans to take care of cases where

failure to meet the requirements of the law is due to technical deficiencies. 6.

There must be plans by which teachers who are

temporarily out of the profession may be restored to service.

7.

There must be plans for exchange of State Normal

School diplomas Issued under the law of 1869. It is evident from the problems presented by Mr. Curry that the Board faced a very complex situation.

In

1923, the March and June meetings of the Board were spent In adopting regulations to govern the change to the new law. On June 16, 1923, the Board adopted a resolution to organize a division of teacher training and licensing in the 0Q Department. ~ The resolution also covered the positions to be created in the new division. were created:

The following positions

(l) a director of teacher licensing;

secretary; (3) a clerk; (4) an assistant clerk;

(2) a

(5) a

stenographer; and (6) such temporary assistance as the work of the division required,

rlans were also made for an

inspector of teacher training Institutions and a stenographer.

89i b i a . . Meeting of June 16, 1923.

204 Following this resolution,

t .Qe Board Tilled the positions as

recommended by the State Superintendent, Board minutes show that in s. meeting of November 9, 192o,

the inspector of teacher training institutions

recommended approval of critic teachers.

This was the first

such action of the Board under the 1923 law. Throughout meetings held in 1924 and 1925,

the Board

was kept quite busy in putting the new law into effect.

The

business of establishing course requirements for different licenses and of exchanging old licenses for new was large. There

seemed to be three problems which faced the Board In

regard to teacher training. 1.

They were:

The problem of differentiating work according to

the resources of the respective institutions. 2.

The problem of harmonising the requirements of

orol essional training with the scholastic standards of collegiate work. o. facilities,

The problem of providing adequate training c especially those required for practice teaching."

Problem three seemed to have been the most perplexing problem of all.

From the minutes,

the conclusion may be

drawn that there was harmonious cooperation exhibited by

^°Ibid.,

Meeting of June 27, 1924

205 all In work ing out the essentials of the new law.

There

seemed to be widespread belief in the law. The Attorn ey General of the State has at different times upheld the authority of the Board under the 1025 law. In an opinion given to State Superintendent Sherwood in 1925,

the At t o r n e y General held that the State Board \vas

wi thi n its authority In authorizing the State Superintendent to issue permits in some areas when properly licensed persons could not be found. Again In 1936 s, the Attorney General held that the Board had the authority to exceed license requirements as

QO

set forth in the law.*'"

The opinion was rendered,

to the authority of the Board,

In regard

to require four years college

training as a prerequisite for an elementary t e a c h e r 1s license.

In 1 9 3 9 y the Attorney General gave an opinion that

the Board had the authority,

under the 1923 law,

to require

93 a m a s t e r ’s degree for an administrative license.'

In 194.4, the Att orne y General held that the State Board did not have the autnority to license school secre-

94

taries under the present law.'

pp.

The Attorney General cited

^ Opinions of the Indiana Attorney G e n e r a l , 192°, 47-9. 9 ^l b l d . , 1936, ®blbid.,

pp. 303-5.

1939, pp.

9 "Ibid., 1944,

57-8.

pp. 411-2.

206 several court cases to show that school secretaries perform ministerial functions and not discretionary functions, and he held that the statutes failed to delegate authority to the Board to Issue licenses to school secretaries. In 1945, Superintendent Aalan asked If the Commission of Teacher Training and Licensing had the authority and power to approve properly certified teaching experience in the armed forces, month for month, to count on the conversion QR of a regular license to a life license.' The Attorney General's opinion was rendered In the affirmative. Again In 1945, Malan asked the Attorney General if school attendance officers were teachers as defined in Chapter 331, Acts of 1945.

The Attorney General referred

to the licensing law of 1923 for his answer.

The Attorney

General said: from the foregoing statutes it is clear that attendance officers for many years have been licensed by the State Board of education, and under the 1945 Acts above quoted are licensed by a licensing board of the state department of education as a prerequisite to the performance of their work.-6 It has been held throughout the various opinions that where the action of the Board is within the authority

95lbld., 1945, pp. 339-40.

96Ibia., 1945, pp. 361-72.

207 delegated by statute that the Board has power to act.

The

Board has m u c h power delegated to it by the 1923 license law. At the present time,

the Commission on Teacher Training and

Licensing is vested with the authority delegated to the State Board und er the 1923 act. Board action on teacher training and licensing under the 1923 l a w .

An analysis of the board minutes was made

for the years,

1923-5,

1927-8,

1937-8,

and 1942-8.

The

analysis shows that the Board acted as follows: I.

The Board adopted a plan for the evaluation of

military service and training to county towards licenses. II.

The Board e.dvised and supported the State Superin­

tendent in his actions on teacher training and licensing. III. education, IV.

The Board authorized research studies on teacher and supply and demand of teachers. The Board carried on a program of teacher

recruitment. V.

The Board approved appointments to the Division

of Teacher Training and Licensing. Vi.

Relative to the certification of school employees,

the B o a r d : 1.

Formulated certification requirements.

2.

Authorized the issuance of certificates and permits.

208

3.

Validated certificates.

4.

Revoked certificates.

VII.

The Board sought interpretations of the licensing

law of 1983. VIII.

The Board authorised the construction and publi­

cation of bulletins and forms. IX.

In regard to the adoption and use of rules

pertaining to teacher training and licensing, the Board acted to: 1.

Hear suggestions and protests on prooosed rules.

X,

2.

Formulate rules.

3*

Adopt rules.

4.

Held public hearings on proposed rules.

5.

Interpret existing rules.

6.

Enforce rules.

7.

^aive or relax rules in special cases.

The Board heard reports on licenses issued and

fees collected. XI.

The Board directed that certain teacher training

institutions be inspected. XII.

