LITUANUS LITHUANIAN QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES   Volume 22, No.4 - Winter 1976 Editors of this issue: J.A. Račkauskas Copyright © 1976 LITUANUS Foundation, Inc.

SCHOOL VISITATIONS AND INSPECTIONS UNDER THE COMMISSION FOR NATIONAL EDUCATION OF THE KINGDOM OF POLAND AND THE GRAND DUCHY OF LITHUANIA (1773-1794)

J. A. RAČKAUSKAS
Chicago State University
and
Comparative Education Center Universite d'Ottawa

PRINCE IGNACY MASSALSKI (1729-1794) Bishop of Vilnius and Chairman of the Commission for National Education of Poland and Lithuania

The author is grateful to Prof. Algirdas Šidlauskas of the University of Vilnius
for assistance provided in the documentation UFO certain passages of this study.

The Commission for National Education realized that without proper supervision and inspection of the schools the planned educational reforms, no matter how ingenious or beneficial, would remain solely on the statute books.* Therefore, early in its existence the Educational Commission began considering methods of providing proper supervision to fully implement these reforms in the schools of the Commonwealth.

As early as 1774 the Educational Commission issued its first regulation dealing with school inspection. This regulation was supplemented and enlarged and by 1783 became an integral part of the School Statutes of the Educational Commission. This study will discuss the first attempts of the Educational Commission to conduct school inspections; the provisions of the School Statutes of 1783 relating to school inspections; and the inspections conducted during the period 1784 -1798 in the Lithuanian schools.

A. School Visitations' Conducted by the Educational Commission

The idea that schools should be visited and inspected on a regular basis appears to have been on the minds of various members of the Educational Commission as early as 1773. The first concrete statement regarding school visitations and inspections can be found in the second organizational document issued by the Educational Commission on 21 February 1774. This early document was entitled: Ordynacja Rzecypospolitej Edukacji Narodowej.1 One of the provisions of this document obligated every member of the Educational Commission to engage in school visitations and inspections.2 The Polish - Lithuanian Commonwealth was divided into educational departments each of which was then assigned to a member of the Educational Commission. A member of the Commission was to visit each of the schools in that department at least once a year.3 The Ordynacja did not delineate the procedures to be used in these visitations.

The second section of the Uniwersal, issued by the Educational Commission on 24 October 1773, contained a requirement for all school directors to submit to the Educational Commission a report detailing the functioning of the school and its pedagogical program.4 One of the members of the Commission, Ignacy Potocki, formulated a plan which contained detailed instructions for the utilization of these school status reports in connection with proposed school visitations.5 Potocki's plan, outlined in his Mysli o edukacji i instrukcji w Polszce ustanowic sie majecej,6 proposed that school reports should be short, but complete and clear. He further proposed that all school rectors should report on school operations and status as well as on the functioning of their prefects and teachers. Likewise, all teachers were to report about their students. The reports were also to include statements regarding student health, behavior and discipline. Potocki was of the opinion that these reports should then be used by the school inspectors during visitations. The main purpose of the visitations would be, according to Potocki, the verification of the school status reports.7

With the school status reports on hand and the reform plan proposed by Potocki before them,8 the Educational Commission made its first decision concerning school visitations on 6 May 1774.9 According to this decision the members of the Educational Commission were to visit the schools within each of their departments10 before the summer vacation. If a Commission member could not visit the schools, due to another commitment, he was to delegate this responsibility to an alternate.

The second major decision regarding school visitations and inspections was made at the meeting of the Educational Commission held on May 27, 1774.11 As a result of the discussions at that meeting a formalized set of rules was adopted by the Commission on June 20, 1774.12 These rules, entitled: Instrukcja dla Wizytatorow,13 defined the procedures to follow in making school visits. The introductory statement to the rules elucidates some of the reasons for school visits:

In an effort to become better acquainted with the status of the schools, and later operate them under its own discretion, the Educational Commission has appointed a visitor for each province from its own ranks. Trusting in both his judgment and ability, the Commission sends Prince Ignas Massalskis, Bishop of Vilnius, to Lithuania.14

The first paragraph of the Rules repeated the Commission's decision of 6 May 1774 requiring each of the Commission members to visit the schools in his department. Although the Rules allowed a Commission member to appoint a sub-delegate to visit the schools, they also emphasized that the members themselves should visit the more important schools.15

The second paragraph of the Rules specified responsibilities of the visitor regarding school finances and ex-jesuit properties. The visitor was to secure a copy of the Censor's report for the school property16 and verify the accuracy of the report.17

The Rules further empowered the visitors to judge the suitability of the ex-jesuits for teaching positions in the schools.18 The visitors were also empowered to appoint the rectors, prefects, and teachers, in all ex-jesuit institutions. They were also to determine which of the ex-jesuits could continue to live in the school buildings.19 In parish schools the visitors were instructed to arrange with the local bishop for independent functioning of both religious and educational activities in the schools.20 The visitors were also, after appointing the various school personnel, to present to the personnel the various regulations of the Commission and set salaries in accordance with the following schedule:21 District School Rectors — 8,000 gulden; Sub-District School Rectors — 4,000 gulden; Prefects — 3,000 gulden; and Teachers — 2,000 gulden.22

The same instructions to school visitors also detailed a series of reporting procedures that the schools were to follow.23 This section of the Rules required that each parish school report its status to the rector of the district school. The rector of the district school was to report to the rector of the chief district school, and he in turn was to report to the university and the Educational Commission concurrently.24 This procedure appears to indicate that even as early as 1774 the Educational Commission was moving in the direction of a hierarchical and centralized system of state education.25 The school visitors were to check that each of the schools was, in fact, preparing and dispatching the required reports.26

The original plan presented to the Educational Commission by Ignacy Potocki27 also found its way into these instructions. The Rules contained a series of reporting requirements: (1) Rector's Report about Teachers;28 (2) Prefect's Report about Directors;29 (3) Teacher's Report about First-Year Students;30 (4) Teacher's Report about Second-Year Students;31 and (5) Teacher's Report about Third-Year Students.32 The format and information required in these reports much resembled the Potocki plan. The visitors were instructed by the Commission to ascertain the preparation and accuracy of these reports.

Two days after the approval of the Instrukcya dla Wizytatorow, on 22 June 1774, the Commission assigned to each member a specific school area which he was to visit and inspect.33

The first school visitations under the new Rules began in June of 1774. These visitations were conducted by either the members of the Commission or their delegates.34 During the time period 1774 -1781 a number of school visitations were made by either the members of the Commission or their delegates (See Table 1). The most consciencious of the Commission members was Adam Czartoryski, who made a total of five visits personally and had thirty-one visits made by his delegates.35

TABLE 1

VISITS MADE BY MEMBERS OF THE EDUCATIONAL COMMISSION
OR THEIR DELEGATES DURING THE TIME PERIOD 1774-1781

 SOURCE: "Wykaz Wizytacji w Latach 1774-1781," in Hanna Pohoska, Wizytatorowie Generalni Komisji Edukacji Narodowej: Monografia z Dziejow Administracji Szkolnej Komisji Edukacji Narodowej (The General Inspectors of the Commission for National Education: Monograph on the history of school administration under the Commission for National Education), Lublin, Towarrystwo Naukowe Kotalickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1957, p. 301-303.

The report of the 1780 visitations to the Ukrainian and Podolian territories made by Adam Czartoryski was so complete and detailed, that this report was later used by the Commission as the model report for the conduct of school visitations.36 The Commission also used the Czartoryski report in the formulation of the new Instructions to School Inspectors contained in the Statutes.37 Some members, like Joachim Chreptowicz,38 who shared the visiting responsibilities for the Lithuanian territories with Bishop Ignacy Massalski did not present a single formal report to the Educational Commission, even though it is known that he personally visited a number of schools.39 In 1774 Bishop Massalski visited a number of Lithuanian schools. The Minutes of the Educational Commission record the fact that he presented a detailed report of the visits,40 but up to now that report has not been found in the Archives of the Educational Commission.41 It is also known that another member of the Educational Commission, Stanislaw Poniatowski,42 made some visits to the Lithuanian schools, but it is not known which schools he visited.43

The only recorded visits to the Lithuanian schools during the period 1774-1781 were as follows:

    1. 1777 visits by the General Inspector Jozef Wybicki to (a) Vilnius; (b) Gardinas; (C) Kaunas; and (d) Merkinė.44
     2. 1775 visit by Bishop Massalski to Gardinas.45

As can be seen from an examination of Table 1, the majority of school visitations made by members of the Educational Commission or their delegates were conducted in 1774. After 1774 the number of school visits declined. Some members did not make any visits after that year, while some, like Adam Czartoryski, continued making visits through 1780. As early as 1774 a suggestion was made in the Commission that school visitors be hired and paid by the Educational Commission.46 This proposal would have eliminated the need for the members of the Commission to visit the schools or appoint delegates to visit for them. Although this proposal was considered, the Commission finally decided to utilize these proposed funds for paying teachers in the parish schools and for providing support to local pastors for the use of their facilities.47

