1. All pupils must be at school promptly.

2. No one shall be absent without a permit from parents.

3. Strict obedience to the monitor is demanded, but if there is a real grievance, complaint may be made to the master.

4. Be orderly in coming to and leaving school.

5. Use the plain language to all persons; be civil to all.

6. To avoid, in hours of leisure, all “ranting games” and quarrelling with one another.

7. Shall not play or keep company with rude boys of the town, but play with own school fellows.

8. They shall come to school on 5th day prepared to go to the regular meeting.[839]

The rules above, which, if all followed, one must admit would have made an almost model school so far as behavior was concerned, were shortly thereafter expanded a little to meet the needs of the Latin and English schools. Those rules, however, were more concerned with the curriculum and part of method, and were doubtless a guide for the instructors more than to be followed by the pupils. They will receive attention in the next few pages in the discussion of the curriculum. We shall however be interested at this juncture to read the rules adopted by Robert Proud, schoolmaster and historian, for the government of the Latin School, in which he was the head master for many years. They are very similar to those already noted, though drawn up by Proud for his school alone.

Rule 9 deals with the proper attitude and behavior.

Rule 10 deals with the behavior in the religious meetings.

In spite of the most excellent rules, which, we have seen, were drawn,[841] it appears the attendance problem was one which caused some masters no little worry. Proud’s manuscripts again inform us that on one occasion, after continuous aggravation due to absences, he felt called upon to send a note to the overseers concerning that serious affair. He first mentions the ends desired to be gained by such a school, and points out that they are being fallen short of, because of the laxity in attendance. Moreover, the worst offenders are the sons of the overseers. He says in particular:

There were, it seems, the usual causes at work which produced such havoc in the attendance record, and such distress in the minds of masters. A letter written by James Logan to his friend John Dickinson, in 1704, strengthens our belief that such was the case. He wrote in part:

We have not much information from which to judge the discipline of the school. From the rules already considered one would expect that strict discipline was observed, but of the master’s methods of enforcing it we know but little. There were doubtless two extremes. On the one hand, we might take Anthony Benezet as the very personification of mildness, and who ruled by love.[844] On the other hand, there was John Todd who would thrash a boy very severely, and who took great delight in getting his victim to admit the pain that he knew he felt.[845]

To secure better discipline, attendance, and also to induce striving for scholarship, it was customary to give rewards. We noted in the items sent in to the overseers in masters’ reports that certain amounts were for “premiums.”[846] This policy of rewards was early agreed upon by the overseers who sought in various ways to establish little funds for that purpose. In 1755 it was proposed that each one pay two shillings for missing a board meeting and one shilling for being late; the accruing amount to be paid out in premiums to encourage industry among the boys.[847] The fines were collected and then turned over to the masters who applied them as they saw fit.[848] The extent of the practice of giving rewards is not exactly known, but it seems to have been general throughout all the schools of the Board in Philadelphia, if we may judge from the regularity with which the bills for “premiums” were presented. It was also true that the school committees in other monthly meetings arranged to give rewards on visiting day to the scholars having the best records.[849]

The early school days seem to have been long and tedious. Attention has already been called to the letter of Pastorius’ children to their grandfather, in which they complained of the long eight hour school day.[850] The school continued, according to their account, six days in the week excepting Saturday afternoon.[851] Besides this it was customary in all places to attend meeting on fifth day (Thursday),[852] save in places where it may have been too far distant, an exception was made possible.[853] Evening schools were quite common, as has been stated before in the case of Germantown,[854] and increased in number toward the latter part of the century. In 1750 John Wilson, usher to Robert Willian, expressed his intention of opening an evening school which appears to have been acceptable to the Board.[855] The prevalence of the evening school among people not Friends is at once apparent when one glances at the advertisements in the colonial newspapers. A few of those private evening schools were: one kept by William Dawson and John Gladson, teaching writing, arithmetic, and navigation;[856] others by John Shuppy,[857] Mr. Lyonet,[858] and Messrs. Barthelemy and Besayde.[859]

