




































 

 

County Teachers’ Institutes: A Snapshot from Gonzales, Texas 

Deborah L. Morowski 

Auburn University 

 

Mindy Spearman 

Clemson University 

 

Abstract 

 Teachers’ institutes provided Texas 

educators with a major form of professional 

development during the latter nineteenth century 

and the first part of the twentieth century.  This 

research offers a snapshot of the way Gonzales 

County, located in central Texas, conducted 

institutes from 1906 to 1915. 

 

 Every year, teachers throughout the 

United States engage in professional 

development activities that advance their 

content and pedagogical knowledge and skills. 

This endeavor is not a modern invention, but 

traces its roots to the early days of common 

schooling in America. Prior to the Brown ruling 

in 1954, schools were segregated for white and 

black students, and likewise, for teachers. 

Although teacher development was segregated, 

all teachers, black and white, were expected to 

enhance their teaching knowledge and skills. 

One important means of furthering teacher 

knowledge was through teacher institutes. At 

these professional development meetings, 

practicing teachers gathered for lectures about 

educational theory, discussions centered on 

pedagogical techniques, and inspirational 

speeches designed to create loyalty amongst 

professional educators (Spearman 2006).  

Institutes were relatively inexpensive, easy to 

organize, and provided a blend of local and 

national educational contexts.  The teachers’ 

institute was particular popular during the 

decades surrounding the turn of the twentieth 

century.  A variety of teacher institutes existed 

at the state and local levels, occurring both 

during the summer months and throughout the 

school year. This article sheds light on the 

teacher institutes conducted by one Texas town, 

Gonzales.  Considering what Fraser describes as 

“understudied” nature of teachers’ institutes, a 

historical case study of Gonzales County might 

prove to demonstrate a system typical of many 

districts throughout the state (Fraser 2007, 76). 

 During the late-nineteenth and early-

twentieth century, Texas administrators and 

policymakers considered the professional 

development of the Texas teaching corps of 

prime importance.  This was in part due to the 

efforts of Dr. Barnas Sears, the first Peabody 

agent to visit the state of Texas (Eby 1925).  In 

1877, he reported that teacher institutes were 

“indispensable; Otherwise, the public schools 

will be but a farce” (Sears 1877, 710).  Sears’ 

strong statement stemmed from the belief that 

teachers, without a widespread normal school 

system, had a general lack of pre-service 

training and experience.  Teacher institutes 

served to advance teachers’ pedagogical and 

content knowledge. Through regularly 

scheduled teacher institutes, superintendents 

guided and supported the daily work of teachers.  

Other Texas educators later came to agree with 

Sears, hoping that regularly scheduled 

professional development might help “to raise 

teaching to the dignity of a profession in Texas” 



2 

 

(Bryant 1934, 42; Tucker 1917). 

 The State of Texas ran several different 

systems of institutes simultaneously—summer 

normal institutes, county institutes and city/local 

institutes.  The State Superintendent of 

Education organized and regulated summer 

normal institutes.  Despite the implications of 

their name, these normal institutes were not 

officially associated with normal schools, 

teacher’s colleges, or university schools of 

education but were conducted entirely through 

the Department of Public Instruction.  Whereas 

some states created special “normal districts” to 

house each institute, Texas held summer normal 

institutes based on congressional districts (News 

and Notes 1885).  The state also had a system of 

county institutes, organized by county 

superintendents of the public schools.  Where 

summer normals emphasized general theory and 

subject matter, county institutes focused on 

practical, pedagogical methods (Hartman 1907).  

Likely this reflected the certification methods 

available to teachers in Texas. Teachers could 

receive certification by graduating from a 

normal school or by passing county teaching 

examinations. Due to the more rigorous nature 

of the normal school curriculum, it is not 

surprising that county institutes focused on 

practical pedagogical matters that would 

enhance the teaching abilities of the teachers 

accredited through the county examinations. 