As a result of the various initial visitations by the members of the Educational Commission a number of suggestions were presented to the Commission for adoption as supplements to the Rules of 20 June 1774. These suggestions included: (1) that each visitor should pay special attention to the textbooks in use in the schools, especially in the parish schools; (2) that a determination should be made as to the suitability of the teaching staff to implement the proposed curricular reform; (3) that the visitor should make revisions in the curriculum so that it more closely resembles the thinking of the Educational Commission.48

The provisions of the 20 June 1774 Rules for School Visitors contained procedures which indicated that the Commission was planning a centralized and hierarchical system of state education.49 Some authors claim, e.g., Pahoska,50 that the genesis for the centralized and hierarchical system may rest in the work of Samuel Dupont de Numours.51 Whether his influence or ideas were instrumental is yet to be determined, since his plan was submitted to the Commission on 30 September 1774, while the Rules were already approved and signed by the 20th of June 1774.52

In 1776 two important decisions of the Sejm had an effect on the continued school visitations by members of the Educational Commission. These decisions were: (1) to turn over all ex-jesuit property directly to the control of the Educational Commission; and (2) to expand the membership of the Educational Commission from eight to twelve.53 These decisions of the Sejm placed heavy administrative burdens on the members of the Commission and thus forced them to curtail their school visits. But, these same decisions had very important implications for the conduct of school visits, for now the Commission was directly responsible for auditing school finances as well as adjudicating any problems arising from financial dealings. The delegated school visitors began to ask for additional help in the conduct of school visits.54 The Commission responded on 26 November 1776 by deciding that all members of the Commission should visit schools regularly and further expanded the requirements for visitations to all schools, not just those supported by the Educational Commission.55 The Commission made a special request of Stanislaw Poniatowski to visit the schools of Lithuania.56

By 1777 a new conceptualization of the school visitor emerged. The genesis of this new conceptualization was a developing problem with the Lithuanian districts. The Commission realized that the vast network of schools in the Lithuanian districts, under the control of its own Chairman, Bishop of Vilnius, Ignacy Massalski, was not being visited. Furthermore, the Commission was receiving a number of complaints from various school rectors, teachers, etc. that they were not being paid their salaries, or that the salaries were less than what the Commission had established.57 Some individuals were being paid up to a year late.58 Certain irregularities appeared in regard to the Parish School Teacher Training Seminary, where students even complained that they were not being fed properly.59 The Commission, it should be noted, did not appropriate monies for the Parish School Training Seminary in 1776,60 because of the reported irregularities. The problem with the Parish School Teacher Training Seminary and various other complaints reaching the Educational Commission from school rectors prompted the Commission to reach a decision on 27 May 1777 to send to Lithuania two school visitors: Jozef Wibicki and K. Narbutas, both members of the Society for Elementary Books.61

With the decision of the Educational Commission to send school visitors to the Lithuanian schools the Commission established another distinct type of school visitor. Until this time there were only two types: (1) members of the Educational Commission; and (2) individuals delegated to visit by members of the Educational Commission. Now emerged a third type which will be referred to as General Inspectors.62 These individuals were appointed by the Educational Commission and had all of the power and responsibility vested in them to enforce the regulations of the Educational Commission. A new problem arose in connection with the appointment of the General Inspectors. This problem centered around the Rules of 20 June 1774, which were written for the use of the members of the Educational Commission but were not directly applicable to the General Inspectors. The Commission acted swiftly and adopted a new supplemental set of rules for school visitations on 30 May 1777.63

The new supplemental rules were entitled: Instrukcyja wyznaczonym do wizytowania szkol and were dated 30 May 1777.64 The supplemental rules totaled thirteen items divided into two parts: (1) rules pertaining to the administration of the schools; and (2) rules pertaining to financial management. The rules governing school administration encompassed eight items, while the rules for financial management had five items.

The first part of the 1777 Rules supplemented administrative requirements specified in the 1774 Rules.

a. The general inspector had to determine whether the rector and the prefect were effectively supervising the performance of teachers and directors.
b. The general inspector had to determine if the teachers and professors were working in accordance with the requirements established by the Educational Commission.
c. The general inspector had to obtain a copy of the various reports65 being completed by the school and verify the accuracy of these reports.
d. The general inspector had to check the curriculum of the school and verify if it was in accordance with the prescribed curriculum.66
e. The general inspector had to determine the number of teachers in the school, their capabilities, and dedication to their responsibilities.
f. The general inspector had to determine the teachers' and the students' degree of religious practice.
g. The general inspector had to check on student progress by (1) attending classroom instruction and observing class participation, (2) conducting examinations of students in a variety of subject matter areas, (3) checking books being used and work completed by the students.
h. The general inspector had to pay special attention to the identification of gifted students. He had to record any gifted students, by name, in his records. He also had to check on the status of the school library.

In general the rules governing financial matters consisted of the following main points:

a. The general inspector had to check the maintenance of the lists of ex-jesuit properties, inspect the income for the two year period beginning with 24 June 1774 and ending with 23 June 1776.
b. The general inspector had to examine the expenditures made by the school and/or projected for the period 24 June 1776 - 23 June 1777.
c. The general inspector had to examine and approve the proposed budget for the period 24 June 1777 - 23 June 1778.
d. The general inspector had to require that a complete inventory of all property, school and church, be taken and maintained, and that a proposed budget for major repairs and renovations be established.
e. The general inspector had to inform and instruct the school rector and prorector as to their duties in maintaining financial accountability.67

When the first Rules issued in 1774 are compared with the second Rules issued in 1777 it is found that the first set contained only general statements regarding financial and administrative matters but emphasized the organizing role of the visitor. The first Rules emphasized that the visitor should appoint the school administration and engage in a more fact-finding mission, while the supplementation of 1777 was more didactic and emphasized to a much greater degree educational matters.

The Commission's Chairman, Bishop of Vilnius, Massalski did not attend any of the Commission meetings deliberating the 1777 supplementation to the Rules for School Visitors.68 The Commission's efforts to identify and appoint the General Visitors, Wibicki and Narbutas, were also undertaken without the presence of Bishop Massalski.69

With the appointment on 17 May 1777 of Wibicki and Narbutas the Commission undertook its first systematic school evaluation effort. Wibicki, a trusted member of the Society for Elementary Books, was ordered to inspect the schools under the jurisdiction of Massalski.70 Wibicki, even though not a trained educator, was perceptive and understood the essence of the reforms being initiated by the Educational Commission. He also understood the need for school reform and was convinced that educational reform would eventually lead to social and political reforms as well.71

Jozef Wibicki was given two specific instructions by the Educational Commission: (1) to visit the schools in Lithuania and inspect them in accordance with the new regulations and (2) to look into the financial dealings of Bishop Massalski.72 In an attempt to comply with the request of the Educational Commission Wibicki visited the former Jesuit colleges of Vilnius, Gardinas, Kaunas and Merkinė.73 There he found gross financial problems and verified that most of the complaints being received from the Lithuanian schools by the Educational Commission were, in fact, correct.74 He found that the schools he visited were in need of major repairs, that the teachers were not being paid on a regular basis,75 that monies appropriated by the Educational Commission for the purpose of preparing teachers for the parish schools were being misappropriated, and that in general the condition of the schools was very poor.76 Wibicki completed his inspection in October of 1777 and returned to Warsaw, where on October 18, 20, and 21 he presented his finding to the Commission.77 Bishop Massalski was present during Wibicki's entire report.78 After Wibicki completed his report, Bishop Massalski officially thanked Wibicki and commented that the report was excellent.79 After Wibicki's inspection of the Lithuanian schools there were no further inspections or even mention of inspections until the 13th of June 1780.80

It should be mentioned that Wibicki was neither a nobleman nor a member of the gentry.81 His report, even though very candid and honest did prove to be embarrassing to Prince Massalski. Therefore, in as much as the Commission received the report and them lauded Wibicki the Commission took no action against the Prince-Bishop. Even Wibicki in his memoirs admits that he reported the conditions of the schools honestly, but that he could not directly accuse the Bishop for the poor status of the schools.82 Wibicki contended that he placed the blame for the entire problem on one of Massalski's administrators.83

The Commission's appointment of K. Narbutas to visit the Lithuanian schools along with Wibicki appears to have been only a diversionary tactic used by the Educational Commission to mask Wibicki's mission.84 An examination of the minutes of the Society for Elementary Books reveals that Narbutas attended all of the meetings of the Society during 177785 and there is no mention of his visits in any of the records of the Commission.86

During the time period after the Wibicki visits to Lithuania (1777 -1781) members of the Educational Commission or their delegates made only 21 visits. These visits were made by Michal Poniatowski (1 visit) and Adam Czartoryski (20 visits).87

B. School Inspections in the Statutes of the Educational Commission (1783)

Chapter IV of the Statutes of the Educational Commission contains all of the various provisions governing school inspections.88 This chapter of the Statutes is based on the 1774 Rules for School Visitors, the 1777 Supplementation, and a number of other decisions made by the Educational Commission following the Wibicki inspection of the Lithuanian schools. The first major decision made regarding school inspection came as a result of the positive efforts of Hugo Kollataj 89 to bring the University of Krakow under more direct control of the Educational Commission. Throughout the period 1774 -1780 the Educational Commission met with great resistance from the universities in terms of basic control over university governance. This resistance was especially strong at the University of Krakow.90 Once the basic resistance from both universities (Vilnius and Krakow) was abated, the Educational Commission initiated a reorganization of the entire school structure.91

