Primary Sources

Primary Sources are Priceless!
by Susan Fineman

Original documents are treasures to those of us who are researching our one-room schools. Whether we are trying to piece together the typical school day, learning about the rigors of teaching in a district school, or getting a feel for the community of the time, reading the words of those responsible for their schools brings the search to life. I am one of the fortunate schoolhouse docents who have access to priceless primary sources, the annual reports of the Superintending School Committee of our town or city, reports that are so detailed and numerous, we can trace the evolution of the district schools from their construction, to school consolidation, and eventually to their demise.
​
The three men who comprised my city’s early committee were elected officials, often influential businessmen of Nashua, NH. They were articulate and thorough in their reporting, never short on words. It appears nothing escaped the notice of the committeemen and they spared no one's feelings in their very public observations and opinions.

After visiting district schools to witness recitations and year end examinations they would write their reports. They openly assessed the job done by the prudential committeemen (prudential referring to each of the 11 individual district committeemen in Nashua), the teachers by name and school, the scholars, and even the parents! I have read reports that extol the virtues of loving teachers who deserve the “approbation” of the public, parents who were attentive and supportive, and scholars who excelled at their closing examination days.

I have also seen specific teachers vilified in these reports as totally incompetent, parents as uncooperative and abusive, and scholars as vicious and unruly. They discuss in detail the progress or deficiencies of scholars, the effectiveness or failure of various teaching methods, the specific texts and quantities in each school, and disciplinary tactics. They discuss the condition of school buildings and offer lofty opinions about why some schools are run better than others. They chastise the parents about their children’s absenteeism, laziness, truancy, lack of cleanliness and their ganging up on teachers to drive them from their positions.

They tackle a myriad of topics including the lack of uniformity in textbooks, districts not attending to the repair of their schools, ethnic newcomers and the troubles they cause in the schools, the poor articulation of teachers and scholars in recitation, the insidious practice of “whispering” in class, and corporal punishment.

On the other hand, they are quick to praise districts that build sound new schools, readily name the schools whose scholars displayed good manners, sweetness in singing, or knowledge of geography, and often report on the proficiency of the readers and mathematicians among the “advanced” scholars of Nashua. The list of topics is seemingly endless, but quite familiar even in contemporary school settings.

When you read a smattering of the reports you'll find that the more things change, the more they remain the same! Familiar themes are common to schools of yesterday and today. I begin by offering one of my favorites from the 1846-47 school year regarding the District #2 schoolhouse:

“The school during the first six weeks of the winter term, under the charge of Mr. Cummings, was worse than useless. In the early part of the term, one young man assumed the authority on the school, and was of course expelled by the Committee, but by application, after suitable acknowledgement, was reinstated. Soon however, a combination appeared amongst the larger scholars, and during the night, the (master’s) desk would be nailed up, or benches pulled up and piled on top of it, talking aloud, and corn and beans were resorted to in school, etc. etc. All this was known to the district, without any knowledge of the Committee, to prevent it. This state of things was known to the Committee by an application of the teacher to dismiss two of the riotous leaders, and the larger scholars then all left, and by the advice of the Committee, the teacher left also, though no application was made to dismiss him. If these grossly outrageous proceedings had been perpetrated by young beardless boys, there would have been perhaps less cause for complaint, but when young men combine to get rid of a teacher by insults and injuries upon him and the schoolhouse, they should be taken into custody by legal authorities. (However…) their parents or guardians informed of the Statute should have provided to dismiss any teacher, who is not competent, suitable, or profitable. Finally, a man who has not authority enough to maintain his own supremacy in school should not undertake to teach.”

Poor Mr. Cummings! More than a century and a half has passed and he remains indelibly incompetent! Apparently he needed a mentor like the teacher in the following account. In reading the following 1847-48 report on District #7 school, I began to wonder if the “loving” Miss Whitford was, (as was often the case) somehow related to a reporting official! Such a tribute:

“The summer term continued three months and eleven days under the charge of Miss M.L Whitford. The whole number of scholars during the summer term was thirty-one, with an average attendance of twenty-three. The teacher secured the willing obedience of all her scholars, by adopting the law of kindness and love. She loved her scholars, loved her employment, loved to do her work by system, and to see her pupils doing theirs in the same way--- the scholars seeing the manifestations of that love, made a return of it, by being obedient to her instructions."
They continued...
"We have seldom seen so strong affection between teacher and scholars, as was exhibited in this school. The constant attendance of most of the scholars, and their rapid progress in the elementary branches, are good evidence of the teacher’s fidelity and success. Miss Whitford possesses a remarkable faculty of training small children to love their lessons and to learn—she infused a lively, attentive, and thoughtful spirit among them. Their movement in the schoolroom was easy, graceful, quick; that sluggish movement and awkward manner, sometimes observed in scholars, had been completely changed by her system of physical training---and the manners of her pupils had been molded by the example of the teacher. Whatever was peculiar and pleasing in her they copied. The children were taught to think and act quickly. There was more general satisfaction manifested by the parents of the district, at the success of Miss Whitford, than is often shown; their approbation of the school is certainly to her praise.”

---

The beleaguered Mr. Cummings wasn't the only teacher to fail miserably in his efforts to command a one-room school. Turnover was common and expected. Teachers both "loving" and "worse than useless" rarely found themselves in a life-long profession in the classroom.
​
Clearly, what stands out most in reading these reports is the eloquence in which the superintending committee wrote of the trials and tribulations of the school districts under their care. It is clear they set a high bar for the improvement of their school districts, while taxpayers demanded a great deal from the small percentage the town allotted to education. That's another story....