Additionally, some Texas school districts 

elected to hold local institutes sponsored by city 

superintendents.  City institutes were not 

regulated by the state legislature, although most 

superintendents personally insisted that their 

teachers attend.  Local institutes were 

conceptualized as an extension of county 

institute work, scheduled regularly on a more 

frequent basis.  Additionally, the smaller setting 

allowed for an increased opportunity for group 

work, teacher leadership and active participation 

(Liddell 1902).   

 Of the three institute types available to 

Texas teachers, county institutes generally 

garnered the largest amount of teacher 

participation. Indeed, the Texas legislature 

stressed the importance of teacher professional 

development by making county institutes a legal 

necessity.  At first, according to Chapter 25, 

Section 42 of the Eighteenth Legislative Session 

of the State of Texas, laws simply mandated that 

each county hold some form of institute—with 

no specifics concerning the frequency or length 

of institutes, nor regulation of teacher 

attendance (Gammel 1898).  Many 

administrators lobbied for more stringent 

requirements that would make teacher presence 

at county institutes compulsory (Henderson 

1902).  The Texas School Journal, the leading 

educational periodical in Texas during the 

Progressive Era, suggested that teachers who 

failed to attend the institutes should have pay 

deducted from their salaries and be forced to 

retake all certification exams (Editorial 1887).  

While the journal’s suggestion never came to 

fruition, the legislature did eventually regulate 

attendance.  In 1905, under the twenty-ninth 

legislative session of the State of Texas, teacher 

attendance at county institutes was mandated 

and teachers could attend institutes that were 

scheduled during the school year without 

pecuniary loss (Cousins 1905).  This same 

legislature, in Article 2658, Chapter 124, 

granted the State Superintendent and his 

assistants traveling expenses for institute 

attendance (Woods and McAlister 1938).  These 

institutes were often held for a week in 

September or during the holidays; or, 

alternatively, split into sessions that were held 



3 

 

on three non-subsequent weekends during the 

scholastic year. 

 Teachers of all grade levels attended 

county institutes.  To better serve the 

participants, teachers split into sessions that 

grouped them according to primary, 

intermediate and high school grade levels.   

Some county institutes also provided principals 

and superintendents with a special section for 

discussing administrative work (Jackson 1897).  

In the case of some county institutes, teachers 

also broke into rural and city sections.  Institutes 

were segregated by race into a white section and 

a colored section, both at the county and city 

levels. Although the Texas State Superintendent 

of Public Instruction requested that white and 

colored sections be held on different days of the 

week, occasionally they were held on the same 

date but at different times or in different places, 

as in San Antonio and Houston (Carlisle 1898).  

This format allowed the same guest speakers 

and lectures to visit both the white and the 

colored institutes in succession (School of 

Methods, 1905; HISD 1908).  In general, the 

colored institutes had the same format as the 

white institutes and were also presided over by 

the city or county superintendent (Hartman 

1907; HISD 1908). 

 At first, Texas county superintendents 

organized the structure and content of county 

institutes on their own.  However, the quality of 

the individual institutes varied depending upon 

the amount of time and preparation that each 

county superintendent put into the event.  

During the first part of the twentieth-century, 

some Texas administrators and policymakers, 

frustrated that “a very poor grade of institute 

work prevailed” in many counties because of 

inconsistencies in the “native ability and 

training” of some superintendents, sought a way 

to regulate county institute work (Henderson 

1915).  To combat this problem, the State 

Superintendent of Public Instruction released a 

general plan for county institutes each year and 

asked county superintendents to conform—or at 

least not conflict—with state suggestions.  

While it is unclear if county superintendents 

who failed to follow such guidelines received 

any sort of sanction from the state, they were 

expected to submit a copy of their institute 

program to the State Superintendent each year 

(Bralley 1910). 

 

Teachers’ Institutes in Gonzales County, 

1906-1915 

 Gonzales County is located in central 

Texas, approximately 50 miles southeast of the 

state capital of Austin. Since the mid-nineteenth 

century, the county has been comprised of farms 

interspersed with a few small towns. Gonzales 

County was settled in 1826 and was established 

formally as a county in 1836 (Baumgartner and 

Vollentine 2008). It is best known for its central 

role in Texas’ fight for independence from 

Mexico in 1835. From its early years, Gonzales 

County prided itself on providing educational 

opportunities. In 1841, residents of the county 

seat of Gonzales County, Gonzales, founded 

Gonzales College (Vollentine 1986). Although 

the college provided educational opportunities 

for males and females, only those able to afford 

the tuition received an education. By the late 

nineteenth century, a system of public schools 

administered by the Gonzales County Board of 

Directors operated throughout the county. 