The reorganization began on 13 June 1780 when the Educational Commission made its first significant decision regarding schools and school inspections.92 The Commission decided that all schools in Poland would be under the control of the University of Krakow and that all schools in Lithuania would be under the control of the University of Vilnius. The Commission further decided that the University of Krakow would have three General Inspectors who would provide the necessary supervision and control over the Polish schools. The University of Vilnius would have two General Inspectors who would provide the supervision and control over the Lithuanian schools. The specific points of the 13 June 1780 decision, as it related to Lithuania, are as follows:93

(a) The University of Vilnius must announce at the start of the academic year, but no later than November of 1780, that all of the schools in the Lithuanian districts were under its control.
(b) The University of Vilnius must announce, no later than January of 1781, that General Inspectors will be sent to visit the schools.
(c) There will be a total of two General Inspectors for the Lithuanian districts.
(d) For at least the first six years the General Inspectors will be appointed by the Educational Commission, thereafter they will be appointed by the University of Vilnius.
(e) The General Inspectors must be selected and approved by the Educational Commission no later than January of 1781.
(f) The General Inspectors must begin their visits no later than April of 1781 and complete the visitations within a three month period.
(g) The first General Inspector will be selected for a three year term.
(h) The University of Vilnius must determine which schools should be visited the first year, so that each following year the General Inspectors can visit different schools.

During the period 1774 -1780 the Educational Commission enacted many rules and regulations regarding school administration, supervision and curriculum. Since these were continually supplemented and refined by the Commission, in time it became necessary to collect and publish them in a single volume.94 After due consideration and considerable work on the editing of the various rules and regulations the Commission decided to delegate to the Society for Elementary Books the accomplishment of this task.95 The decision to delegate this responsibility came after Adam Czartoryski gave his report about school visitations.96 This report was so detailed and clear that the Educational Commission decided to incorporate much of its format into the Rules for School Visitors and to require much the same type of information from its new General Inspectors.97 The Czartoryski report was read to the Society for Elementary Books on 5 December 1780.98 During the succeeding few months members of the Society for Elementary Books discussed and proposed various changes to the Rules for School Visitors.99

Five proposals for the revision of the Rules for School Visitors emerged from the Society for Elementary Books.100 These were as follows:

(1) Onufry Kopczynski proposed the consideration of eleven questions about the use of textbooks in the schools.101
(2) Gregorz Piramowicz proposed seven points which were to encompass three main areas: (1) curriculum; (b) control; and (c) administrative matters.102
(3) K. Narbutas proposed additional duties consisting of (a) collection of material for local history; (b) collection of various sermons; (c) preparation of sample report forms; and (d) possible preparation of a dictionary.103
(4) Jozef Koblanski proposed six points. These, however, added nothing new to the existing Rules, other than an emphasis on local history and some items dealing with the treatment of less progressive students.104 
(5) This proposal was anonymous, but is believed to be either that of Potocki, Hollowczyc, or Jakakiewicz.105 The proposal suggested that the Rules be divided into two main sections (a) The Objectives of the School Visitation, and (b) The Procedures for Visitation. The specified objectives were three: (1) The visitation was the basic means the Educational Commission had of determining the educational status of the schools and their economic well being; (2) The visitation provided the Educational Commission with the basic information about the educational personnel in the schools; and (3) The visitation established the economic position of the school and determined if any corrective measures were necessary in the school's operations. The second part of the visitation, the proposal suggested, should consist of five duties/actions performed by the visitor. The first of these actions should be the inspection of all books maintained by the school. The proposal specified thirteen books that should be maintained by each school. The Second action to be performed was to convene a meeting of all the teaching personnel and during the meeting ask fourteen questions about educational matters, as well as, an additional four questions about the economic condition of the school. The third action contained in the proposal required that the visitor inspect the classrooms during school hours and complete four required sets of observations regarding the performance of the students and the teacher. The fourth action required by the proposal was a conference with the "directors" 106 during which the visitor was to ask a series of eight questions regarding the "director's" own performance in his studies and the example he was setting for other students. The fifth and last action outlined in the proposal required the visitor to prepare a detailed report to the Educational Commission which would consist of two parts: (a) report forms which provided information regarding the school, the teachers, the students, and the economic condition; and (b) a narrative report detailing the entire visitation and providing the information sought in the first four action requirements of the visitation.107

The complexity of these proposals, especially the fifth proposal, indicated the importance that was attached to school inspections by the members of the Society for Elementary Books. The specificity of the proposed rules showed that the members did not want any questions to go unanswered. Thus, these five proposals were used by Kazimierz Narbutas, who on the 11th of January 1781 was assigned the task of preparing the provisions of the Statutes dealing with school inspections.108 Narbutas did not waste any time in preparing the inspection proposal for the Statutes. He completed his assignment on the 22nd of January 1781 and submitted it on that date to the Society for Elementary Books.109 The Narbutas proposal consisted of thirty specific instructions.110 The Society for Elementary Books considered the Narbutas proposal, along with the other proposed sections of the Statutes during the months of February, March, and April of 1781. Finally, by mid-summer the Educational Commission received the proposed Rules and distributed them at a meeting of school rectors in Warsaw on the 3rd of September 1781.111 The Narbutas proposal contained a total of thirty points; the new approved Rules contained in the Statutes of the Educational Commission numbered only twenty-seven points.112 Some of the items in the Narbutas proposal were deleted by the Society for Elementary Books, while others were combined into a single point by the Educational Commission.113 The Statutes of the Educational Commission, which became effective in 1781 were later published as the Statutes of 1783.114

The following are the major points contained in each of the twenty seven rules of Chapter IV of the 1783 Statutes of the Educational Commission:115

(1) The first point revealed the objectives of the visitations established by the Educational Commission. Here the Commission indicated that all schools would be visited at least once a year in order to insure that the regulations of the Educational Commission were being followed.
(2) The second point defined the types of school visits. The first type would be conducted by the rectors of the chief district schools. The second type would be the General Inspector visitations conducted through the Chief School.
(3) The third point defined the procedures for selecting General Inspectors and defined their tenure as General Inspectors.
(4) The fourth point defined the special instructions to be given the General Inspector prior to his visitations.
(5) The fifth point detailed the additional stipend to be paid General Inspectors prior to their departure.
(6) The sixth point spoke to the attitude of the General Inspector when he was visiting schools. The point made it clear that the General Inspector must demonstrate a great degree of understanding and should be sympathetic to the problems of the schools.
(7) The seventh point set the time limitations for the conduct of school visits. All visits must be started no later than April and end before the close of school in July.
(8) The eighth point defined the procedures to be followed if a General Inspector became ill during the visitations and could not complete his tasks. Detailed procedures for the selections of a replacement were presented.
(9) The ninth point detailed how the General Inspector was to begin the inspection upon his arrival at the school. It specified that he must call a meeting of the entire staff and announce that the inspection had begun. An example was provided for the General Inspector to follow.
(10) The tenth point defined the records to be examined. The records to be examined were listed in Chapter VIII of the Statutes. This point made a special request to check if the school visited had a copy of the Parish School Regulations.
(11) The eleventh point defined the conduct of personal interviews with the entire staff beginning with the school rector and ending with the teaching staff.
(12) The twelfth point instructed the General Inspector to note the habits of the school staff and investigate their religious practices.
(13) The thirteenth point explained in detail the conduct of the economic/financial inspection, as well as the inspection of the physical facilities and inventory of the school.
(14) The fourteenth point gave guidance on the conduct of student examinations in accordance with the ' provisions of paragraph nine of Chapter XV of the Statutes.
(15) The fifteenth point instructed the General Inspector to visit the classrooms, observe student responses to teacher questions, note the quality of the teaching, and review the curriculum being followed in each class.
(16) The sixteenth point gave guidelines for identifying gifted students who could qualify for the academic life and the procedures to follow after identification.
(17) The seventeenth point detailed the right of every member of the academic community, as well as, any student to speak in private to the General Inspector.
(18) The eighteenth point instructed the General Inspector to note the treatment and status of students from the non-landed gentry and how to process requests for scholarships from these students and those from poor families.
(19) The nineteenth point instructed the General Inspector to identify and visit any private schools in the area and inspect them in accordance with paragraph 22 of Chapter VIII of the Statutes. The point notes, however, that the General Inspector does not have the authority to inspect private schools being operated within the homes of the gentry.
(20) The twentieth point instructed the General Inspector to seek out any schools in the district he was visiting that were operating without the permission of the Educational Commission. If such schools were found the General Inspector was also to check whether the bishop was complying with the Concordat which provided for religious services to all schools.
(21) The twenty-first point instructed the General Inspector to visit parish schools in the area and comment on the conditions and status of the educational program. If schools were being operated by the gentry in their manors or homes, the General Visitor was to thank the noblemen in the name of the Educational Commission and encourage others to establish similar schools. He was to encourage the gentry to give reports on the status of these private schools to the rector of the local district school.
(22) The twenty-second point provided guidance to the General Inspector in cases where students were transferring from one school to another without a valid letter from the school prefect. This point gave the General Inspector the power to issue letters of transfer if the student has not been dismissed from the school under the provisions of Chapter XXIV of the Statutes.
(23) The twenty-third point empowered the General Inspector to conduct judicial proceedings in cases where such was mandated. The point detailed the composition of the "court" and cited as guidance for proceedings the provisions of Chapter XXIV of the Statutes.
(24) The twenty-fourth point detailed the procedures for concluding the inspection and for the recording of certain facts about individuals that may have been in violation of some rules. All such actions against individuals were to be recorded in a special book, a sample of which was provided by the Educational Commission.
(25) The twenty-fifth point gave instructions for preparing the final inspection report. It required that two copies of the report be prepared and signed by the General Inspector, the rector, all professors, and teachers. The signed copies were to be delivered to the Rector of the Chief School.
(26) The twenty-sixth point set up guidelines for preparing a special report to the Chief School which would contain an abstract of the detailed report pertaining to the special subjects for the inspection. The format, as well as the type and size of the paper to be used in the preparation of this report were listed here. After the report was read to the Senate of the Chief School, it was to be signed by the secretary of the senate and then sent to the Educational Commission.
(27) The twenty-seventh point instructed the General Inspector to stay and eat at the school being visited. After the completion of the visitation he was to pay for his meals at the established rate for that school.