The board members themselves inspected some teacher

training institutions. XIII.

Tne Board accredited teacher training institutions.

209 XIV.

The hoard formulated curriculum patterns for

teacher training Institutions. XV.

The Board

approved teacher training curricula.

XVI.

The Board

approved critic teachers.

XVII.

The Board

acted to regulate the size of teacher

training classes. XVIII.

The Board regulated the establishment of centers

for student teaching. XIX.

The Board approved agreements and contracts

between teacher training institutions and cooperating public schools. XX.

The Board acted to endorse and promote In-service

training programs. XXI.

The Board

acted on requests for waiving of rules

governing college entrance by

teachers that could not meet

teacher training entrance requirements. XXII.

The Board regulated extension courses and

correspondence courses in teacher training. XXIII.

The Board acted to regulate teacher training courses

offered In summer schools. XXIV.

The Board regulated the transfer of credits among

teacher training Institutions. XXV.

The Board acted to regulate descriptions of teacher

training courses in college bulletins.

210 The analysis of the actions of the minutes for the sample years of 1927-8, 1937-8, and 1947-8 shows that the Board acted more frequently on some phases of teacher training and licensing than on others.

The four phases

upon which the Board acted most frequently are listed below: 1.

The promulgation and use of rules to regulate

teacher training and licensing. 2.

The certification of school employees.

3.

The inspection and accreditation of teacher

training institutions. 4.

The approval of critic teachers.

Board minutes fail to reveal that the Board approved the appointments to the Division of Teacher Training and licensing between 1941 and 1949.

The Board did make such

approvals in 1923 and 1927-8. Summary.

There are three distinct stages In the

growth of the teacher training and licensing function in Indiana; the first stage is that from 1865 to 1907 when the State Board controlled partially the teacher training and licensing; the second stage Is that from 1907 to 1923 when the Board was authorized to control teacher training in the institutions and partially controlled licensing; and the third stage is that from 1923 to the present time when the Board exercised complete authority over teacher training s.nd licensing.

211

tor the most part, the Board has exercised the function of controlling teacuer training and licensing under the authority of the law.

btep by step, legislation

has consistently moved in tne direction of vesting all authority for the function in the Btste Board. The 19 83 law gave the Board authority to fill in the details of the act to make it workable.

In 1923 and 1924,

the Board had considerable difficulty In gearing the State and Itself to function under the 1923 licensing law.

The

Board authorized an expansion of the Department of Bublic Instruction to carry out the law.

A Division of Teacher

Training and Licensing was created and personnel sufficient to man the Division was employed. The Attorney General has held that the 1983 law authorized the Board, to exceed tne minimum requirements for lice nses prescribed In the law, and the Board has acted to do this.

In regard to other powers, the Attorney General

has held that: 1.

The Board has the power to authorize the State

Luperintendent to issue 2.

permits to teachers.

The Board has authority

to require four years

training of elementary teachers. 3.

degree

The Board has authority

to require a master's

as& orerequislte to an administrative

license.

212

4.

The Board does not have the authority to license

school secretaries because the nature of the schoolsecre­ taries work is ministerial and not discretionary. 5.

The Commission on Teacher Training and Licensing

has the power to exercise the function of teac±ier training and licensing. 6.

The Commission on Teacher Training and Licensing

has tne authority to evaluate military teaching experience to count as regular teaching experience in converting a regular license to a life license. 7.

The Commission on TeacherTraining

and Licensing

should license attendance officers. Throughout most of the opinions of

the Attorney

General in regard to the power of the Board under the 1923 law, the Attorney General has held that where the action of the Board is within tne authority delegated by thelaw

the

Board has power to act. The Board has issued, from time to time, bulletins to set forth licensing requirements.

The latest bulletin Issued

on teacher education Is Bulletin 192, entitled Handbook on Teacher Education in Indiana.

213

Textbook Adoption The development of the function of textbook adoption by the State Board Is divided into four parts:

(l) textbook

adoption from 1853 to 1889;

(2) the State Board and textbook

adoption from 1889 to 1945;

(3) the multiple textbook law of

1945; and (4) actions of the Board in textbook adoption. Textbook adoption from 1853 to 1889.

The School

Law of 1852 prescribed as a duty of the State Board Mthe introducing of uniform school books.

97

Board minutes for

1853 show that the Board did prescribe texts for the common schools, but the law of 1852 provided no way to force schools to use such adoptions.

The lists were revised several

times before the reorganization bill of 1865 was passed. 1865 law did not require the Board to adopt textbooks.

The In

1873, an act was passed which made it the duty of county boards of education to adopt textbooks.^8 by county boards from 1873 until 1889.

Texts were adopted

There resulted a

lack of uniformity in the texts used and there was much complaint about the practice. The State Board and textbook adoption from 1889 to 1945.

In 1889 an act was passed which made the State Board 9*7

Indiana Laws, 1852, p. 457.

^ I n d i a n a Department of rublic Instruction, The State Board of Education of Indiana, pp. 32-3.

pi 6 tv -h

of Education a Board of School Book Commissioners. ^

.

The

law provided that the Board could either adopt printed texts or secure compilations and have the books printed by the State.

Texts were to be selected in spelling, reading, arithmetic, geography, States,

Engl ish grammar,

physiology,

history of the United

and a graded series of writing books.

not to be inferior to those in use. Board to advertise for bids. publishing companies,

The books were

The law required the

Bids could be submitted from

authors of unpublished books,

and from

persons who would agree to compile the needed books.

The

Board was given the right to reject any and all bids. In 1891,

the law of 1689 was revised by adding more

subjects for which books were to be adopted.^ 0

This

amendment was followed by another in 1893 which authorized the Board to determine if revisions were needed in adopted

books and to proceed with such revision if n e e d e d . T h e revisions could not be made oftener than once each five years.

