Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-15T12:57:43.634Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Compulsory Education and Child Labor Laws on High School Attendance in New York City, 1898–1917

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2017

Moses Stambler
Moses Stambler*
Affiliation:
Southern Connecticut State College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The twentieth century has witnessed a major transformation of secondary schools from exclusive institutions serving the elite to inclusive institutions serving the general population. This transformation has been marked by radical changes in entrance and graduation requirements, increasing quantity and different quality of students, expansion and dilution of curriculum and a radically new role for the high school and the high school teacher. The rise of technological and urban society within the context of American middle-class ideology has been a fundamental cause of this transformation.

Type
Studies in Urban Education II
Information
History of Education Quarterly , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , Summer 1968 , pp. 189 - 214
Copyright
Copyright © 1968 by New York University 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Full ramifications of this transformation of New York City schools are developed by the author in his forthcoming book, The Democratic Revolution in the Public High Schools of New York City, 1898–1917, of which this article forms a chapter.Google Scholar

2. Draper, Andrew S., New York State Commissioner of Education and a strong advocate of compulsory elementary but not secondary attendance, evidently did not grasp the full implication of compulsory elementary attendance for the expansion of the high school. Speaking to the Associated Academic Principals in 1904, he said: Google Scholar

Massachusetts makes, as she always made[,] secondary schools compulsory by statute…. New York has required an elementary school of at least reasonable character within reach of every home…. Our state has left all the rest, including the secondary schools, to community initiative and local pride. We have stirred local initiative by favoring legislation We have compelled in nothing save that there shall be a suitable building and a qualified teacher for a common elementary school. To this extent we expect to maintain a compulsion which compels…. I can conceive of conditions in which compulsory attendance upon a secondary school might be what I would think as interference with the right of the parent and the best interest of the child.

(New York State Educational Department, “The New York Secondary School System, “Addresses by the Commissioner of Education.” [Albany, N. Y.: State Educational Department, 1904], pp. 80–81.)

3. This is also taking place in the modern period. See , Clark, Burton R., Educating the Expert Society (San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1962).Google Scholar

4. The significance of the child labor laws for keeping students in school was reflected in excessive high school dropout figures. In the typical years 1911–1912, of the total 13,632 high school students dropping out, the most important single reason was the availability and issuance of employment certificates. This accounted for 3,162 dropouts. Next important single factor was “employed at home,” which accounted for an additional 1,777 dropouts. The child labor law restrictions when effectively applied would eliminate the major reason for students dropping out of high school. (Statistics from New York City Department of Education, Fourteenth Annual Report of the City Superintendent of Schools for the Year Ending July 31, 1912, p. 29.)Google Scholar

5. Massachusetts established a State Board in 1837, followed by Connecticut in 1838.Google Scholar

6. The passage of compulsory attendance laws by the states can be divided into two periods: (1) before 1900, most states (32) had enacted these laws; (2) around 1900, in some states the laws were made more detailed and enforcement more effective through school census boards. During this latter period there was also a general increase in the number of years required for attendance. (Good, H. G., A History of American Education [New York: The Macmillan Company, 1956], p. 376.)Google Scholar

7. New York State was the sixth state to do so. Massachusetts was the first to pass a modern compulsory education law requiring twelve-week school attendance for all children between the ages of eight and fourteen. By 1918, sixty-six years after the Massachusetts example, Mississippi became the forty-eighth state to enact a compulsory attendance law. (Cubberley, Ellwood P., Public Education in the United States [rev. and enl. ed.; Cambridge, Mass.: The Riverside Press, 1947], p. 563.)Google Scholar

8. Hanson, Whittier Lorenz, The Costs of Compulsory Attendance Service in the State of New York and Some Factors Affecting the Cost (New York: Teachers College, 1923), pp. 9–10.Google Scholar

9. New York State Department of Public Instruction, Fiftieth Annual Report of the State Superintendent for the School Year Ending July 31, 1903 (Albany: Department of Public Instruction, 1904), I, 96.Google Scholar

10. New York State, Department of Public Instruction, Thirty-Sixth Annual Report of the State Superintendent for the School Year Ending July 31, 1889 (Albany: Department of Public Instruction, 1890), p. 143.Google Scholar

11. New York State Educational Department, Fourth Annual Report of the Education Department for the School Year Ending July 31, 1907 (Albany: State Educational Department, 1908), p. 7.Google Scholar