The first General Inspectors appointed by the Educational Commission under the 1781 Statute were Grzegorz Piramowicz116 and Szczezpan Holowczyc.117 They were appointed 2 March 1781 and instructed to visit all of the Lithuanian district schools.118 But neither of them made any visits during 1781 because of the on-going school reorganization and the fact that the actual discussions and approval of the Statute did not occur until the end of the summer of 1781. The schools visits authorized 2 March 1781 did not begin until the spring of 1782. The Educational Commission reassigned General Inspectors and Franciszek Bienkowski119 took the place of Holowczyc.120 The Educational Commission in dispatching the new General Inspectors gave them additional guidance in the form of a new instruction121 and also requested them to pay special attention to the new Statute so that any flaws contained therein could be noted and recommended for revision.122

Grzegorz Piramowicz began his inspection of the Lithuanian schools on 3 May 1782 and completed them by 14 July 1782.123 He was able to visit fourteen district schools and fifteen parish schools.124 Of the schools that he visited he rated the schools of Grodno, Vilnius, Szczucin, Kroze, and Kretinga as being very good. The school at Wiszniew he rated average. The other schools visited at Merecz, Lida, Kaunas, Wilkomierz, Poniewiecz, and Rosienie he rated either as fair or bad.125 Piramowicz presented his report to the Educational Commission on 21 September 1782.126 His report was prepared with great care and provided the details required by the Statute. He was commended by the Educational Commission for this report.127

Franciszek Bienkowski also began his inspection of the Lithuanian schools during May of 1782. His inspection visits lasted into July of that year. During his visits he was able to inspect a total of twenty-one schools.128 He was not as critical in his evaluations of the schools as was Piramowicz. An analysis of his reports indicates that of the fourteen district schools he visited only one school received a rating of average, while the other thirteen received a rating of very good.129 Bienkowski's reports were not greatly detailed. They did not even contain the dates of the inspections.130 His final report to the Educational Commission was not presented because on 12 November 1782 the Commission decided that the reports of all General Inspectors be sent to the Society for Elementary Books for analysis and discussion.131

On 4 April 1783 the Educational Commission reassigned General Inspectors for the Lithuanian schools. Bienkowski was reappointed and Dawid Pilchowski132 was appointed as a new General Inspector.133

Bienkowski began his inspection on 12 May 1783 and completed the visits by 24 July. He inspected a total of seventeen district schools,134 including two schools that were assigned to Pilchowski.135 Bienkowski rated sixteen of the schools as being very good, while only one school, that of Zyrowice, he rated as being weak.136

Pilchowski only began his inspection on 5 June 1783 and completed it by 30 June 1783.137 He began late because he did not get his instructions or advance funds until June. He was able to visit a total of eleven district schools in Lithuania, all of which he rated as very good.138

The ratings assigned each of the schools by the General Inspectors appear to lack any real reliability. In examining the ratings given the two schools visited by both Bienkowski and Pilchowski in 1783 great discrepancies are found. For example, in rating the school in Zyrowice, Bienkowski assigned a rating of weak, while Pilchowski assigned a rating of very, very good.139 In rating the school in Lida, Bienkowski assigned a rating of very good, while Pilchowski assigned very, very good.140

With the completion of the 1783 visitations by Pilchowski and Bienkowski the Educational Commission did not authorize any further visitations for 1784. Further visitations were to be conducted by the University of Vilnius and the University of Krakow.

C. General Inspectors from the Chief School of Lithuania (1784-1798)

The 13 June 1780 decision of the Educational commission141 to appoint General Inspectors for a period of six years before turning that responsibility over to the universities was changed in 1784.142 From 1784 each of the universities, now called the chief schools, were to select and appoint able individuals to conduct the school inspections.143 Thus, the Chief School of Lithuania, acting in accordance with the provisions of the Statutes, elected two professors to be General Inspectors for a period of two years.144 The two were B. Sirutis, professor of Roman Law, and V. Tautkevičius, member of the faculty of the Moral College. The official records indicate that their election was motivated not only because of their abilities and merits, but also because the Chief School would miss them least, since they were often ill and missed their lectures.145 Prof. B. Sirutis, because of illness, was forced to resign as a General Inspector and soon thereafter died. He was replaced on 10 May 1784 by Jozef Bogucki, a member of the Moral College.146 V. Tautkevičius and Bogucki were assigned to visit a total of fifteen schools each.147 Judging from the minutes of the meetings of the Chief School, Tautkevičius and Bogucki did visit some schools, but it cannot be determined which schools they visited, since their reports cannot be found.148 Possibly, since both of the General Visitors were in poor health, both failed to produce a written report of their visits.

In 1785 the Chief School again experienced difficulties with the appointed General Inspector. Jozef Bogucki became ill and resigned.149 Franciszek Bienkowski was elected to take his place.150 V. Tautkevičius also became ill and was replaced by D. Pilchowski.151 Again, it appears that both of the new General Inspectors did visit schools, but no written record of the Pilchowski inspections can be found. The inspection report of Bienkowski has remained.152 From his report it appears that he visited the district schools in Bialystok, Wolkowysk, Vilnius, Wiszniew, Minsk, Berezwecz, Luzk and Walernianow, Cholopienicze, Pinsk, Bobrujsk, Sluck, and Noeswiz. He began his visits on the 20th of May and completed them by the 23rd of July 1785.153

In 1786 the Chief School of Lithuania finally began the formal inspections required by the Educational Commission. General Inspectors Dawid Pilchowski and Franciszek Bienkowski were dispatched and given a detailed set of instructions to follow.154

Franciszek Bienkowski began his inspection on 17 May 1786 with the school at Brzesc and continued to Biala.155 Bienkowski inspected all of the schools in the Samogitian district, six of the schools in the Lithuanian district, and completed his inspection with the school at Zyrowice on 27 July 1786.156 He visited a total of sixteen district schools, and, assigned most of the schools a rating (see Table 2).

TABLE 2

INSPECTIONS AND RATINGS OF THE DISTRICT SCHOOLS OF LITHUANIA 1782-1791

SOURCES: Primarily adapted from tables presented by Hanna Pohoska, Wizytatorowie Generalni Komisji Edukacji Narodowej: Monografia z Dziejow Administracji Szkolnej Komisji Edukacji Narodowej (The General Inspectors of the Commission for National Education: Monograph on the history of school administration under the Commission for National Education), Lublin, Towarzystwo Naukowe Kotalickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1957, p. 345-347. Also checked and supplemented Pohoska tables from: Raporty Generalnych Wizytatorow Szkol Komis.1l Edukacji Narodowej w Wielkim Ksiestwie Litewskim: 1782-1792, Wroclaw, Polska Akademia Nauk, Procownia Dziejow Oswiaty, 1974.

Dawid Pilchowski began his inspection on 10 May 1786 and completed it on 18 July 1786.157 He inspected schools in Wiszniew and Pastawy, all of the schools in the Nowogrodzki and Polski districts as well as the schools in Dabrowicz, Lubieszow, and Pinsk.158 He visited a total of fourteen district schools. Pilchowski, because of the summer vacation, was unable to visit the district school in Vilnius. The Chief School appointed J. Stroynowski, a professor of natural law, to visit the Vilnius schools.159

Pilchowski, in his report to the Chief School, noted that it took a total of eighty days to visit all of the schools assigned to him for inspection. Of those eighty days a total of forty was spent in traveling.160

For the 1787 school year the Chief School of Lithuania again elected Dawid Pilchowski and a new General Inspector Jan Erdman.161 They were given by the Chief School a detailed set of instructions which listed the schools each had to inspect.162 Dawid Pilchowski inspected fourteen schools, but was unable to visit schools in Ukmergė and Panevėžys because of a flooding condition.163 The ratings he assigned the schools are presented in Table 2.