In 19C1,

an act was passed which amended the act of

1693 to the extent that all books except histories and geographies could not be changed oftener than once each five years.

102

" Indiana laws, 1889, pp. 74-81. 1Q0lbld., 1891, pp. 99-106. lOllbid., 1893, pp. 165-74. 102Ibid., 1901, p. 489.

215 The law of 1889 was contested as to Its consti­ tutionality and also as to the power of the legislature to require the use of state-adopted books.

In 1890, the Indiana

Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law of 1889.

103

The decision of the court was that the legislature

has complete power over the public schools and that it has the power to require a designated series of books to be used in the schools and to require that the books shall be obtained by school officers from the person or firm to whom the contract was awarded.

The court neld that the legis­

lature may prescribe regulations for using the books and how the books may be obtained and distributed. The power of the Board of School Book Commissioners in regard to tne adoption of textbooks is expressed quite clearly by Judge Uc^aster of the Indiana Appellate Court in 1905 when he said: The state board of education and the state board of school book commissioners are creatures of legislative enactment. They exist by virtue of the statute, and they have no power, and can not exercise any authority, except that which is conferred upon them by statute. They may be regarded as agents of the State, by virtue of which they act for the State in the interest of all the people. The scope of their agency is prescribed by statute, and by the statute they are commissioned to do

“QBindiana Decimal digest, vol. 13, pp. 412-4; Clark v. Haworth,"122Tnd. 462. 23 N.E. 946 (1890).

216

specific things, and are directed as to the manner in which these must be done. Beyond the bounds of statute they can not go, and they can bind the State only while acting within their authority. . . The case arose over what Silver Burdett and Company contended was a violation of contract.

The State Board had

asked the company to revise one of its books that was a regular, adopted text.

After Silver Burdett and Company

revised the book, the State Board refused to re-adopt It upon the grounds that it was unsatisfactory.

Silver Burdett

contended that It had a verbal contract with the Board, because the Board had passed a resolution asking for a revision.

Judge McMaster held that the resolution was not a

contract.

He further ruled that a revision called for a

new contract with the contractor giving bond.

No bond had

been given. In another case, where a publishing company had a series of writing books adopted by the Indiana State Board of Schoc-l Book Commissioners and the school trustees of Lafayette School City refused to use them, the IndianaSupreme Court mandated the board of trustees to supply 105 pupils with the books. The court ruled that It was the

-^^Silver Burdett and Go. j£. Indiana State Board of Education, et,. al., 35 Ind. App. 438 (1905). lOB^chool City of LaFayette v. State ex rel. Baton, 175 Ind. 147 (1911).

217

imperative duty of school officers of the State to provide textbooks contracted for by the State. In 1903, the Board was authorised by a law to adopt a primer for use In the s c h o o l s . T h e

use of the primer

was to be optional In cities of 5000 or more population. In 1905? another law was passed which extended the period of adoption to 10 years for some books.

The Board was

given the right upon a two-thirds vote of its members to cancel the contract for any book at the end of five years. In 1909, another law was passed which set the period of adoption at five years and made It unlawful for the price of books adopted in Indiana to be in excess of the price of the same books adopted anywhere in the United States.

10ft

The law also made it unlawful for board members to be financially interested in any of the

booksadopted.

Until 1913, all texts had been adopted for the eight grades in elementary schools.

In 1913, a law was passed

which required adoptions of textbooks for high schools. Single texts were to be adopted by the Board in subjects

IQSlndlana l»aws, 1903, p. 117. IQ?Ibid., 1905* pp. 163-4. 108Ibid., 1909, pp. 377-9. 1Q9Ibid., 1913, pp. 115-6.

218 listed in the law except in botany, zoology, physics and agricultural botany. were to be adopted.

In each of these subjects, four books The Board was authorized, to select

single or elective texts for subjects not named in the law. In all other respects, the Board was to be governed by the IS89 law and its subsequent amendments.

The Board was given

the power to fix the price limit on any text or series of texts.

Up to this time, the price had usually been

prescribed by the statutes.

Price fixing by the Board and

multiple adoptions in some subjects were new features to appear in Indiana textbook adoption laws. In 1917, an act was passed ?/hich described in detail the conditions under which texts could be adopted.

] ]0

The

act limited the Board in the amount of discretion which it could exercise in adopting texts.

The junior nigh school

law of 1919 authorized the Board to adopt textbooks for use 111 in junior high schools. In 1921 a bill was passed which autnorlzed the Board of School Book Commissioners and local school trustees to purchase textbooks from publishers and sell them to pupils.11^

H Olbid., 1917, pp. 539-42. ii;LIbid., 1919, pp. 440-1.

219 State Superintendent MoMurrsy In 1937 asked the Attorney General If local adoptions of texts not adopted by the State Board for high schools would oe superceded by later state adoptions.

The Attorney General replied, that

the state adoption would supercede the local adoption and that all high schools of the State teaching said subjects would be required to use the books. The legislature,

In 19z:3, enacted a law which

required multiple adoptions of texts for all credit subjects in high schools.

A list of three texts was required by

the law for each subject.

The adoptions were to be made for

a term of five years as contracts expired.

The Board was not

required to adopt three texts in a subject for which three texts were not available.

This law seemed to be an

elaboration of the 1913 law. 1.

The act required the Board to*.

Carefully examine such books as are submitted for

approval and to meet at a designated time and place for a p orov ing books. 2.

Take into consideration size, quality as to

material,

subject matter, style of binding, mechanical

execution, and the price of the oook.

llgOplnlons of the Indiana Attorney General, 1937, pp. 682-3. -^Indiana haws, IPAo, pp. 700-705.