12. New York City Board of Education, Bureau of Reference, Research and Statistics, Review of Departmental Experience in Dealing with Problem of School Maladjustment, Part I: Statistical Reference Data Showing School Background Conditions, Factors, Trends and Problems, 1900–1934, by Nifenecker, Eugene A., p. 185.Google Scholar

13. New York State, Department of Public Instruction, Forty-Second Annual Report of the State Superintendent for the School Year Ending July 31, 1895 (Albany: Department of Public Instruction, 1896), II, 1046.Google Scholar

14. Hanson, , op. cit. , p. 11.Google Scholar

15. Forty-Second Annual Report of the State Superintendent for the School Year Ending July 31, 1895, p. 1048.Google Scholar

16. Hanson, , op. cit. , p. 12.Google Scholar

17. Lovejoy, Owen R., “The Functions of Education in Abolishing Child Labor,” Annals American Academy, Vol. 32, Supplement: “Child Labor and Social Progress,” July 1908, p. 80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18. New York City Department of Education, “The Relation of Employment to the Time of Leaving School,” Seventeenth Annual Report of the City Superintendent of Schools of New York City for the Year Ending July 31, 1915, pp. 361–72.Google Scholar

19. Fairchild, Fred Rogers, The Factory Legislation of the State of New York , Publications of the American Economic Association, 3d Series, Vol. 6, No. 4, London. For the American Economic Association by The Macmillan Company, 1905, p. 40.Google Scholar

20. Ibid., p. 45.Google Scholar

21. New York State, Laws of 1886, chap. 409.Google Scholar

22. New York State, Laws of 1889, chap. 560.Google Scholar

23. Ensign, Forest Chester, Compulsory School Attendance and Child Labor (Iowa City, Iowa: The Athens Press, 1921), p. 132.Google Scholar

24. Lovejoy, , op. cit. , pp. 81–82.Google Scholar

25. The Public Education Association was active in the movement between 1905 and 1910. (Cohen, Sol, Progressives and Urban School Reform [New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, 1964].)Google Scholar

26. “City Superintendent Maxwell of New York,” Educational Review, XXVII (January 1904), 16.Google Scholar

27. Letter approving the proposed bill from the files of the New York Child Labor Committee, 1903, in Ensign, op. cit. , p. 135.Google Scholar

28. New York State, Laws of 1903, chap. 459.Google Scholar

29. “City Superintendent Maxwell of New York,” loc. cit. Google Scholar

30. Report of Central Federated Union, 1903, in Ensign, op. cit. , p. 133.Google Scholar

31. Hon. Finch, E. R., quoted in a letter by Hunter, Robert, May 25, 1903. In the files of the New York Child Labor Committee, as quoted in Ensign, op. cit, pp. 133–34. Google Scholar

32. New York State, Laws of 1903, chap. 184.Google Scholar

33. Ibid., chap. 459.Google Scholar

34. New York City Department of Education, Sixth Annual Report of the City Superintendent of Schools for the Year Ending July 31, 1904, p. 183.Google Scholar

35. On the state level, the percentage of those who attended after enrolling increased from 71 percent in 1902 to 76.1 percent in 1905. This increase probably resulted from officials of the Department of Labor and Department of Education working closely together with considerable effectiveness. For example, while the total number of parents prosecuted in the decade preceding 1903 had been only 2,206, in 1904 alone, proceedings were started against more than half of the number of parents of the preceding decade. (Ensign, op. tit. , p. 135.)Google Scholar

36. Sixth Annual Report of the City Superintendent of Schools for the Year Ending July 31, 1904, p. 181.Google Scholar

37. New York City Department of Education, Seventh Annual Report of the City Superintendent of Schools for the Year Ending 1905, p. 277.Google Scholar

38. Sixth Annual Report of the Superintendent of Schools for the Year Ending 1904, p. 185.Google Scholar

39. Seventh Annual Report of the Superintendent of Schools for the Year Ending 1905, p. 280.Google Scholar

40. Ibid., p. 97.Google Scholar

41. Review of Departmental Experience in Dealing with Problems of School Maladjustment, op. cit., pp. 185–86.Google Scholar

42. The Hanus Committee was formed in 1911 after it was designated by the Board of Estimate to investigate conditions in the New York City public school system. Their resulting three-volume detailed report caused a great stir in educational circles: New York City Board of Estimate and Apportionment, Committee on School Inquiry, Report of Committee on School Inquiry Board of Estimate and Apportionment: City of New York (3 vols.; New York: The Board of Estimate and Apportionment, 1911–1913), passim .Google Scholar

43. “Experts Criticize the Truancy System,” The New York Times, February 10, 1913, p. 7, col. 2.Google Scholar