The length of the school day is better indicated, and perhaps the source of information is more reliable, near the end of the century. The rules issued by the Board in 1795 state that the hours are to be from 8 to 12 in the morning, and from 2 to 5 in the afternoon, these hours to be observed from third month, first to eleventh month, first; in the remaining months the hours were 9 to 12 and 2 to 5.[860] Vacations were very scarce and very brief.[861] In the main, according to the rules issued at least, they were to be: (1) at the periods of the quarterly and yearly meetings; and (2) a vacation of three weeks, commencing on seventh day preceding the last sixth day of the week of the seventh month.[862] The other rules issued at this date besides these mentioned relating to holidays and length of the school day were the same as were previously stated.[863] The hours named above appear to us rather long for the small children; arrangement seems to have been made for them, though no statement of it is made in the school regulations. There were, however, the schools of (1) William Brown and (2) Sarah Lancaster, who taught children for half days,[864] and also the Girls’ School, in which Anthony Benezet taught (1754), was mentioned as though it were to be conducted only in the morning.[865] It is not to be understood that the half day arrangement was always followed in the case of younger children, for Sarah Lancaster taught thirty-five children whole days “at 15/ per quarter.”[866] It seems that the amount of time for them to attend was probably determined by the desires of their parents.

An interesting and instructive light is cast upon the inner life of the school in Philadelphia, by some of the manuscript collections of the very old Philadelphia families. For instance, we learn that in the public school there were published certain magazines, gazettes, chronicles, and so forth, a few of them named as follows: The Examiner, The Universal Magazine, 1774, Students’ Gazette (about 1774 to 1777), The P. S. Gazette, Latonia, 1777 to 1778, the Public School Gazetteer, containing the freshest advices, foreign and domestic (a palpable imitation of the newspapers in the city of that date), and The Students’ Magazine.[867] The contents of all of them were no doubt very interesting to the boys and girls at the time of their publication, and are so even now, and at times give light on topics of importance. It may perhaps interest the reader to see some of the entries. We find the following which gives a clew to the book used for instruction in grammar.

Another of interest bewails the departure of Thomas Lloyd from school to go into Lancaster County.

Another brief notice indicates that the Quaker preferment for plain dress was also made to prevail in the schoolroom.

Some supervision of the work on the part of overseers and school committees seems to have been at all times expected, though attention hardly needs be called to it after the presentation of so many reports made by committees, in the chapters relating to the establishment of schools in the several counties. From the irregularity in the reports we judge, however, that the visitation must have likewise been irregular in many places. In 1755 the Board in Philadelphia decided that for the encouragement of masters and scholars there should be visits made each month, preceding the usual monthly meetings. Also if “play days” were thought necessary they were to be arranged for between the masters and the committee of visitors.[871] The minutes indicate that these monthly visits were regularly performed. The Negro School, established in 1770, was also in charge of a committee to visit, superintend, and advise regarding its affairs.[872]

THE CURRICULUM

If we go back to our references on the advices of the yearly meetings of London and Philadelphia we shall find there the basic reasons for the subjects which are to be mentioned as taught regularly in the schools. We recall that there was an emphasis placed on the moral, the useful and practical, and the subjects first to be mentioned were: writing, reading, and arithmetic, which constituted the necessities.[873] Furthermore, the Frame of Government of 1696, the product of Quaker minds and hands, recommended to erect and order all public houses and encourage and reward the authors of useful sciences and laudable inventions.[874] It is seen also from later advices of the yearly meeting that the useful was not limited necessarily to the four R’s, religion, arithmetic, writing, and reading. In 1737, they recommended that as opportunity could be found, children should be permitted to learn “French, High and Low Dutch, Danish, etc.”[875] The use of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew is also justified by Crouch,[876] and it is well known and evident in all their writings that Penn, Barclay, Fothergill, Lloyd, Proud, Pastorius, and innumerable others were classically educated men.

The curriculum of the first school (Enoch Flower’s) consisted of reading, writing, and casting accounts,[877] and it seems entirely probable that these were the chief constituents, along with moral instruction, for many years, in all save the Latin School. At any rate there occur no disproving factors in that early period. In 1742, when Anthony Benezet came from the Germantown school to Philadelphia, he was employed to teach arithmetic, writing, accounts, and French.[878] John Walby, employed about ten years before him (Benezet) was to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic.[879] Alexander Seaton was employed in 1751 to teach a school “in the upper part of the City,” the subjects being writing, arithmetic, and parts of the mathematics.[880] In 1754, when Benezet first began in the Girls’ School (mornings), he was required to instruct in reading, writing, arithmetic, and English grammar.[881] Then, besides what we may term the English School, in which Seaton and Benezet taught for some time, there were others which we might term “petty schools,” for example, one kept by Debby Godfrey,[882] who taught some poor children to learn to sew and read, and another, taught by Ann Redman (1761), previously occupied by Rebeckah Burchall, where were taught reading, writing, and plain sewing.[883]

Since writing letters was an art much used and cultivated in the Colonial Period, and writing was greatly emphasized in the schools, it may be of interest to insert a letter written by a school boy in 1735. The letter is written in a fairly regular boyish hand, and is probably the production of a youngster about 12 years of age.