Separate schools housed white, African-

American, and Mexican children.  

To enhance the knowledge levels of its 

teachers Gonzales County, typical of most 

Texas counties, offered professional 



4 

 

development in the form of annual county 

institutes for teachers. The importance of these 

institutes was noted in the State Department of 

Education’s Seventeenth Biennial Report: 

The institute serves higher ideals of 

education and teaching to teachers, 

cultivates the “craft” spirit, develops a 

more intelligent understanding of the 

science and art of instruction and 

school management, and generates 

enthusiasm for the work; it makes the 

increased professional power of 

teachers that comes from expert 

suggestions, wise planning and the 

practical study of education 

immediately available for school room 

use, and thereby reaches directly with 

its influence and benefits all schools in 

the county… (Texas Department of 

Education, 1911) 

 

An examination of county institute minutes and 

newspaper articles on the institutes provided an 

insight into the workings of these professional 

development sessions for white teachers in 

Gonzales County. No substantive records 

remain for any county institutes for African-

American teachers.  It is not known if county 

institutes for African-American teachers were 

not held, or if detailed records were not saved. 

 The 1906 Gonzales County White 

Teachers’ Institute commenced at nine o’clock 

a.m. on September 3 at the Gonzales High 

School with a prayer led by the local Methodist 

minister and a roll call of teachers. 

“Appropriate” religious exercises followed. A 

female teacher was elected to serve as secretary. 

A local principal was elected to serve as 

chairman of the institute and a committee was 

established to arrange a program of study for the 

institute. The program committee consisted of 

the institute chairman and two participating 

teachers, who discussed the program requisites 

with the remaining participants before 

adjourning for lunch on Monday.  Two sessions 

were held each day, one in the morning and one 

in the afternoon. Lessons on elementary subject 

content, pedagogy, and classroom 

administration were taught by local principals 

and experienced teachers. For example, the 

Thursday sessions of the 1906 institute included 

an advanced class in reading, a roundtable 

discussion on the topic of including high school 

branches in rural schools, a class in grammar, 

and a seminar on teaching percentages in 

mathematics. Additionally, a local physician 

provided a lecture on physiology and hygiene 

and Judge Glass, a county judge, addressed the 

teachers about Texas’ school laws. At the end of 

the week, the Committee on Resolutions 

presented a resolution of thanks to the citizens 

of Gonzales for the kind manner in which the 

teachers had been treated (Gonzales County 

Teachers’ Institute Minutes, 1906). 

 The institute of 1907 was typical of the 

institutes which occurred in Gonzales during the 

ensuing decade. The county superintendent 

presided over the institute as chairman. One 

noted change was that the program of study was 

outlined by the state superintendent rather than 

being organized by the local chairman as had 

been done in 1906. County Superintendent 

Haynes outlined the State Superintendent’s 

Course of Study to institute participants. To 

support the state outlined program, State 

Superintendent Robert Bartow Cousins (1905-

1910) addressed the institute on the subject of 

“What I Consider a Successful Teacher.” 

Although the board of trustees and local citizens 

were invited, few turned out to hear the state 



5 

 

official (Gonzales County Teachers’ Institute 

Minutes, 1906). One possible reason for the 

lower than hoped for turnout was the timing of 

the address. In later years, invited speakers 

addressed the institute during the day and 

presented an additional talk at night for the 

board of trustees and local citizens. The minutes 

of the institute do not indicate that State 

Superintendent Cousins delivered an evening 

address in addition to his speech to the institute.  

Educational topics of the day were also 

addressed during the institute. During the 

morning session on Wednesday, the teachers 

discussed whether children should start school 

at age four, five, six, or seven. The institute 

voted to recommend that all children younger 

than age seven be excluded from the county 

schools. 