220 3.

Enter Into properly drawn contracts approved as

to legal form by the Attorney General, setting forth the terras, specifications, price, and other necessary regu­ lations and provisions. 4.

Approve only books in which no board member has

a financial interest.

If such is found to be, the Board

shall discontinue the approval. 5.

Prescribe rules and regulations consistent with

the provisions of this act to fully execute its intent and purposes. Under the law, the Governor was empowered to cancel contracts if Indiana is charged higher prices for books than other states. Tne multiple textbook law of 1945.

The Commission

on Textbook Adoption of the State Board is now adopting texts under the 1945 law.

Section one of the act Is quoted

below: ine Btate Board of Education, hereinafter referred to as the board, shall make multiple adoptions of textbooks and enter Into contracts with publishers of textbooks to furnish them at fixed prices, so that there shall be a multiple list of textbooks for all subjects in all grades of the public schools in the otate oi Indiana.115

115Ibid., 1945, pp. 1105-11.

221

The act get forth the following provisions in addition to the above; 1.

The Board is required to make multiple adoptions

and enter into contracts with publishers to furnish text­ books at fixed prices, so that there will be a multiple list of textbooks in all grades of the public schools of Indiana. 2.

The above applies only to subjects for which

credit is offered. 5.

After contracts expire, the Board must adopt and

enter into a new contract for three textbooks for each subject and grade, providing three are submitted. 4.

In case of readers for the first three grades,

the Board must adopt and enter into contract for three texts and six supplementary texts. 5.

Notice of the board's meeting for adoptions must

be publicized 30 days orior to the time of adoption in two daily newspapers having not less than 85,000 paid circu­ lation. 6.

The Board is required to adopt a multiple list

three books for each new subject introduced and

taught In any

grades. 7.

Contracts must be for five years.

The duties of the Board as prescribed by the act are to:

of

222

1.

Carefully examine books that are submitted.

2.

Meet at a time and place announced for final

approval. 3.

Take into consideration the size and quality as

to material,

subject matter,

style of binding, mechanical

execution of such books, and the price. 4.

Enter into properly drawn contracts approved as to

legal form by the Attorney General,

setting forth the terms,

specifications, price, and other necessary regulations and provisions. 5.

Adopt no book In which any member of the Board has

a direct or Indirect financial interest. discontinued, 6.

Approval is to be

If the Board finds that such is the case.

Prescribe rules and regulations, consistent with

the act, to execute its Intent and purposes, if needed. 7.

Examine lists of local adoptions, and if the text­

books listed deviate from the state lists, the Board Is required to withdraw and cancel the commission of the offending school or schools. The act repeals all laws or parts of laws in conflict with It. There have been some opinions of the Attorney General presented that seem important in Interpreting the textbook lew of 1945 and in clarifying the authority of the Board under the act.

223 The first of these was offered in 1945 when State Superintendent Malan asked If the Board could advertise for adoption of textbooks before the 1945 acts were promulgated. The Attorney General held that the Board could not act at all under the authority of the law until the 1945 acts were promulgated regardless of the date on which they became effective. In another opinion,

the Attorney General held that

the Board may refuse to place three geography texts on the adopted list if three are not found satisfactory and that the Board does not have the authority to delay adoptions if books are submitted for adoption.

117

In 1947, State Superintendent Watt raised the question as to whether a school corporation is conioelled to use a state-adopted textbook in teaching a subject In which no textbook has been used In the past.

118

The Attorney General

answered that it was clear that the law contemplates the adoption of a textbook for each subject and grade, but that even though a textbook Is adopted for the subject and no text at all Is used in the subject, the adopted text need

•^^Quinions of the Indiana Attorney General, 1945, pp. 492-9. 117Iblnd regulations to govern certain aspects of oublie education.

At first, the authority granted was general, but

with later laws, rule-making power became specific and limited to the function that the law governed.

The courts and

259 the Attorney General have held that the Board's rule-making power is limited hy statutes and cannot go beyond the statutes. The Board, in adopting rules and regulations that have the effect of law, must comply with the law of 1945 that governs the promulgation of rules and regulations established by administrative agencies. The Board has promulgated rules and regulations on attendance, classification of schools, distribution of tuition support and school relief, special education, teacher training and licensing, textbook adoption and vocational education.

It

established rules and regulations on the functions of teacher licensing and classification of schools before doing so on any of the other functions listed above.

There has been, in

sample years, a general increase in the number of board actions on rules and regulations.

The last two sample periods

show that an average of 25 per cent of board actions were on rules and regulations. In adopting rules and in enforcing them, the Board has functioned as an administrative tribunal to adjudicate controversies and issues on numerous occasions.

260 CHAPTER VII EVALUATION OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOaiIO o f e d u c a t i o n

Principles of Function It has been shown In chapters two and three that state boards of education are creatures of the legislature.

They

are sometimes provided for by constitutional enactment.

It

has also been shown that their powers and duties are limited by legislative enactments. It is then evident that In the process of evaluating the functions of a state board of education the laws which created the board and defined its duties and powers are in s. sense being evaluated.

Most of the research in this area

has been concerned with what state boards have been empowered to do by law and what boards should do.

Many of these studies

cite definite duties and powers that boards should be assigned by the legislature.

As a re su.lt of this approach, the

professional writings reveal that there are a great many differences In the powers and duties assigned to state boards of education.

Specific duties and powers are peculiar to

individual states because of the vast network of legal enactments which have accumulated over the years to govern the function of education. It is the purpose of this chapter to set forth the basic principles that should govern the functioning of

261 general state boards of education, to formulate criteria from the principles, and to apply those criteria to the functioning of the Indiana State Board, The Board should serve as a quasi-legislative body, 11

1■

i«»

u iiiiiii, ■■

iu

mi—



mm—

— — ■

ira

M M M j h *

A rather thorough discussion on the position of the state board of education as a quasi-legislative body has been presented in chapter two.