At later dates than those above mentioned the records of the overseers, reports made in the monthly meetings of Philadelphia, Horsham School Minutes, Darby, and others, indicate that the curriculum consisted of reading, English, writing, arithmetic, branches of the mathematics, sewing, spelling, needlework, and other things suitable for girls.[885] The only one which is mentioned at this latter date, and not at the former, is spelling. This of course does not mean, necessarily, that spelling had just been introduced. In 1756 the visiting committee reported that spelling books and Bibles were needed in the schools for the poor children,[886] and since Benezet’s spelling book came to a second edition in 1779,[887] and Fox’s Instructions for Right Spelling was published in Philadelphia in 1702,[888] we may be certain that spelling as a regular study began at a very early date. If we compare this curriculum with those mentioned by private tutors at the same time, we find them essentially the same. There was, however, frequent mention of such subjects as navigation, calk guaging, mensuration, bookkeeping,[889] surveying,[890] dialling,[891] astronomy, and fortification,[892] which are not mentioned definitely in the curriculum of the Friends’ schools. It is quite probable that those above, dealing with higher mathematics, were included in the higher mathematics taught in the Classical School. But one cannot imagine that “fortification” was granted a place. Those studies of the mathematics may be mentioned again in studying the curriculum of the Latin School.

The curriculum in the Negro School (1770) consisted approximately of the same subjects, though they may have been modified to some extent in presentation, and restricted more or less to the rudiments. The subjects of instruction mentioned when the school first began were reading, writing, and arithmetic, and were to be taught under “prudent” and “competent” direction.[893]

What books were used for the instruction in this curriculum of the English and Lower schools? We cannot state absolutely in the case of all studies, but we can judge with comparative certainty what books were most available for their use.

In the case of those used for religious instruction, the meeting records usually mentioned the name, which enables one to state with absolute certainty that certain books were used. Bibles for the use of schools were requested by the visiting committees of the overseers in Philadelphia, for the use of poor scholars.[894] Other books of religious and denominational character such as Penn’s Reflections, Maxims, and Advice to His Children, are mentioned definitely by Darby,[895] Horsham School Committee,[896] Sadsbury,[897] and Byberry Preparative meetings[898] as being received for use in connection with the schools. Byberry Preparative,[899] Radnor[900] and Sadsbury[901] monthly meetings mention further the receipt of Barclay’s Apologies for school use. Besides these, which were undoubtedly used for school instruction, there was a long list of journals, essays, letters, epistles, histories of Friends, etc., which always were in the possession of each meeting and may have been used indirectly at least. They will be mentioned more at length in pages following.

The spelling book prepared by Fox and published in Philadelphia in 1702,[902] must have claimed a place in the Friends’ schools, though the books are nowhere mentioned by name. The title of this book includes reading, writing, spelling, and other things useful and necessary, and may easily have served for other purposes than use in spelling instruction. Other spellers, which became available from time to time, were Benezet’s Pennsylvania Spelling Book and The Alphabet printed by Henry Miller, 1770.[903] Among those which were used later in the century, Prowell, in speaking of the schools in York County, notes Comly’s, Cobb’s, and Webster’s.[904] From this array, which is no doubt incomplete, we may judge the schools were well supplied.

Of the primers available, and likely to be used, there were a host. The first which should be mentioned was that published by Fox in 1659; it is not known whether this primer was used in Philadelphia. It seems that it was not printed there.[905] In 1677-8, the monthly meeting authorized the purchase of “primmers,”[906] however, and the choice must have been either Fox’s or Pastorius’. No student of early printing in Philadelphia has yet been able to determine when the latter’s was published. Hildeburn is in doubt,[907] while Smith thinks the “primmers” ordered by the meeting 1697-8 must have been those of Pastorius.[908] The minute, however, does not state which. In 1696 Pastorius indicated his willingness to take charge of a printing press for Friends,[909] but, since it had to be brought from England, it is not likely, though possible, that he himself could have printed the book, before the time of the “primmer” purchase was mentioned. Since Pastorius lists a Fox’s Primmer among the books in his possession,[910] that book must have been known in the monthly meeting too, and may have been the one used.[911] The data are inadequate and uncertain for reaching a decision in the matter.