The General Inspector Jan Erdman was a professor at the Chief School of Lithuania. He held a doctorate in Theology and Church Law. In 1780 -1784 he was the rector of the district schools in Vilnius. Piramowicz, visiting the school in 1782 wrote in his report that Erdman caused difficulties in the realization of the various regulations of the Educational Commission.164 The characterization indicates that Erdman was an opponent of the reforms initiated by the Educational Commission. But, in 1783, when Bienkowski visited Erdman the characterization changed. Erdman was described as being cooperative and the Vilnius school was given a good rating.165

Erdman visited a total of sixteen schools. He began his inspection trip on 24 April and completed all visits by 27 July 1787. Erdman, as did Pilchowski before him, complained to the Chief School that he did not have sufficient time to conduct proper inspections of the schools as required by the Instruction issued by the Chief School166 and the Statutes of the Educational Commission.167 Nonetheless, Erdman assigned the highest rating to the schools in Naugardukas and Minsk (See Table 2) 168 This was the first time that any General Inspector assigned the highest rating to two schools in any one year.

For 1788 the Chief School of Lithuania elected only one General Inspector.169 Jacob Jaska was elected and Jan Erdman remained, since he was elected for a two year term. Jaska, a doctor of theology and philosophy, was a member of the Moral College of the Chief School and a prorector of the Pinsk sub-district school.

Jacob Jaska began his inspection visits on 12 May and completed them by 30 July 1788. He visited all of the schools in the Naugardukas district, three schools in the Lithuanian district, for a total of fifteen schools.170 In his reports he also complained about the time allotted to the inspections and the great difficulties encountered in traveling from school to school.171

Jan Erdman began his inspection on 14 May and completed it on 27 July 1788. Erdman inspected all of the schools in the Samogitian district (See Table 2) and three schools in the Polesk district. He visited a total of sixteen schools.172

In 1789 the Chief School of Lithuania re-elected for a two year term the General Inspectors Jan Erdman and Jacob Jaska.173 That year Jan Erdman inspected all nine schools in the Naugardukas district, the Vilnius, Visniava and Pastoviai schools in the Lithuanian district, and the Pinskas, Dobrovicos and Liubisevas schools in the Polesk district. He, thus, visited a total of fifteen schools and assigned each a rating.174 He was unable to visit the school in Lithuanian Brasta because of a number of interruptions which occurred during his trip.175

The General Inspector Jaska, in 1789, inspected seven schools in the Samogitian district, the Biala and Zyrowice schools in the Polesk district, and six schools in the Lithuanian district. He visited a total of fifteen schools and assigned thirteen schools a rating.176

In 1790 the Chief School of Lithuania did not appoint any new General Inspectors, since both Erdman and Jaska had been elected for a two year term. The conduct of the school inspections was upset by the growing political unrest in the Commonwealth. The Piarists refused to allow schools operated by their order to be inspected by the General Inspectors from the Chief School of Lithuania. After much deliberation an agreement was reached between the Chief School and the Piarist Order. In essence, the Chief School returned basic control over the schools to the Provincial of the Piarist Order, who in turn appointed one of the Piarists, J. Lang, to inspect the schools.177 The Piarists operated a total of eight district schools in Lithuania, none of which was visited by a General Inspector during the years 1790 - 1791.178

With the Piarist schools no longer in the inspection schedule the 1790 visits made by the General Inspector Jan Erdman were reduced to a total of twelve schools.179 Jacob Jaska visited seven of the schools in the Nowogrodek district as well as the schools in Wisniava, Pastoviai, and Zyrowice.180 The Mozyr district school in the Nowogrodek district could not be visited because of military movements in the area.181

In 1791 the Chief School of Lithuania elected A. Obranplaski182 and M. Piotrowski from among seven candidates for the two positions of General Inspector. Both were elected for a two year term.183

Antoni Obranpalski, a doctor of theology and a prefect of the district school in Lithuanian Brasta, inspected four schools in the Samogitian district, five schools in the Lithuanian district, and three schools in the Polesk district.184 In his report Obranpalski revealed the effect of the tenuous political situation on the schools. He wrote: "I urged the teachers to fulfill their obligations zealously even in these critical times, instilling in the hearts and minds of the students a feeling of unity, showing them the terrible results of wrong-doing."185

In 1792, because of increasing military activity, which was being caused in part by the Confederation of Targowicz (1792-1794), the Chief School of Lithuania had to curtail many of its inspection plans. The General Inspector Obranpalski in his report for 1792 indicated that he was able to visit only the schools in Pastoviai, Minskas, Naugardukas and Nesvyčius.186 Even one of those four schools, the Nesvyčius, was without students because of the war activities.187

The General Inspector Michael Piotrowski, a former prorector of the Vilnius district school, inspected eleven schools in 1791, but left no report of his inspections.188 In 1792 he was able to inspect only the Lithuanian Brasta school.189 From 1793 through 1798 no information regarding school inspections can be found.

From 1782 through 1791 the General Inspectors conducted their evaluations of the schools in accordance with the Statutes of the Educational Commission. To the extent that the school being inspected complied with the various provisions of the Statutes the General Inspectors assigned the school a rating. Ratings used by the General Inspectors were: (1) very good, (2) good, (3) average, (4) satisfactory, and (5) poor (See Table 2). The evaluation report normally contained one of these ratings. At times the General Inspector did not give a clear rating, but presented various facts about the school, its student population, textbooks, teachers, administration, etc. Most of the General Inspector reports cited sub-paragraphs of Chapter IV of the Statutes when presenting an evaluative narrative. The reports of the General Inspectors give fairly good indications regarding the quality of the schools and the extent the school was complying with the regulations and orders of the Educational Commission.

From the evaluation reports of the General Inspectors we can make certain comparisons between the schools operated under the Chief School of Lithuania and the Chief School of Poland. Hanna Pohoska, in his analysis of the reports of the General Inspectors, concluded that of the seventy-four district schools in the Commonwealth only thirty-four were evaluated/rated "very good" or "good."190 Twenty-three of the thirty-four schools were under the Chief School of Lithuania and the remaining eleven under the Chief School of Poland.

The school receiving the largest number of "very good" ratings was the Chief School of the Nowogrodek district. The Naugardukas school received four such ratings. The second largest number of "very good" ratings was received by the Piarist operated school in Warsaw. That school received a total of three such ratings.191 Hanna Pohoska contends that the number of high ratings received by the schools under the Chief School of Lithuania was due to the leniency of the General Inspectors.192 But, Pohoska also concedes "that many of the Lithuanian schools, and especially the Nowogrodek school, did do a very imposing job."193

D. Summary

The Educational Commission developed and managed a school inspection system which operated under detailed rules and established procedures. In an effort to assure compliance with its reforms the Commission empowered the General Inspectors with administrative and judicial authority. The entire visitation inspection system was at first centralized and operated by the Educational Commission. Once the hierarchical school structure was adopted and the Educational Commission was able to bring under its direct control the universities, the basic responsibility for school supervision was transferred to the universities. This action by the Educational Commission established the universities as the supervisory arms of the Educational Commission, thus, bringing more direct control over the school structure. The detailed rules established for school inspections by the Educational Commission were ahead of their times and are applicable to most modern educational situations. The detailed reports prepared by the General Inspectors present a wealth of first-hand information about the educational practices in the schools of eighteenth century Poland and Lithuania. Much of the progress made in education during this time period may be attributable to the fact that the Educational Commission did provide the supervisory mechanism via the General Inspector.