Authorities on administrative law

have taken the position that when tne legislature cannot write into law, specifically, the will of the State, it appoints an administrative agency to do so.

Administrative

agencies have for years supplemented legal principles stated in the statutes with rules and regulations that make the stated principles applicable to specific situations.

State

boards of education have not been immune to this type of delegated administrative authority. Chambers,1 in 1936, said that a state board of edu­ cation should be vested with quasi-legislative power over the state educational system, 2 recognises the necessity of the delegation of Mort recognizes 1 rule-making power to state boards.

Moehlman^ maintains that

-^Chambers, M. M., 1lTwo Major Issues in State School Administration,"

p.

26.

^Mort, P. K., Principles of School Administration, p. 351. bMoehlraan, A. B,, Sohool Administration, p. 613.

262 the state board of education should a.ct as a quasi-legislative body under constitutional and statutory limitations,

Deffen-

A

baugh and Keeseeker~ say that the state boards in many states adopt rules and regulations which control certain areas of the states9 programs of elementary and secondary education.

Holmstedt saysi

The organization of state school adminis­ tration should be adequate to the performance of its functions. The state board of education should be a quasi-legislative body empowered to adopt and promulgate rules and regulations consistent with the intent and purposes of the statutes. General requirements should be set forth in the statutes, but the details of procedure and standards of performance should be left to the discretion of the state board of education.5 Miller® in his analysis of state school surveys found that the adoption of rules and regulations was advocated as a n

necessary function of the state board.

Morphet and Chase'

report that in 37 states state boards adopt rules and regu­ lations that have the effect of law.

Authentic opinion and

"Deffenbaugh, W . S . and Keesecker, h . W ., State Boards of Education and Chief State School Officers, pp. 91-3. ^Holmstedt, R. W., State Control of Public School Finance, p. 50. filler, E. &•» The development of State Boards of Education in Relation to Educational Progress in Those "States, pp- 294-6. ^The Council of State Governments, The forty-Eight State School Systems, p. 37.

263

practice support the principle that tne state board of edu­ cation should be a qua si-legislative body empowered by law to promulgate rules and regulations that have the effect of law. Heaponslbility for the admin1stration of elementary and secondary education.

As early as 1923, the Indiana

Survey Commission held that the administration of public education should be unified in a state board of education.

8

Reeder, in 1924, criticised the double-headed control of public education existing in many states which resulted from control being vested in both state boards and state superin­ tendents.^ Cocking and Gilmore^ advocate a single state board which should be responsible for the administration of the state school systems.

In 1936, the Educational Policies

Commission neld that the state board is largely responsible for the development of the state school system.^

filler,^

^Report of the Indiana Survey Commission, Public Education in Indiana, pp. 190-2. -Reeder, Vh G., i'he Oni ef St at e Scripoi u ffj cial, pp. 38-9. i0Coeking, D. and Gilmore, C. H ., Organization and Administration'of Public Education, p. 152. llkducationa'l Policies Commission, The Structure and Admini stration of Education in an American Democracy, p. 86. I^Mlller, ojq. cit., p. 290,

writing In 1948, concluded that the state hoard should he granted control over public elementary and secondary schools as well as teacher training institutions* Ohase and Morphet10 show that 3o states have state hoards that are charged with general responsibility for elementary and secondary education.

Beach and Gibbs show

that there are four patterns of organization at the state level which reflect the placement of authority and responsi­ bility for elementary and secondary education.

The study

reveals that control of elementary and secondary education isi 1. Unified in the State hoard of education; or 2. Divided between the State hoard of education and the chief State school officers; or 3. Divided among the State board of education, tne chief State school officer and the State hoard for vocational education; or 4. Divided between the chief State school officer and the State hoard for vocational education,14 The study also shows that 10 states have state hoards in which control of elementary and secondary schools is unified.

The study favors such unified control and recognizes

it as a principle of organization.^

15The Council of State Governments, ojo. clt., p. 36. l4Federal Security Agency, Office of Education, The Structure of State Departments of Education, p. 11. 15I b i d .,

p.

12.

Deffenbaugii and Keesecker,^® in 1940, found in about three-fourths of the states that the state board was the principal agency for the administration of public elementary and secondary schools.

Evidence is presented

above to support a second principle of function. Control over elementary and secondary soliools should be unified in the state board of education. The state board as a :>o11 cy-formlny body,

host

authorities in the field of state school administration, agree that the function of the state board should be policy forming Olsen defines policy as signifying 11a decision or a set of decisions, whether definitely formulated or not, as to how 17 given problems and jobs snail be solved and administered." There should be a distinction between forming the policy and executing it.

The former is the duty of the board, while

the latter is the duty of the chief executive or his assistants. The Indiana Survey Commission of Cubberly,120 ?1 Deffenbaugii and Covert, Deffenbaugh and Keeseeker, * the

16Peffenbaugh and Keeseoker, op. cit., p. 86. ^Olsen, H. 0., The Work of Boards of Education, p. 9. T^Report of the Indiana Survey Commission, o£. olt., p. 190. ^Cub'berly, E. b., State School Adm 1n 1 stra11on; p. 292 20Deffenbaugn, d. S., and Covert, L., School Admlnistration and Finance, p. 8. ^Deffenbaugh and Keeseoker, op. cit., p. 97.