In 1908, the county institute was held in 

December rather than in September, as in 

previous years.  Despite this change in time, the 

Gonzales County Institute remained in 

accordance with state regulations for teachers’ 

institutes.  Although State Superintendent 

Cousins initially suggested that counties hold 

week-long institutes in September or October, 

by 1908 these stipulations had changed to allow 

institutes any time between September 1
st
 and 

December 31
st 

 (Cousins 1907; Eilers 1905).  

Also in 1908, a local judge who was an expert 

in agriculture presented lesson on the topic. 

Teachers visited local classrooms of the 

Gonzales Independent School District to 

observe classroom instruction. The Gonzales 

Mother’s Club entertained the teachers at a 

member’s home. A committee on professional 

reading recommended books for teachers to read 

throughout the year. These included Colin 

Sherman Buell’s Essentials of Psychology 

(1898) and Francis Wayland Parker’s Talks on 

Teaching (1893). The inclusion of such reading 

material highlights the fact that teacher institutes 

were a means for teachers to become familiar 

with current research and thinking in all aspects 

of education.  In addition to local teachers, 

principals, and specialists, a professor from 

Southwestern Normal School, Thomas G. 

Harris, instructed institute participants on 

problems in teaching. Although the institute was 

held at the county’s expense, the teachers voted 

to tax themselves fifteen cents each to help 

offset the cost of the instructors. In 1908, 75 

teachers attended the Gonzales County White 

Teachers Institute (Gonzales County Teachers 

Institute Minutes, 1908).  

 In 1909, the Gonzales County institute 

met in October, again at the high school 

building. Cecil Eugene Evans, the General 

Agent for the Conference of Education in Texas, 

was invited to address the institute. The 

Conference of Education in Texas was a body of 

teachers appointed by the state teachers’ 

association that promoted educational issues.  

Evans spoke to the teachers on the topic of 

“Obtaining Better Schools.” That evening, 

Evans delivered an address on “Education as an 

Investment” with the board of trustees and local 

citizens being invited to attend.  Evan’s evening 

address supported State Superintendent 

Cousins’ institute plan, which suggested that 

county superintendents hold a motivational 

evening rally open to the general public; in 

particular, Cousins suggested that the 1909-

1910 school rallies might promote the purpose 

and goals behind the Conference for Education 

in Texas (Cousins 1909).  In 1909, the county 

teachers voted to organize themselves in four 

local districts, representing the four small towns 

and surrounding rural areas of the county. Local 

institutes were held on the third Saturday of 



6 

 

each month between December and March, with 

the hosting location being responsible for 

planning the program. 

In 1910, Evans again was invited to 

address the Gonzales County White Teachers 

Institute.  Evans discussed rural high schools, 

explaining their importance and how they could 

be obtained Gonzales County Teachers Institute 

Minutes, 1910.  Evans speech was so 

convincing that the teachers voted to create a 

committee to generate public interest in a rural 

high school for Gonzales County. Also 

addressing the institute in 1910 was J.E. Rogers 

of the Texas School Journal, who presented a 

lesson on reading. A.S. Blankenship of the 

Extension Department of the University of 

Texas presented a talk on rural schools, 

libraries, correspondence courses, and school 

clubs. Interspersed with the guest speakers were 

lessons such as primary reading, geography, the 

dull pupil, the Speer method of teaching 

arithmetic, and teaching Language to non-

English speaking students.    

The Committee on Resolutions 

requested that each teacher pledge $1.00 to aid 

in the creation of a Teachers’ Library for the 

county. They also recommended endorsing the 

work of the Educational Conference and 

creating a local committee of nine members to 

be known as the Educational Cooperative 

Committee of Gonzales County, with County 

Superintendent A.B. Corder serving as the ex-

officio chairman. The teachers heartily 

supported the recommendation.  

At the 1912 institute, a new format was 

implanted with the addition of breakout sessions 

for teachers in different grade divisions. 