* Background on the Commission for National Education can be found in J. A. Račkauskas, "Education in Lithuania Prior to the Dissolution of the Jesuit Order (1773)," Lituanus, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1976), pp. 5-41; and J. A. Račkauskas, "The First National System of Education in Europe: The Educational Commission of the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (1773-1794)," Lituanus, Vol. XIV, No. 4 (1968), p. 5-54.
1 "Ordynacja Komisji Rzecypospolitej Edukacji Narodowej," (Rules of the Commission for National Education of the Commonwealth) in Zygmund Kukulski, Pierwiastkowe Przepisy Pedagogiczne Komisji Edukacji Narodowej z lat 1773-1776 (The Primary Educational Regulations of the Commission for National Education 1773-1776), Lublin, Nakladem Lubelskiego Komitetu Obchodu 150-ej Rocznicy Ustano Wienia Komisji Edukacyjnej i Zgonu St. Konarskiego, 1923, p. 10 -12.
2 Ibid., p. 11.
3 Ibid,
4 "Uniwersal Oglaszajacy Komisje Edukacyjna," in Z. Kukulski, op. cit., p. 8.
5 Ignacy Potocki, Secretary of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and member of the Commission from 17.X.1773 through 26.III. 1791.
6 Ignacy Potocki, "Mysli o edukacji i instrukcji w Polszcze ustanowic sie majacej," (Thoughts about education and teaching which should be adopted in Poland) in Kamilla Mrozowska, ed., Pisma i Projekty Pedagogiczne doby Komisji Edukacji Narodowej (Writings and Projects dealing with Education submitted to the Commission for National Education), Wroclaw, Polska Akademia Nauk, Komitet nauk pedagogiczmych, Ossolineum, 1973, p. 156-168.
7 Ibid., p. 166 -168.
8 Minutes of the meeting of the Educational Commission of 24 March 1774 indicate that the Commission received the Potocki proposal. See: Mieczyslawa Mitera-Dobrowolska, comp., Protokoly Posiedzen Komisji .Edukacji Narodowej 1773 -1785 (Minutes of the Meetings of the Commission for National Education 1773-1785), Wroclaw, Polska Akademia Nauk, Pracownia Dziejow Oswiaty, 1973, p. 19. See 24 Martii, item 1° and footnote 23 on that page. Please note that all references to the minutes of the meetings of the Educational Commission will be cited as Protokoly Posiedzen KEN 1773-1785.
9 Protokoly Posiedzen KEN 1773 -1785, See minutes of 6 May 1774, item 8° on page 22.
10 Each of the schools in the Commonwealth was assigned to an educational department, which was under the care of a member of the Educational Commission. The distribution of the schools into departments and the Commission members responsible for each can be found in Hanna Pohoska, Wizytatorowie Generalni Komisji Edukacji Narodowej: Monografia z Dziejow Administracji Szkolnej Komisji Edukacji Narodowej (The General Inspectors of the Commission for National Education: Monograph on the history of school administration under the Commission for National Education), Lublin, Towarzystwo Naukowe Kotalickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1957, p. 293 -295.
11 Protokoly Posiedzen KEN 1773-1785, See minutes of 27 May 1774, item 4° on page 23.
12 The 20th of June 1774 is held as the date of these instructions, but that is only the date that the rules were officially signed. Prom the 27th of May 1774 meeting, the rules were again discussed at the Commission meeting of 3 June 1774 and then finalized and signed on the 20th of June 1774. See: Zigmund Kukulski, op. cit., p. XCIV.
13 These instructions are reproduced in Zygmunt Kukulski, op. cit., p. 15 -17.
14 Zygmunt Kukulski. op. cit., p. 15. See also: Josef Lewicki, Ustawodawstwo Szkolne za Czasow Komisji Edukacji Narodowej Rozporzadzenia: Ustawy Pedagogiczne i Organizacyne (1773-1793), (Les relements scolaires au temps de la Commission de l'Education Nationale), Krakow, Nakladem M. Arcta w Warszawie, 1925, p. 12.
15 "Instrukcja dla Wizytatorow" (Instructions to Visitors), first paragraph, in Zygmunt Kukulski, op. cit., p. 15 and Jozef Lewicki, op. cit., p. 12.
16 "Censors" (lithuanian: Liustratoriai) were individuals used by the government to list property and people for purposes of either taxation or military draft. See: Zenonas Ivinskis, "Liustracija," Lietuvių Enciklopedija, Vol. XVI (1958), pp. 363 - 364.
17 "Instrukcja dla Wizytatorow," second paragraph, in Zygmunt Kukulski, op. cit., p. 15 and Jozef Lewicki, op. cit., p. 12.
18 "Instrukcja dla Wizytatorow," third paragraph, in Zygmunt Kukulski, op. cit., p. 15 and Jozef Lewicki, op. cit., p. 12.
19 Idem.
20 Idem.
21 "Instrukcja dla Wizytatorow," in Jozef Lewicki, op. cit., p. 14.
22 The 2,000 gulden salary for teachers did not materialize. Finally in 1783 the Statutes, Section XXIII, redefined the salary and established a scale which increased with the number of years in service.
23 "Instrukcya dla Wizytatorow," ninth paragraph, in Jozef Lewicki, op. cit., p. 13.
24 "Instrukcja dla Wizytatorow," tenth paragraph, in Jozef Lewicki, op. cit., p. 13.
25 Further speculation on this matter is made by Hanna Pohoska, op. cit., p. 19.
26 Jozef Lewicki, op. cit., p. 13.
27 "Mysli o edukacji i instrukcji i Polszcze ustanowic sie majecej," op. cit., p. 166-168.
28 "Raport Rektora o Naucycielach," in Zygmunt Kukulski, op. cit., p. 20.
29 "Raport Prefekta o Dytektoroach," in Zygmunt Kukulski, op. cit., p. 20.
30 "Raport Nauczycielow Pierwszej Szkoly o Uczniach," in Kukulski, op. cit., p. 21.
31 "Raport Nauczycielow Drugiej Szkoly o Uczniach," in Kukulski, op. cit., p. 21.
32 "Raport Nauczycielow Trzeciej Szkoly o Uczniach," in Kukulski, op. cit., p. 21.
33 Protokoly Posiedzen KEN 1773-1785, See minutes of 22 June 1774, item 4°, page 25 - 26.
34 Ibid., item 2°, page 25, and Hanna Pohoska, op. cit., p. 21.
35 "Wykaz Wizytacji w Latach 1774-1781: IV Department Adama Czartoryskiego," in Hanna Pohoska, op. cit., p. 302.
 36 "Raport wizyty departamentu szkol ukrainskich i podolskich przez JO. Ks. Generala ziem podolskich w r. 1780, 23 maja zaczetej, a 14 lipca zakonczonej," in Teodor Wierzbowski, op. cit., Part 25, p. 36-42. Also reproduced in S. Tync, op. cit., p. 38-50.
37 Hanna Pohoska, op. cit., p. 22.
38 "Wykaz Wizytacji w Latach 1774-1781: V Department Ignacego Massalskiego i Joachima Chreptowicza," in Hanna Pohoska, op. cit., p. 303.
39 Ibid., see footnote 2 on page 303.
40 The report was presented to the Educational Commission at its meeting of 24.VIII.1774. See Protokoly Posiedzen KEN 1773-1785, 24 Augusti 1774, item 1°, page 31.
41 See Hanna Pohoska, op. cit., p. 22, footnote 24.
42 Stanislaw Poniatowski became a member of the Educational Commission on 2 November 1776. During the meeting of the Educational Commission held on 25 November 1776 Poniatowski was appointed as a visitor to the schools of Lithuania. See Protokoly Posiedzen KEN 1773-1785, 26 Listopada 1776, item 5°, page 75.
43 See Hanna Pohoska, op. cit., p. 303, footnote 2.
44 Jozef Wybicki (1747-1822) visited under orders from the Educational Commission. See Protokoly Posiedzen KEN 1773-1785, 27 Maja 1777, item 1°, p. 85.
45 Protokoly Posiedzen KEN 1773-1785, 17 Decembris 1775, item 5°, page 60; and Hanna Pohoska, op. cit., p. 73 and 303.
46 Protokoly Posiedzen KEN 1773-1785, 29 Augusti 1774, item 7°, page 33.
47 Protokoly Posiedzen KEN 1773-1785, 23 Decembra 1774, item 4°, page 44.
48 Teodor Wierzbowski, Protokoly Posiedzen, Part 37: Komisyi Edukacyi Narodowej z lat 1773-1777, 5.X.1774.
49 "Instrukcya dla Wizytatorow," tenth paragraph, in Jozef Lewicki, op. cit,, p. 13.
50 Hanna Pohoska, op. cit., p. 27.
51 Samuel DuPont de Nemours (1739-1817) first appears in the Minutes of the Educational Commission on the 6th of May 1774 when the Educational Commission voted to approve a Salary for him and a Mikaloj Gintowt-Dziewialtowski.
52 Protokoly Posiedzen KEN 1773-1785, 30 Septembris 1774, item 1°, page 39. The Commission at this time received Duponts plan.