266

National Moiety for the Study of Education,22 the National Council of Chief State School

O f f i c e r s ,22

ana Miller'24

recommend that the state board of education should be a policy-forming body,

beffenbaugh and Keeseoker,25 in 1940,

found that in most states the state board is empowered to formulate state educational policies, and that the function was not distinct from that held by the chief state school officer.

Moehiman points out that the state board should

develop policies in conformance with the statutes.2® Recommendations set forth in the report of the Indiana School Study Commission, 1949, reflect Moehlman*s point of v i e w . 27 Practice reported as late as 1940, and expert opinion justify a tnird principle. The state board of education should be a policyforming body. 22Nationel Society for the Study of Education, Changing Conceptions in Educational Administration, p. 15. ^National Council of Chief State School Officers, 11State Educational Organisation," p. 58. 24MIllfcr; on. cit.? P. 297. 25Deffenbaugh and Keeseoker, op. cit., p. 86. 2®:ioehlman,

o d

.

cit., p. 613.

^Indiana School Study Commission, An Evaluation of the Indiana rubllc Schools, p. 306.

267 Cooperation with federal and, other state agencies. An agent of the state is needed to represent the public school system of the state.

Schre.mmel,Cubberly,^~ and hiller^^

recommend that the state board should serve as a state board of vocational education. The Educational Tclicies 31 Commission holds that the state board of education should cooperate with the boards responsible for higher education or for other state educational institutions.

f-ort°£ claims

that the state board should have jurisdiction over actions of the state or federal government which involve youth under 21 years of age and should manage vocational education fund s. Deffenbaugh and Keeseeker found that in 34 states, state boards were assigned the responsibility for administering vocational education. ^

Chase and Morphet*54 report that

30 state boards with general responsibility were assigned responsibility for vocational education and rehabilitation. ^Schrammel, H. A., Tne Organization of State Departments of education. p. 150. - - C u b b e r l y ?

5%iller,

o P «

op.

^Educational

c i t

.f o *

2 ^4 .

pit., p. 294. Policies Commission, oo. oit., a. 90.

^dort, op. cit., p. 351. 330eff enbaugh and Keeseeker, or), clt. f p. 94. 34The Council of State Governments, on. clt., p. 183.

268 The foregoing discussion gives rise to a fourth principle. The state board of education should be authorized to cooperate with federal and other state agencies as an agent of the state on matters pertaining to the state's program of public education. Appointment of the chief executive and staff members. There Is a wide discrepancy between theory and practice in selecting the chief state school officer and his staff. Schrammel,

Cubberly,

Chambers,3? National Council of

Chief State School Officers, ^8 Moehlman,^ Mort,4^ Edu­ cational Policies Commission,Deffenbaugh and Keesecker,^ and Mi H er43 recommend that the board appoint the chief state school official and that it appoint the staff uoon the chief official's recommendation.

Two recent studies

have shown that most states do not select their chief state 44 school officers In this manner, ohase and Morphet report Schramine 1, op. clt., p. 149. Cubberly, op« clt*, p* £.92. ^Chambers, op, _cit., p. 26, ^National Council of Chief State School Officers, op. clt., p. 58. 39;i0ehlman, pp. clt., pp. 619-20. “5>p0rt» oh* cit., p. 350. ^Educational Policies Goramlssion, pp. oit., p. 65. 42Deffenbaugh and Keesecker, pp. clt., p. 97.

43Miiler, op. clt., p. 295. 44The Council of State Governments, op. oit., p. 39.

269 that the recommendation is followed in 10 states; while beach and Gibbs45 report that in 10 states the recom­ mendation is followed,

but that after 1950, Colorado

will become the eleventh.

Chase and korphet46 say that the

prevailing method of appointing staff members to the department is by the board upon the recommendation of the 47

chief state school official,

beach and Gibbs

recommend

that the board appoint staff members and define their duties upon the recommendation of the board's executive officer. the light of

practice and theory presented above, a fifth

principle of

function may be stated.

The state board of education should appoint state school

officer.

If should appoint the staff

recommendation of the chief executive,

the chief upon the

also the board should

define the duties of such employees. Responsibility for the department and its functions. The appointment of staff members to the department does not end the board's responsibility.

The board should also be

responsible for the administration of the department. federal O p • Q i t ., p • 9 *

In

Security Agency, Office of Education,

46The Council of State Governments,

op. c l t ., p. 47.

^ F e d e r a l Security Agency, Office of Education, o p . ci t., p. IB.

270

Cubberly48 says that one of the prime functions of the board is to direct the work of the department and to finance the cost of the department.

Grace49 contends that one of the

responsibilities of a state board is to provide needed service to the schools of the state.

He further holds that

the effective management of an enterprise requires the delegation of authority and responsibility.

Mort and

Hamilton^ hold that one of the functions of the central state educational agency is to administer certain service functions such as the certification of teachers and the distribution of state aid.

M o r t ^ holds that the board

should serve as an administrative board for those educational functions operated by the state department. The Educational 52 Policies Commission recommends that the board's control over the school system of the State should be exercised through the state department.

Deffenbaugh and Keesecker53

recommend that the board establish rules and regulations to 48Cubberly, op. clt., p. 292.. 4%ational Society for the Study of Education, op . oit., pp* 7-10. ^Hamilton, H. H. and Mort, P. R., The Eaw and Public Education> p. 58. 5lMort, op. pit., p. 350.

•^Educational Policies Commission, op. clt., pp. 86-8. 53p effenbaugh and Keesecker, pp. clt., pp. 85 and 97.

271 govern Its employees.

Their study also shows that the board's

responsibilities are carried on through the executive officer. Chase and Morphet54 report that each state has a state department serving as the staff of the chief state school officer and as a service center for local school districts. Beach and Gibbs

say that "the administration of the State

education enterprise is delegated by the State board to a highly qualified professional chief state school officer." They go further to point out that the delegation of duties should be multiplied through the executive in the staff members.

