Consider two statements separated by nearly 200 years but bound by an enduring plea for money to run Santa Fe schools.

In 1812, Pedro Bautista Pino, New Mexico's representative to the Spanish parliament, appealed to the king for financial help, saying:

"Even in (Santa Fe) it has been impossible to engage a teacher and to furnish education for everyone. ... This condition gives rise to expressions of discouragement by many people who notice the latent scientific ability of the children in this province."

In 2009, Santa Fe teacher Lisa Randall issued this warning about budget cuts:

"I'm bracing for too many kids in the classroom, too few materials, overworked administrators, and an already very-tired group of colleagues who have been dealt another blow. ... And achievement scores are not going to go up."

Long before and long after the formation of Santa Fe Public Schools in 1896, the community has argued over school funding and reform.

Did most of those squabbles happen in days gone by? Yes.

Are they relevant today? You decide. But given that Santa Fe schools absorbed nearly $7 million in budget cuts this year, it is worth considering what happened at several key moments between the Spanish colonial period and statehood.

One of the earliest and strongest arguments for better schools came in that report to the king in 1812. Pino arrived in Spain to take his seat in a new session of the parliament and soon delivered his written report on conditions in New Mexico.

One topic Pino addressed was education. He argued that education would give opportunities to individuals and promote prosperity for the community. At the time, only families wealthy enough to help pay the teacher could afford to send children to school.

Further, Pino called for higher education so New Mexico could train its own as priests, doctors and judges. "I am leaving this matter to the consideration of your majesty," Pino concluded. The plea went unanswered.

After almost 10 years of waiting, new hope for pro-education Santa Feans followed Mexican independence. But hope quickly turned to disappointment when in 1822, a year after independence, the provincial assembly established public schools in New Mexico but failed to supply funding. The school system existed on paper but continued for years to underserve the community. In 1844, free schools opened again in Santa Fe only because Gov. Mariano Martinez de Lejanza was willing to pay out of his pocket for the schools and two teachers brought in from Europe.

The next opportunity to take stock of education came during the U.S. military occupation of Santa Fe. Gov. Donaciano Vigil's report to the Legislature in 1847 said the whole territory of New Mexico had only one school, in Santa Fe, and that school had but one teacher. Vigil called for a public school in every village in New Mexico. Lawmakers gave the idea a thumbs down.

After decades of division, what happened next made all previous school debates seem like nap time in kindergarten. In March 1884, in the midst of a legislative debate on school-funding reform, a citizens committee appointed by the county commission delivered a report that shook Santa Fe and ignited a very public quarrel.

When the committee appeared before a grand jury and offered the report alleging misuse of funds, the grand jury refused to hear the report. Not to be denied, the committee instead took the report straight to the public and detailed the allegations in a hearing open to the whole community.

The report made two serious charges about the handling of local school taxes. The first charge said county school officials were illegally funneling one-sixth of public-school money to religious schools. The second made the case that two Catholic institutions received all of the money, while schools run by Protestants and the Christian Brothers were shut out of the funding.

The citizens committee called on the Legislature to abolish the local tax and to stop public funding of church schools. Without reform, the committee said, "this school tax in the place of advancing popular and general education will be a fund for the propagation of the religious dogmas of the majority."

The mother superior of Loretto Academy, a recipient of taxpayer money, fought back through the newspaper, deflecting the specific charges by making the sympathetic case that her school served poor students. The mother superior did not directly challenge the charges, instead choosing to attack her accusers for exaggerating the facts.

The citizens committee, particularly spokesman José Manuel Martin, showed considerable courage by standing up to pressure from a community inclined to support the Sisters of Loretto and Sisters of Charity. In a published response to the mother superior, Martin demanded that the state "give us an efficient public school entirely free from sectarian control, and the sooner the better."

That spring, the territorial Legislature enacted a package of school reforms, just as Martin and his committee had wanted. The legislation shifted responsibility for public schools from the county school superintendent to the newly created local school districts and governing boards. That basic structure has stayed in place since.

Contact Rob Dean at 986-3033 or rdean@sfnewmexican.com.