Throughout the week, primary, intermediate, 

and high school teachers met with others of the 

same designation to discuss matters pertinent to 

their areas of teaching. Lessons in pedagogy and 

content knowledge continued to comprise the 

course of study, with additional sessions on 

administrative matters, such as how to fill out 

the county attendance registers and reports. 

Chapters from William Seneca Sutton and Paul 

Whitfield Horn’s School Room Essentials 

(1911) were assigned to the teachers and 

discussed at subsequent sessions. The 1912 

institute focused on the topic of graded schools. 

As in previous years, local institutes were 

scheduled to be held in the four small towns on 

Saturdays in October and November with the 

host location planning the program.  

William F. Doughty (1913-1916), who 

in 1913 served as the new Texas State 

Superintendent of Education, addressed the 

Gonzales County institute in 1913 and discussed 

his goals for the schools of Texas: attractive 

schools, earnest proficient teachers, and 

cooperation between the teacher, the county 

superintendent, and the community. 

Superintendent Doughty stated his desire for “a 

strong educational system of Texas that shall 

have for its product men and women of sound 

character, capable of rendering to society and 

state that which they justly owe, namely, to 

become noble citizens” (Gonzales County 

Teachers’ Institute Minutes, 1913).  Over 100 

teachers and administrators attended the 1913 

session to hear Superintendent Doughty. 

During the 1913 session, the teachers 

expanded the offerings of the county schools by 

approving the formation of an Interscholastic 

League for the students. The Interscholastic 

League offered students the opportunity to 

participate in athletics, academics, and arts 

competitions.  The Interscholastic League (the 

local affiliate of the statewide University 

Interscholastic League) was for white students 



7 

 

only. Black students participated in the Prairie 

View Interscholastic League.  The group not 

only formed a county organization, but voted to 

enter into affiliation with the statewide 

University Interscholastic League. 

By 1915, attendance at the county 

institute had grown to nearly 140 school 

personnel. The group continued to meet at 

Gonzales High School and County 

Superintendent Cochran served as chairman of 

the institute. As in the past, the county institute 

hosted prominent individuals in the field of 

education to enhance the knowledge of the 

institute’s attendees. A United States Bureau of 

Education specialist in city school systems, 

Walter S. Deffenbaugh, delivered an address on 

the importance of teachers using supplementary 

and instructive materials. Deffenbaugh’s 

address was followed by a speech from the State 

Rural School Supervisor of Texas, and the Rural 

Supervisor of Louisiana schools, C.J. Brown. 

The rural supervisors contrasted city and county 

schools and discussed how to obtain additional 

funds for county schools. That same evening, 

Brown presented a stereopticon talk on the 

condition of rural schools in Louisiana for 

institute attendees, school board trustees, and 

members of the community. Often guest 

speakers remained at the institute throughout the 

week and delivered multiple presentations. For 

example, Brown addressed the institute each 

day during the 1915 meeting.  

Brown’s visit to the Gonzales County 

Institute earned Cochran statewide attention as a 

model superintendent who had “the right 

conception of the function of a teachers’ 

institute” (Rubinow 1916).  S.G. Rubinow, a 

Texas A&M Professor, lauded Cochran’s efforts 

to bring in notable visiting lecturers who might 

serve to raise the caliber of Texas teachers’ 

institutes to an intellectual level more like a 

normal school.  Rubinow praised Brown’s visit 

to Gonzales County, saying that presented 

enough information to “[bring] the bacon home” 

and suggested that other county superintendents 

would soon follow Cochran’s meritable 

example (Rubinow 1916). An additional guest 

speaker during the 1915 institute was Hugh 

Thomas Musselman, editor of the Texas School 

Journal, who presented as talks on “That Boy of 

Yours and What to Do With Him,” “The 

Biological Aspects of Education,” “The Cause 

of the War in Europe and America,” and “The 

European War” (Gonzales County Teachers’ 

Institutes Minutes 1915).  Musselman was an 

outspoken proponent of the teachers’ institute 

who often used the pages of his periodical to 

promote professional development within the 

state (Spearman 2008).  As part of his 

preparation for a series of Texas School Journal 

articles on the county teachers’ institute printed 

between 1915 and 1918, Musselman lectured at 

a series of county institutes around the state, 

including Gonzales County.  Musselman, like 

Rubinow, lauded the way that Cochran sought 

leaders in education from areas of the country 

outside of Texas by having Brown speak at the 

Gonzales institute all week (Musselman 1915).  