The points of view held by the above authorities

give rise to a sixth principle. The state board of education should be resoonsible for the government and functioning of the state department. Promotion of legislation.

There is common agreement

among most authorities in state school administration that the state board of education should recommend needed school legis­ lation.

Schrammel,56 Cubberly,57 Cocking and Gilmore,58

Moehlman,59 Educational Policies Commission,60 Deffenbaugh 54The Council of State Governments, og. clt., p. 50. SSFederal Security Agency, Office of Education, o p . cit., p. 18. 55Schrammel, QP» cit., p. 159. 5?Cubberly, op. oit., p. 292. 58Cocking and Gilmore, op. cit., pp. 84-5. 59Moehlman, oo- oit., p. 616. 60Educational Policies Commission, 0£. cit., pp. SS-8.

272 and Ke e seeker,61 and Miller62 recommend that one of the functions of a state board is to recommend school legislation. Hamilton and MortQ3 report that one of the functions that central state agencies perform is to observe the operation of the school system and advise the legislature as to desirable changes in structure and regulation.

Thus, a seventh principle

is established. The State board of education should recommend needed school legislation. Hesearch.

An important function of administration is

that of research.

Schrammel,64 Cocking and Gilmore,66

Moehlman,^6 Educational Policies C o m m i s s i o n , M o r t , 66 and Miller6^ hold that the state board should authorize and support tne research function.

Chase and Morphet70 report that 21

states reported a need for research and statistical services at the state level.

This need was felt by the largest majoritv

6^beffenbaugh and Keesecker, op. clt., pp. 97-8. 62Miller, op. cit., p. 296, 63Harailton and Mort, op. clt., p. 58. 6%chra.mmel, op. cit., p. 159, 650ockinfr and Gilmore, op. clt., pp. 84-5.

66Moehlman, op. cit., p. 616. ^Educational Policies Commission, op. cit., p. 95. 68Mort, op. oit., p. 350. ^Miller, op. clt., p. 296. 70The Council of State Governments, o£. oit., p. 47.

273 of the states reporting.

To recommend legislation and to

formulate policy require information; so the board, to function in these capacities, must have facts as a basis for intelligent action.

From the above ooinions and findings,

an eighth principle may be stated. The state board of education should provide for an adequate research program to

be

carried on through the state

department. The reportorlal function.

Reporting is also an

important function of administration.

The state board of

education is responsible to the people through the governor and the legislature.

The reportorial function involves the

accountability for the discharge of responsibility. Cubberly, Miller

74.

Moehlman,Educational Policies Gomraission,and

hold that the board

on its activities and on the Williams

should report at least annually school system in general,

found in eight states studied that the state boards

of education were assigned the duty of reporting.

From the

above ooinions and findings, a ninth principle is formulated,

71Cubberiy, 0£. clt., p. 294. 7^Moehlman, op« oit., p. 613, "^Educational Policies Commission,

op.

cit., pp. 86-8.

-Miller, op- Pit»» P • 296. ^Williams, B. B . , A Functional Interpretation of ptate Educati one1 Admin1 stra11 on , p. 262.

274 The state board of education is responsible to report to the citizens of the state its work and the condition of the school system of the state.

Establishment of Criteria

The first principle of function that was formulated In the previous section stated that the state board of edu­ cation should be a quasi-legislative body empowered to adopt and promulgate rules and regulations that have the effect of law.

The following criteria are established as measures of

the extent to which this principle holds in the functioning of the Indiana Board. Criterion 1, The state board of education should be empowered to adopt and promulgate rules and regulations consistent with the statutes. Criterion 2. The rule-making power of the board should be subject to limitations which serve to safeguard the public. White advocates that the rule-making power of adminis­ trative agencies should be limited to provide safeguards for the unscrupulous use of such power.76

Mort77 says that the

public should be Informed of rules that the board intends to adopt, and an open meeting should be held by the board for such purpose.

The Indiana School Study Commission recommends

76Vvhite, E. D., Introduction to the Study of Public A d m i n i stratlon>

p. 407*

77Mort, 0£. cit., p. 351.

275 that copies of proposed rules should be sent to all school officials in the State at least 30 days in advance of adoption.76 Criterion j3. The state board of education should sit as an administrative tribunal on appeals arising from its chief executive over the application and enforcement of board rules and regulations. Schramme!7^ states that the state board of education acts as a tribunal In some cases.

Viliar66 found that 15

states gave their state boards the right to hear and decide appeals.

Williams6-** found that the chief state school

official had been assigned this function more often than the state

board.

Deffenbaugh and Keeseeker86 say that the board

should decide appeals from the chief executive.

A Tennessee

court refused to review the case In which the state board had refused to issue a county superintendent's certificate to a candidate.6^

The court rules that the statute vested the

authority in the state board to determine the fitness of a candidate for such a certificate and unless the board acted 76Indiana School Study

Commission, o£. cit., p. 306,

7^Schrammel, op* clt.,

p. 4.

80vnig.r, F. R., The Legal Status of the State Board of Education, p. 111. 81Williams, h. £. , ojo. oit., p. 227. 82oeffenbaugh and Keesecker, op. cit., pp. 97-6. ^Chambers, , Fourth Yearbook of School Law, W (2d) 556, June, 1935.