Other primers published and available in Philadelphia and which may well have gotten into Friends’ schools were Franklin’s, 1764; The New England Primmer Improved, 1770; The Newest American Primer, 1779; The New England Primmer Improved, 1779; and A Primmer, 1779.[912] The minutes of the meetings give little guidance as to which were or were not used. We know only they had this list (and perhaps more) from which to select. Still other books which were probably used in the English work were Dilworth’s A New Guide to the English Tongue and The Child’s New Plaything or Best Amusement, intended to make the Learning to Read a Diversion instead of a Task, both of which were published in 1757.[913]

For use in the writing school, we find one definite reference made to Bickam’s Universal Penman, which was purchased for use in Alexander Seaton’s School in 1762.[914] The various primers and spellers already mentioned dealt largely with writing also, giving models which were to be set before the pupil in the books or to be written out for him by the master. Some of the mottoes called to mind were: “Command you may your mind from Play” and “A man of words and not of deeds, is like a garden full of weeds.”[915] The first exercises in writing were the making of elements such as straight lines, curves, and then single letters, and words. The various samples which the writer has noticed in the boy’s letter quoted,[916] and the student manuscript papers,[917] were of very good quality, the median grade of them being about “eleven” on the Thorndike Handwriting Scale.[918]

Various arithmetics may be mentioned. There were Gough’s A Treatise of Arithmetic, Theory, etc., 1770, and Practical Arithmetic, 1767, neither of which appears to have been published in Philadelphia, but may have been better recommended than others, since gotten up by a Friend. Dilworth’s Schoolmaster’s Assistant published in Philadelphia, 1773,[919] was no doubt a close competitor with Pike’s, Park’s, and Daboll’s arithmetics, which Prowell mentions as being common in the latter part of the century.[920] He also describes a book gotten up by Elihu Underwood, schoolmaster at Warrington, in which he copied very orderly all the exercises of the arithmetic.[921] The Norris Collection likewise contains a few pupils’ copy books filled with neatly arranged exercises in addition, multiplication, division, both decimal and vulgar fractions, and another one which would correspond to our present-day commercial arithmetic, but which Isaac Norris probably called his merchants’ accounts.[922] The books vary in dates from 1729 to 1779.

The curriculum of the classical school is best indicated by statements made on employing teachers for that place, which, though they indicate the subjects, do not state what materials were used for study. Whether the materials used in the study of the Greek and Latin tongues included the so-called “profane authors” is a matter for speculation. Robert Willian in 1748 was brought from England to teach Latin and Greek and other parts of learning.[923] The “other parts” may have included some English grammar, writing, and mathematics, as these are frequently mentioned elsewhere as being a part of the Latin school course.[924] Several masters employed from time to time for instruction in these subjects were (after Willian): Alexander Buller,[925] writing, mathematics, and the Latin tongue; John Wilson, as usher[926] to the master in the same school, and later as master;[927] King;[928] William Johnson;[929] Charles Thompson;[930] and Robert Proud.[931] Others might be named, all of whom seem to have been employed for teaching substantially the same curriculum. Arithmetic and reading are at times mentioned as being taught in the Latin school, usually by the ushers.[932]

The curriculum of what was known as the English School overlapped in some respects that of the Latin. Among the subjects usually taught there may be mentioned: arithmetic, writing, accounts, French,[933] reading,[934] and probably some mathematics.[935] The Girls School’s curriculum, taught by Benezet in 1754, consisted of reading, writing, arithmetic, and English grammar.[936]

Some light is cast on the method of instruction in the English and Latin schools by instructions given by the Board for the use of the master. Latin scholars were to be accustomed to analyze and parse their several lessons; and the English scholars to learn it grammatically. Moreover the double translation method for Latin and Greek was required for instruction in those subjects; and practice in handwriting and spelling.[937] The reader is also referred to page 183 to the rules of Robert Proud, in which he states that Latin, as far as the pupils are able, must be used in the school. The reading of the Scriptures was required three times a week,[938] and in later rules (1795), they name also the works of Penn and Barclay as being required. They are placed in the same category with the Scriptures.[939]