Brown, according to Musselman, “was one of 

three or four really great rural school men in 

America” (Musselman 1918, p. 10). As the 

success of the 1915 Gonzales County institute 

spread around the state, other counties sought 

Deffenbaugh and Brown for their own teachers’ 

institutes.  In 1918, for example, the two men 

spoke at a joint county institute for Fort Bend, 

Matagorda and Wharton Counties (Musselman 

1918). 

As with previous institutes, teachers 

from different grade levels met together under 



8 

 

the supervision of a school principal or an 

experienced teacher for lessons and discussions 

pertaining to their teaching level. Lessons from 

the 1915 institute included the importance of 

mental arithmetic, correlated reading, school 

accessories, teaching music, the necessity of 

agriculture, domestic sciences, and manual 

training in county schools, and teaching and 

testing the recitation. Teachers continued to 

hone their knowledge of pedagogy and subject 

content.  

The administrative structure of the 

county teachers’ institutes of Gonzales County 

in the early 1900’s echoed the design of many 

other Texas counties. The institute met during 

the fall semester and was held at the high school 

in the town of Gonzales, the county seat. The 

participants elected a chairman, usually the 

county superintendent or a school principal, and 

a secretary, usually a female teacher. In 1906, 

the chairman planned the program for the 

institute, but beginning in 1907, the program 

was outlined by the State Superintendent of 

Education. This change was significant enough 

to elicit an entry in the institute’s minutes and 

time was set aside during the institute for the 

chairman to outline the State Superintendent’s 

Course of Study. Teachers posed many 

questions and generated “several very 

interesting discussions” regarding the institute 

program (Gonzales County Teachers’ Institute 

Minutes, 1907). During the early years of the 

institute, the group met as a whole, but later 

altered the meeting format to allow time for 

teachers of similar grade levels to meet for 

lessons or discussions pertaining to their 

teaching level.  

Individual lessons or discussions were 

led by school principals or experienced teachers 

in the Gonzales County schools or from the 

Gonzales Independent School District. Local 

experts, such as agricultural specialists and 

physicians, addressed the participants on a 

variety of topics. State and national educational 

personnel also were invited to speak, often with 

additional addresses being delivered in the 

evening to institute participants, school board 

trustees, and members of the community. Two 

State Superintendents of Education, officials of 

the Texas School Journal, university men, 

school officials from other states, and national 

educational figures all visited the Gonzales 

County White Teachers Institute to provide 

instruction to teachers and administrators. Local 

social organizations provided activities for 

institute participants. The local Mother’s Club, 

Businessman’s Club, and school vocal groups 

provided amusements such as teas, automobile 

drives of the town, and concerts to entertain the 

town’s guests each year.  Although the format 

of the institutes and the speakers changed over 

time, the goal of Gonzales County yearly 

meetings remained the same, to provide 

professional development for the teachers of the 

county school and to enhance teachers’ 

pedagogical and academic content knowledge.  

 

References 

Baumgartner, D. H. and Vollentine, G.  

Gonzales county.   The handbook of Texas 

online,http://wwwtshaonline.org/handbook

/ online/artuckes/GG/hcg7.html 

Bralley, F. M.  1910. County institutes.  The 

Texas School Journal, 28.1. 

Bryant, Jr., I.  1934. The development of 

Houston Negro Schools.  Houston: 

Informative Publishing Company. 

Carlisle, J. M. 1898.  County institutes. The 

Texas School Journal, 11.11: 363. 



9 

 

Cousins, R. B.  1905.  Digest of the law 

governing certificates of teachers.  The 

San Antonio Express. June 4. 

Cousins, R. B. 1907.  The institute work for 

1907-1908.  Texas School Magazine, 10.7: 

11. 