44. Martin, Herbert S., “Will Send Factory Girls to School Alternate Weeks,” The New York Times, April 20, 1913, Sec. 5, p. 11, col. 1.Google Scholar

45. Letter to District Superintendent Stewart, October 3, 1905. In the files of the New York Child Labor Committee as quoted in Ensign, op. cit. , p. 136.Google Scholar

46. Report of Paulding, J. K., April 17, 1905. In the files of the New York Child Labor Committee as quoted in Ensign, op. cit. , p. 131.Google Scholar

47. Letter dated October 25, 1909. In the files of the New York Child Labor Committee as quoted in Ensign, op. cit. , p. 145.Google Scholar

48. Sixth Annual Report of the Superintendent of Schools for the Year Ending 1904, p. 182. Out of 71 school enforcement officers four were assigned to the high schools.Google Scholar

49. Ibid., p. 184.Google Scholar

50. Letter dated January 28, 1909. In the files of the New York Child Labor Committee as quoted in Ensign, op. cit. , p. 145.Google Scholar

51. From the files of the New York Child Labor Committee as quoted in Ensign, op. cit. , p. 145.Google Scholar

52. Ensign, , op. cit. , p. 144.Google Scholar

53. Letter dated October 16, 1908. In the files of the New York Child Labor Committee as quoted in Ensign, op. cit. , p. 144.Google Scholar

54. Editorial in the New York Globe , January 9, 1905, as quoted in Ensign, op. cit. , p. 38.Google Scholar

55. Maxwell, William H., A Quarter Century of Public School Development (New York: American Book Company, 1912), p. 339.Google Scholar

56. Draper, Andrew S., “Conserving Childhood” (Address before the National Child Labor Committee, Fifth Annual Meeting, Chicago, Ill., January 22, 1909), Addresses and Papers, 1908–1909 (Albany, N. Y.: State Education Department, 1909?), pp. 143–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

57. Haney, John Dearling, Registration of City School Children: A Consideration of the Subject of the City School Census (New York: Teachers College, 1910), p. 102.Google Scholar

58. Ibid., p. 103.Google Scholar

59. George A. Hall (Secretary of New York Child Labor Committee) “New York Child Labor Legislation,” Charities and Commons, July 20, 1907, p. 434.Google Scholar

60. New York City Department of Education, Eleventh Annual Report of the City Superintendent of Schools for the Year Ending July 31, 1909, p. 170.Google Scholar

61. New York State Education Department, Eighth Annual Report of the Education Department for the School Year Ending July 51, 1911 (Albany, N. Y.: Education Department, 1912), p. 325. The permanent census in New York City later revealed that many children who should have been in school were out working. As a result of the elongated Hanus investigation, recommendations were made for more effective methods of enforcing the compulsory law. (New York City Board of Estimate and Apportionment, Committee on School Inquiry, Report on Committee on School Inquiry Board of Estimate and Apportionment: City of New York, Vol. I: The Compulsory Attendance Service , by Burks, Jessie D. [New York: Board, 1911–1913], p. 673.) Google Scholar

62. University of the State of New York, Journals of Meetings of the Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York, May 15, 1905–February 22, 1912 (Albany, N. Y.: The University of the State of New York, 1912), p. 127.Google Scholar

63. Ibid. Google Scholar

64. Nudd, Howard, A Description of the Bureau of Compulsory Education of the City of Philadelphia Showing How Its Organization and Administration Bear upon the Problems of Compulsory Education in the City of New York (New York: Public Education Association of the City of New York, 1913), p. 61.Google Scholar

65. Only about two percent who were required to attend evening school were actually attending. (New York City Board of Education, “The First Fifty Years, a Brief Review of Progress, 1898–1948,” Fiftieth Annual Report of the Superintendent of Schools [New York: Board of Education, 1949], p. 67.)Google Scholar

66. New York City Department of Education, Sixteenth Annual Report of the City Superintendent of Schools for the Year Ending July 31, 1914, p. 176.Google Scholar

67. “New Attendance Bureau,” The New York Times, May 24, 1914, p. 6, col. 5.Google Scholar

68. New York City Department of Education, “Continuation and Part-Time Cooperative Classes,” Eighteenth Annual Report of the City Superintendent of Schools for the Year Ending July 31, 1916, p. 134.Google Scholar

69. Laws of New York, 1909, Chapter 36, as reported in ibid. Google Scholar

70. Ibid. Google Scholar

71. Review of Departmental Experience in Dealing with Problem of School Maladjustment, op. cit., p. 188.Google Scholar