53 See: Protokoly Posiedzen KEN 1773-1785.
54 Protokoly Posiedzen KEN 1773-1785, 8 Listopada 1776, item 8°, page 73.
55 Protokoly Posiedzen KEN 1773-1785, 26 Listopada 1776, item 5° , page 75.
56 Idem,
57 For a complete discussion of this matter see Teodor Wierznowski, Szkoly Parafjalne w Polsce i na Litwie za czasow Komisji Edukacji Narodowej 1773-1794, Krakowie, Sklad Glowny w Ksiaznicy Polskiej w Warszawie, 1921, p. 94 - 103.
58 Ibid., p. 100.
59 See the memoirs of Jozef Wybicki reprinted in Stanislaw Tync, Komisja Edukacji Narodowej, Biblioteka Narodowa, Nr. 126, Seria 1, Wroclaw, Ossolineum, 1954, p. 510. This reprinted section is entitiled: "Srawki Massalskiego," and was first printed in Pamietniki Jozefa Wybickiego (Memoirs of Jozef Wybicki) published in 1840.
60 Protokoly Posiedzen KEN 1773-1785, p. 62-78 (Minutes for 1776).
61 Protokoly Posiedzen KEN 1773-1785, 27 Maja 1777, item 1° and 2°, page 85 - 86.
62 The term General Inspectors is being used here instead of General Visitors in order to make a stronger distinction between roles, especially for those General Inspectors operating under the Statutes of 1783.
63 The supplemental set of rules was signed 30 May 1777 but actually approved 27 May 1777. See Protokoly Posiedzen KEN 1773-1785, 27 Maja 1777, item 2°, page 86 footnote 40.
64 A Copy of this new supplementation is reproduced in Jozef Lewicki, op. cit., p. 138 -139. The original copy of these instructions is found in the Archiwum Glowne (Warszawa), A. 14, folio 77-80.
65 As reproduced in Zygmunt Kukulski, op. cit., p. 20 - 21.
66 Table outlining the curriculum to be followed is reproduced in Zygmunt Kukulski, op. cit., p. 18 - 19. A translation of that table is published in J. A. Račkauskas, "The First National System of Education in Europe: The Commission for National Education of the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania 1773 -1784," in Lituanus, Vol. 14, No. 4 (1968), p. 37.
67 The 1777 supplementation is more fully discussed in Hanna Pohoska, op. cit., p. 33 - 35.
68 It appears that Bishop Massalski was not present because the inspections proposed by the Commission were of the schools under his care. For a further discussion see Hanna Pohoska, op. cit,, p. 34-35.
69 A detailing of the procedures used by the Commission to select the first General Inspector is presented in Teodor Wierbowski, op. cit., p. 955 - 96.
70 Protokoly Posiedzen KEN 1773-1785, 27 Maja 1777, item 1° and 2°, page 85 - 86.
71 The importance Wibicki attached to his new responsibility is revealed in his memoirs. See: "Pamietniki Jozefą Wybickiego" in Stanislaw Tync, op. cit., p. 507 - 514. See also Jozef Wibicki Zycie moje (My Life), Krakow, Biblioteka Narodowa, Serija I, Nr. 106, xxxiv-355 p.
72 Protokoly Posiedzen KEN 1773 -1785, 28 Maja 1777, item 4°, p. 86.
73 Teodor Wierbowski, Komisya Edukacyi Narodowej i jej szkoly w Koronie, 1773-1794, Raporty Generalnych Wizytatorow, Part 25, Raporty z lat 1774 - 1782, Warszawa, Druk Piotra Laskauera, 1906. See also: "Wykaz Wizytacji w Latach 1774 -1781," in Hanna Pohoska, op. cit., p. 301 - 303.
74 "Pamietniki Jozefą Wybickiego," in Stanislaw Tync, op. cit,, p. 508-509.
75 Ibid., p. 510.
76 Idem, See also Teodor Wierzbowski who presents in detail the conditions at the schools in Vilnius: Szkoly Parafjalne w Polsce i na Litwie za czasow Komisji Edukacji Narodowej 1773-1794, p. 97-105.
77 Protokoly Posiedzen KEN 1773-1785, 18 pazdziernika 1777, 20 pazdziernika 1777, and 21 pazdiernika 1777, p. 90-91.
78 "Pamietniki Jozefą Wybickiego," in Stanislaw Tync, op. cit., p. 513.
79 Ibid.
80 Protokoly Posiedzen KEN 1773-1785, 13 Czerwca 1780, p. 130 - 135. This is the date for the adoption of the major structural reforms.
81 The Commission could not find any member of the clergy to act as the General Inspector, nor could they find anyone from the gentry who would be willing to inspect the Lithuanian schools.
82 "Pamietnicki Jozefa Wybickiego," in Stanislaw Tync, op. cit., p. 512.
83 Ibid., p. 513. Wibicki accused Jozef Dybynski, Treasurer of the Educational Fund for Lithuania.
84 Thus contends Hanna Pohoska, op. cit., p. 35.
85 Teodor Wierzbowski, Protokoly Posiedzen Towarzystwa, do Ksiag Eelementarnych 1775-1792, Warsawa, Druk Piotrą Laskauera, 1908, 118 p. See the year 1777.
86 Protokoly Posiedzen KEN 1773-1785, p. 79-95. Minutes of 1777.
87 "Wykaz Wizytacji w Latach 1774-1781," in Hanna Pohoska, op. cit., p. 301 - 303. See also Teodor Wierzbowski, Raporty Generalnych Wizytatorow, part 25, Raporty z lat 1774 -1782.
88 Reproduced in Stanislaw Rync, Komisja Edukacji Narodowej, p. 605-612.
89 Member of the Society for Eelementary Books from 1776 to 1786, delegated by the Commission to visit and inspect the University of Krakow by the Educational Commission. See: Protokoly Posiedzen KEN 1773-1785, 1 kwietnia 1777, item 3°, p. 84 - 85.
90 The problem was finally resolved with the appointment of Hugo Kollataj as the Rector of the University of Krakow. The problems Kollataj had at the University of Krakow are fully presented by Miroslawa Chamcowna, Uniwersytet Jagiellonski w dobie Komisji Edukacji Narodowej: Vol. I. Szkola Glowna Koronna, w Okresie Wizyty i Rektoratu Hugona Kollataja 1777-1786 (The University of Krakow during the visit and rectorate of Hugo Kollataj 1777-1786), Warsawa, Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolinskich, 1957, p. 57 -148.
91 See: J. Račkauskas, op. cit., p. 24-28.
92 Protokoly Posiedzen KEN 1773-1785, 13 czerwca 1780, p. 130 -135.
93 Ibid., p. 134 -135. Also reproduced in Hanna Pohoska, op. cit., p. 30.
94 See Hanna Pohoska, op. cit., p. 38.
95 Protokoly Posiedzen KEN 1773 -1784, 23 listopada 1780, item 1°, p. 141.
96 The Czartoryski report is reproduced in full in Stanislaw Tync, Komisja Edukacji Narodowej, p. 38 - 50.
97 Teodor Wierzbowski, Protokoly Posiedzen Komisyi Edukacyi Narodowej z lat 1778-1781, Part 38, Meeting of 21 November 1780, p. 222. On 24 November 1780 the Commission recommended the use of the format for all General Inspectors, see: Ibid, p. 225.
98 Teodor Wierzbowski, Protokoly Posiedzen Towarzystwa do Ksiag Elementarnych 1775-1792, Part 36, Meeting of 5 December 1780, p. 48.
99 Ibid., p. 48 through 75 (5 December 1780 — 7 March 1781).
100 Originals of these proposals are found in the Warsaw Archiwum Glowne Fund E 29 A., entitled: Rozne akta Towarzystwa do Ksiag Eelementarnych.
101 More detail is given in Hanna Pohoska, op. cit., p. 41.
102 Ibid., p. 42.
103 Ibid., p. 42.
104 Ibid., p. 43.
105 Pohoska speculates that these three members of the Society for Elementary Books had to be the authors of this proposal. Hanna Pohoska, op. cit., p. 43.
106 The term "director" is equivalent to the English "monitor" in use during this time period. These were older students who, for room and board were given tutorial responsibilities as well as supervisory responsibilities in the residencial houses or dormatories.
107 The original of this proposal is found in Warsaw, Archiwum Glowne, Fund E 29 A, folio 175 -178. Proposal also reproduced in an abbreviated version in Hanna Pohoska, op. cit. p. 43-46.
108 Teodor Wierzbowski, Protokoly Posiedzen Towarzystwa do Ksiag Eelementarnych 1775-1792, Part 36 See minutes of the meeting of 11 January 1781.
109 Ibid., See minutes of the meeting of 22 January 1781.
110 Original of these instructions can be found in Warsaw, Archiwum Glowne Fund E 29 A., folio 209 - 211. These instructions were entitled: Wzyta szkol przez Wizytatora akademickiego; podposano: Narbutt. The Narbutas proposal, with all thirty points is also presented in Hanna Pohoska, op. cit., p. 47 - 48.
111 Hanna Pohoska, op. cit., p. 62.
112 See Statutes of the Educational Commission reproduced in Stanislaw Tync, op. cit., p. 605 - 612.