Cousins, R. B. 1909.   The institute work for 

1909-1910.  Texas School Magazine, 12.5: 

9. 

Eby, F. 1925. The development of education in 

Texas. New York: The Macmillan 

Company. 

Editorial. 1887. The Texas School Journal, 5.6: 

169-170. 

Eilers, W.  1905.  County teachers’ institute.  

The Texas School Journal, 23. 

Fraser, J. W. 2007. Preparing America’s 

teachers: A history.  New York: Teachers 

College Press. 

Gammel, H. P. N.  1898. The Laws of Texas 

1922-1897.  Austin: Gammel Book 

Company. 

Gonzales County Teachers’ Institute Minutes.  

1906.  Scholastic Records Collection.  

Gonzales County Records Center and 

Archives, Gonzales, Texas. 

Gonzales County Teachers’ Institute Minutes.  

1908.  Scholastic Records Collection.  

Gonzales County Records Center and 

Archives, Gonzales, Texas. 

Gonzales County Teachers’ Institute Minutes.  

1913.  Scholastic Records Collection.  

Gonzales County Records Center and 

Archives, Gonzales, Texas. 

Gonzales County Teachers’ Institute Minutes.  

1915.  Scholastic Records Collection.  

Gonzales County Records Center and 

Archives, Gonzales, Texas. 

Hartman, C. 1905. The Travis County school 

annual: A circular of information. Austin: 

Von Boeckmann-Jones Company Printers. 

Hartman, C.  1907. Local institutes. Texas 

School Magazine, 11.8:8-9. 

Henderson, J. L. 1902.  County and city 

institutes.  The Texas School Journal, 

20.3: 76. 

Henderson, J. L. 1915. Making the county 

institute a real training school. The Texas 

School Journal, 33.1: 32. 

Houston Independent School District. 1908.  

Report of the superintendent of Houston 

public schools 1907-1908. Houston: Gray, 

Dillaye and Co. 

Jackson, Q. 1897.  County institute 

improvement. The Texas School Journal, 

15.1. 

Liddell, A. R.  1902. Local institutes.  The Texas 

School Journal, 20.6: 269-270. 

Minutes of the County Superintendents’ 

Institute held in Austin, Texas, August 4
th

 

and 5
th

. 1908. Texas School Magazine, 

12.7: 15. 

Musselman, H. T.  1915.  What of the county 

teachers’ institute.  The Texas School 

Journal, 33.1 . 

Musselman, H. T.  1918.  The county teachers’ 

institute in 1917-1918.  The Texas School 

Journal, 35.5. 

News and notes: The reading circle. 1885.  

Texas School Journal, 3.2: 38. 

Rubinow,  S. G.  1916.  Doing things—practical 

education is rejuvenating the teachers’ 

institute. The Texas School Journal, 33.5: 

47. 

School of Methods.  1905.  San Antonio Daily 

Express. June 20. 

Sears, B. 1877.  Report of the Peabody agent, 

fifteenth meeting of the trustees, 



10 

 

10/3/1877.  Reprinted in F. Eby (Ed.).  

1921.  Education in Texas: Source 

Materials.  Austin: The University of 

Texas at Austin. 

Spearman, M. 2006.  “The peripatetic normal 

school”: Teachers’ institutes in five 

southwestern cities (1880-1920).  

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The 

University of Texas at Austin. 

Spearman, M. 2008. Everything to help, 

Nothing to hinder’: The story of the Texas 

School Journal,”  Southwestern Historical 

Quarterly 111.3. 

Texas Department of Education. 1911.   

Seventeenth biennial report of the state 

superintendent of  public instruction for 

the scholastic years ending August 31, 

1909 and August 31, 1910.  Austin: Austin 

Printing Company. 

Tucker, J. 1917. Improvement of teachers 

already in service. Texas School Journal, 

34: 19-21. 

Vollentine, G. 1986.  Gonzales county schools.  

Gonzales County History.  Dallas: Curtis 

Media Group. 

Woods , L. A. and  McAlister, S. B.  1938. 

Public School Laws.  Austin: The State of 

Texas. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