275 arbitrarily, corruptly, or fraudulently, Its decision Is not review&ble. In regard to administrative adjudication, Afiffner says: file jurisdiction of an administrative officer or tribunal is usually specified in the statute or constitutional provision wnich gives It life. It is common for jurisdiction to be acquired by the filing of complaints, which In a way take the place of pleadings in the ordinary courts. Probably one of the chief distinctions between a court of law and an administrative tribunal Is that the latter can take jurisdiction of its own volition. Judges cannot go out and seize Jurisdiction.84 S5

iirubacker

holds that the administrative judiciary

is more economical and expeditious in handling cases than are the common courts and experience Indicates that adjudication by state departments of education is quite satisfactory. The second principle of function that was discussed was that control of elementary and secondary education saould oe unified in tne state board of education.

The following

criteria are formulated in the light of the principle just stated. ^4lflffner, J .

J. S., “State Administrative Departments Judicial tribunals,lS p. 33.

^ B r u b a c k e r ,

aa

Administrative

, Public Administration, pp. 390-1.

277 Criterion 4. Authority and responsibility for elementary and secondary education should be unified in a state board of education. Criterion j5. The state board should adopt minimum standards to uphold the educational program of local communities in broad outline. The Educational Policies Commission^ holds that the state board through Its department should control the scope of the educational program at the local level In broad outline.

In evaluating the state control of

Dublio

school

finance in Indiana, Finley set up as one of his criteria the following: The state should establish schools or make other arrangements sufficient to furnish the children In every locality within the state with equal edu­ cational opportunities up to some prescribed minimum. Standards should be set for (l) length of school term, (2) qualifications of teachers and other personnel, (3) salaries of teachers and other personnel, (4) curricula for the various schools, (5) equipment and supplies, (6) transportation, and (7) buildings and sites.87 Holmstedt says that “the state Is acting entirely within its province when It requires that schools be establisned, that pupils attend, and that the educational programs conform to acceptable standards.'*88 88EducatIonal Policies Commission, op. cit., pp. 86-8. 87Finley, b. D., An Evaluation of the State Control of Public School Finance in Indiana, p. 161. 88Holmstedt, po. cit., p. 54*

278 The following criteria are formulated in the line with the third principle of function stated.

The principle is

that the state board of education should be a policy-forming body. Criterion 6. The state board should legislate policy andshould leave the execution of the oollcy to the chief state school official and his staff. The fourth principle discussed in the foregoing section is set up below as a criterion. Criterion _7» On matters pertaining to the state school system, the state board of education should act as an agent of the state in cooperating with federal or other state agencies. Criteria are established below as an outgrowth of the fifth principle of function. Criterion 8. The state board should appoint the chiefstate school officer and fix the length of his term. Williams studied the legal bases of cowers and duties of the chief state school o f f i c e r . He reports that in the eight states in which the chief exeoutive was appointed by the board lines of authority were unmistakable, and there was no dual leadership of the states' educational programs. He also reports that in these eight states there was a distinction between the legislative function of the board and the executive function of the chief state school officer.

and

89Williams, H., The Statutory Bases of the Powers Duties of the Chief State School Officer, 1 9 1 0 - 3 8 , p. 42.

279

Criterion 9. btaff members of the state department should be appointed by the state board upon the recom­ mendation of the chief state school officer. The duties of such employees should be defined by the board upon recommendation of the chief state school official. The sixth principle of function discussed in the preceding section of this chapter held that the state board should be responsible for the government and functioning of the state department.

Criteria are established in conformance

with the principle.

Criterion 10. The state board should provide a budget for the support of the state department and recommend the budget to the legislature. In regard to the financial support of the state department, Mort holds that the state board and its chief executive should Jointly develop a budget to cover the cost 90 of activities to be carried on by the state department. ^1

Deffenbaugh and Keeseeker*'

O *3

along with Gubberly**5 recommend

that the state board should prepare a budget for the support of the state department. Criterion 11. The board with the help of its chief executive should determine the internal organization of the department.

"Mort, op. cit., p. 351. 91Deffenbaugh and Keesecker, o_p. cit., pp. 97-8.

92cubberly# oj)* cit., p. 294.

280

Beach and Glbbs9^ hold that the board upon the recom­ mendation of Its executive should determine the organization of the department. The seventh, eighth, and ninth principles of function formulated In the foregoing section have been established because of the common agreement found among the writers In this field.

The principles are set forth below as criteria.

Criterion 12. The state board of education should recommend needed school legislation to the legislature. Criterion 13* An adequate research program carried on by the state department should be promoted and provided for by the board. Criterion 14* The state board should report its work and the condition of the educational system to the legislature and the public.

Application of Criteria Criterion 1* The state board of education should be empowered to adopt and promulgate rules and regulations consistent with the statutes. Generally speaking, the Indiana legislature has assigned to the State Board the task of supplementing many of its statutes with rules and regulations.

In Chapter VI,

It was shown that the board has adopted rules to supplement statutes governing attendance, classification of schools, curriculum, distribution of state financial support, special

93Federal Security Agency, Office of Education, op. cit., P* 1®*

281 education, teacher training end licensing, textbook adoption, and vocational education. The Indiana State Board at present adopts and promulgates rules and regulations under authority of the statutes listed below.

The Board Is authorized to adopt

rules and regulations. 1.

For self-government under the School haw of 1865.94

2.

For supplementing attendance laws by the Compulsory 95 School Attendance law of 1921. Whether or not the Board*s rule-making power is removed by the 1945 amendment is a question that has not been settled. 3.

For the issuance of employment certificates by

Chapter 51, Acts of 1 9 4 1 . 4.

For the regulation of school curricula under

various acts passed in 1865, 1907, 1909, 1913, 1919, 1923, 1925, 1933, 1937, 1943, and 1947.

(See Chapter VI, section

on Curriculum and Courses of Study.) 5.

For the Inspection and classification of schools

under Chapter 197 of the Acts of 1921.97 94Indiana Department of Public Instruction, School Law of Indiana. 1946, p. 43. 95Ibld., p. 7