113 Hanna Pohoska presents a detailed analysis of the Narbutas and the final approved regulations indicating what points were changed and by which body. See Hanna Pohoska, op. cit., p. 49 - 62.
114 Comparative analysis of these chapters was completed by Stanislaw Tync, op. cit., p. 566.
115 "Rozdzial IV: Wizyta Zgromadzen Akademickich i Szkol Narodowych," of the "Ustawy Kommissyi Edukacyi Narodowej dla Stanu Akademickiego i na Szkoly w Krajach Rzeczypospolitej Przepisane," in Stanislaw Tync, op. cit., p. 605 -612. Future references to the Statutes will be made using the following format: Ustawy KEN-1783.
116 Gzregorz Piramowicz (1735-1801), was an ex-Jesuit, eminent educator, poet, the Secretary of the Society for Elementary Books, the co-author of the Statutes of the Educational Commission, and the author of many textbooks. An excellent report on his work can be found in Jan Poplatek, Komisja Edukacji Narodowej (Udzial Bylych Jezuitow w Pracach Komisji Edukacji Narodowej, Krakow, Wydawnictwo Apostolstwa Modlitwy, 1973, p. 71-75.
117 Szcezpan Holowczyc (1741 -1823), priest, Cannon of Warsaw, secretary to Michal Poniatowski, Primate of Poland, and Member of the Society for Elementary Books
118 Protokoly Posiedzen KEN 1773-1784, 2 Marca 1781, item 3°, p. 155.
119 Franciszek Bienkowski (1730-1786), ex-Jesuit, vice-rector of the Warsaw school (1773-1777), General Inspector (1782 -1786). See Jan Poplatek, op. cit., p. 248- 249.
120 Protokoly Posiedzen KEN 1773-1784, 5 kwietnia 1782, item 1°, p. 193. This change occurred 5 April 1782.
121 This new instruction contains nine points. It is reproduced in Protokoly Posiedzen KEN 1773-1784, 5 kwietnia 1782, items l°-9°, p. 194-195.
122 Protokoly Posiedzen KEN 1773-1784, 5 kwietnia 1782, item 9°, p. 195.
123 "Raport z wizyty generalnej szkol W. Ks. Lit., wydzialow litewskiego i zmudzkiego, odbytej przez Gregorza Piramocza w 1782 r." found in VUB, Cart. f., DC 88 f 1-36. Reproduced in full by Kalina Bartnica and Irena Szybiak, compl., Raporty Genralnych Wizytatorow Szkol Komisji Edukacji Narodowej w Wielkim Ksiestwie Litewskim 1782 -1792. (Reports of the General Inspectors of the Schools in Lithuania under the Commission for National Education 1782-1792), Warszawa, Polska Akademia Nauk, Ossolinskich, 1974, p. 31 • 97. This document collection will be cited as Raporty Gen Wiz Lit,
124 Idem.
125 Idem.
126 Protokoly Posiedzen KEN 1773 -1784, 21 wrzesnia 1782, item 1°, p. 214.
127 Idem.
128 Raporty Gen Wiz Lit., p. 11-29.
129 The school in Nieswicz, Nowogrodzki District, received the poor rating. Raporty Gen Wiz Lit., p. 11 - 29.
130 Idem.
131 Hanna Pohoska, op. cit., p. 92.
132 Dawid Pilchowski (1735-1803), ex-Jesuit, Doctor of Theology and Church Law, Professor of Theology at the University of Vilnius, from 1783 Professor of Literature at the Chief School of Lithuania, and Chairman of the Moral College. See Jan Poplatek, op. cit., p. 363-365.
133 Protokoly Posiedzen KEN 1773-1784, 4 kwietnia 1783, item 8°, p. 235.
134 Raporty Gen Wis Lit., p. 97-117.
135 The two schools were Zyrowice and Lida. See Hanna Pohoska, op. cit., p. 350-351. Even though Bienkowski visited these two schools his report does not contain any record of the visits. The record does appear in the report of Pilchowski. See Raporty Gen Wiz Lit., p. 97.
136 See the summary rating tables developed by Hanna Pohoska, op. cit., p. 351.
137 Raporty Gen Wiz Lit., p. 119-144.
138 Hanna Pohoska, op. cit., p. 350-351.
139 Raporty Gen Wiz Lit., p. 97, 129. Hanna Pohoska, op. cit., p. 351.
140 Raporty Gen Wiz Lit., p. 97 and 122. Hanna Pohoska, op. cit., p. 350.
141 Protokoly Posiedzen KEN 1773-1784, 13 czerwcz 1780, item 7°, p. 134-135.
142 Protokoly Posiedzen KEN 1773 -1784, 19 marca 1784, items 1° through 12°, p. 360-365.
143 In accordance with paragraph 3 of Chapter IV of the Statutes of the Educational Commission (1783). See Tync, op. cit., p. 605.
144 VUB, Cart, f., DC 8, I, Not Numbered.
145 Idem.
146 VUB, Cart. f., DC 9, I, Not Numbered.
147 Ibid.
148 Ibid. Also see Hanna Pohoska, op. cit., p. 101.
149 VUB, Cart. f., DC 103, I, Not Numbered.
150 See Letter of Poczohut to the Educational Commission of 17 Jan 1785 in Hanna Pohoska, op. cit., p. 104 -105.
151 VUB, Cart. f., DC 9, I, Not Numbered.
152 Raporty Gen Wiz Lit, p. 145-155.
153 Ibid, p. 145-154,
154 VUB, Cart. f., DC 9, I, Not Numbered.
155 Raporty Gen Wiz Lit, p. 157-173.
156 Ibid., p. 173.
157 Raporty Gen Wiz Lit, p. 175-209.
158 Idem.
159 VUB, Cart. f., DC 75, 37-40.
160 VUB, Cart. f., DC 77, 1-37.
161 Protokoly Posiedzen KEN 1786-1794, See minutes of 30 December 1786, item 3, page 57.
162 VUB, Cart. f., 73, 1, Not Numbered.
163 See: "Wypisy z protokolow wizyt odprawionych roku 1787 przez Dawida Pilchowskiego," VUB, Cart. f., DC 79, 1-26. See also Hanna Pohoska, op. cit., p. 115.
164 See: "Raport z wizyty generalnej szkol W. Ks. Lit., wydzialow liteskiego i zmudzkiego, odbytej przez Gregorza Piramowicza w 1782r," VUB, Cart. f., DC 88, 1-36. In Raporty Gen Wiz Lit., p. 55.
165 Raporty Gen Wiz Lit., p. 108.
166 VUB, Cart. f., 73, 1, Not Numbered.
167 Ustawy KEN-1783, Chapter IV.
168 Raporty Gen Wiz Lit, p. 210-253.
169 Protokoly Posiedzen KEN 1786-1794, See minutes of 8 Kwietnia 1788, item 4, p. 138.
170 See: "Raport wizyty generalnej szkol... odprawionej przez ks. Jakuba Jaske, teologii, nauk wyzwolonych i filosofii doktora, Kolegium Moralnego w Szkole Glowniej W. Ks. Lit. towarzysza, kanonika smolesnskiego, prorektora pinskiego, wizytatora generalengo szkol litewskich, roku 1788 dany Szkole Glownej Wilenskiej W. Ks. Lit.," VUB, Cart. f., DC 91, 1-13.
171 VUB, Cart. f., DC 91, 1-13.
172 Raporty Gen Wiz Lit, p. 280-329.
173 VUB, Cart. f., DC 74, 1, Not Numbered.
174 See: Wypisy z protokolow szkolnych wizyty ksiedza Erdmana, 1789," VUB, Cart. f., 95, 1-17. Reproduced in full Raporty Generalnych Wizytatorow szkol Komisji Edukacji Narodowej w Wielkim Ksiestwie Litewskim 1782-1792, p. 381 - 406.
175 VUB, Cart. f., DC 95, I. 8.
176 See: "Wypisy z protokolu wizyt szkol bialskich, bialostockich, grodzienskich, kowienskich, domininkanskich, mereckich, ilkomierskich, pijarskich poniewieskich, pijarskich rosienskich, kroskich, kretyngskich, pijarskich szczuczynskich, pijarskich lidzkich, wolkowyskich i bazylianskich zyrowickich odblytych przez ks. Jakuba Jakse w czasie od 11 V do 13 VII 1789 r.," VUB, Cart. f., DC 82, 1-93.
177 For a discussion of this matter see Hanna Pohoska, op. cit., p. 76. It should be noted that his time period precedes the Second Partition.
178 Table 2 does not indicate any school inspections or visita tions for any of the Piarist schools for the years 1790 and 1791.
179 Raporty Gen Wiz Lit, p. 481-521.
180 VUB, Cart, f., DC 97. Not Numbered.
181 VUB, Cart. f., DC 97 and VUB, Cart. f., DC 9 1. 71-72. See also Hanna Pohoska, op. cit., p. 120.
182 Raporty Gen Wiz Lit, p. 522.
183 Protokoly Posiedzen KEN 1786-1794, See minutes of 25 Kwietnia 1792, p. 309.
184 See: "Raport wizyty generalnej szkol... przez ks. Antoniego Obrapalskiego sw teologii doktora, kanonika inflanckiego, szkol litewskich generalnego wizytatora roku 1791 Szkole Glownej dany," VB, Cart. f., DC 83, 1-28.
185 VUB, Cart. f., DC 83, 1-2.
186 Raporty Gen Wiz Lit, p. 550-576.
187 "Szkoly nieswiskie stanu akademickiego w wydziale ruskim," in Raporty Gen Wiz Lit., p. 556.
188 Raporty Gen Wiz Lit., p. 7.
189 See: "Wizyta generalna szkol brzeskich litewskich zgromadzenia akademickiego wydzialu poskiego odprawiona roku 1792," VUB, Cart, f. DC 83, 93-95, wypis z protokolu wizyt ks. Michala Piotrowskiego, sprozadzony przez ktoregos z nauczycieli szkoly.
190 Hanna Pohoska, op. cit., p. 170-171.
191 Ibid., p. 169-170. See also data presented in Table 2.
192 Ibid., p. 170.
193 Ibid., p. 171. See also the rating data summarized by Po-