Part 7

It is imperative that we discriminate between the legislative and executive action in organizing and administering the schools. The influences which enter into legislative action, looking to the general organization and work of the schools, must necessarily and fundamentally flow directly from the people and be widely spread. The greater the number of people, in proportion to the entire population, who can be led to take a positive interest and an active part in securing good schools, the better will the schools be, provided the people can secure the complete execution of their purposes and plans. But experience has clearly shown that many causes intervene to prevent the complete execution of such plans, that all the natural enemies of sound administration scent plenty of plunder and are especially active here, that good school administration requires much strength of character, much business experience, much technical knowledge, and can be only measurably satisfactory when the responsibility is adequate, and the penalties for maladministration are severe. Decentralization in making the plan and determining what shall be done, and centralization in executing the plan and in doing what is to be done, are, perhaps, equally important.

It should be remembered that the character of the school work of a city is not merely a matter of local interest, and that the maintenance of the schools does not rest merely or mainly upon local authority. The people of the municipality, acting, and ordinarily glad to act, but, in any event, being obliged to act, under and pursuant to the law which has been ordained by the sovereign authority of the state, establish and maintain schools. They must have the taxing power which the state alone possesses in order to enable them to proceed at all. They must regard the directions which the state sees fit to give as to the essential character of the schools, when it exercises in their behalf, or when it delegates to them the power of taxation.

The plan should be flexible for good, while inflexible for evil. Meeting essential requirements, the people of the municipality may well be empowered to proceed as much farther as they will in elaborating a system of schools. The higher the plane of average intelligence, and the more generally and the more directly the people act in deciding what shall be done, and the greater the facility and completeness with which the intelligence of the city is able to secure the proper execution of its plans by officers appointed for that purpose, the more elaborate and the more efficient will be the schools, and this should, of course, be provided for.

It is idle to suggest that centering executive functions is unwisely taking power away from the people. The people cannot execute plans themselves. The authority to do it must necessarily be delegated. The question simply is, “Shall it be given to a number of persons, and if so, to how many? Or to only one?” This question is to be decided by experience, and it is, of course, true that experience has not been uniform. But it is doubtless true that the general experience of the communities of the country has shown that where purely executive functions are conferred upon a number of persons jointly, they yield to antagonistic influences and shift the responsibility from one to another; and that centering the responsibility for the proper discharge of executive duties upon a single person, who gets the credit of good work and must bear the disgrace or penalty of bad work, and who can quickly be held accountable for misdeeds and inefficiency, has secured the fullest execution of public plans and the largest results. To call this “centralization,” with the meaning which commonly attaches to the word, is inaccurate. Instead of removing the power from the people, it is keeping the power closer to the people, and making it possible for the citizen in his individual capacity and for organized bodies of citizens to secure the execution of plans according to the purpose and intent with which those plans were made. Indeed, it is safe to say that experience has shown that this is _the only way_ in which to prevent the frequent thwarting of the popular will and the defiance of individuals whose interests are ignored or whose rights are invaded.

But all the people of a city whose population is numbered by hundreds of thousands or millions cannot meet in a legislative assemblage to formulate plans. They cannot gather in mass meetings, and, if they could, mass meetings cannot deliberate. Even their legislative action must flow, not from a primary, but from a representative assembly.

What shall such a representative legislative body be called? How shall it be chosen? Of how many members shall it be composed? And what shall be its powers? These and other similar questions are all important and must be determined by the law-making power of the state. The sentiments of the city, as expressed through the local organizations, and particularly the newspapers, must, of course, have much weight with the legislature if there is anything like unanimity or any very strong preponderance of opinion in the city, for the plan for which a community expresses a preference will surely be likely to operate most effectually in that community. But the local sentiment is not conclusive. When divided, it is no guide at all. The legislature is to take all the circumstances into consideration, take the world’s experience for its guide, and, acting under its responsibilities, it must exercise its high powers in ways which will build up a system of schools in the city likely to articulate with the state educational system and become the effective instrument of developing the intelligence and training the character of the children of the city up to the ideals of the state.

The name of the legislative branch of the school government is not material, and the one to which the people are accustomed may well continue to be employed. There is no name more appropriate than the “Board of Education.”

The manner of selecting or appointing the members of this legislative body may turn somewhat upon the circumstances of the city. We are strongly of the opinion that in view of the well-known difficulty about securing the attendance of the most interested and intelligent electors at school elections, as well as because of the apparent impossibility of freeing school elections from political or municipal issues, the better manner of elections is by appointment. If the members of the board are appointed, the mayor of the city is likely to be the official to whom the power of appointment may most safely be entrusted. The mayor is not suggested because his office should sustain any relation to the school system, but in spite of the fact that it does not and should not. The school system should be _absolutely emancipated from partisan politics, and completely dissociated from municipal business_. But we think the appointments should be made by some one person, rather than by a board. The mayor is representative of the whole city and all its interests. While not chosen with any reference to the interests of the schools, he may be assumed to have information as to the fitness of citizens for particular responsibilities, and to be desirous of promoting the educational interests of the people. If he is given the power of appointment, he should be particularly enjoined by law to consider the fitness of individuals alone and pay no regard to party affiliations, unless it be to particularly see to it that no one political party has an overwhelming preponderance in the board. The mayor very commonly feels constrained, under the pressure of party expediency, to make so many questionable appointments, that he is only too glad, and particularly so when enjoined by the law, to make very acceptable appointments of members of school boards, in order that he may gratify the better sentiment of the city. We are confident that the problem of getting a representative board of education is not so difficult as many think, if the board is not permitted to make patronage of work and salaried positions at the disposal of the public-school system. Under such circumstances, and more and more so as we have approached such circumstances, appointment in the way we suggest has produced the best school boards in the larger cities of the country.

The members of school boards should be representative of the whole population and of all their common educational interests, and should not be chosen to represent any ward or subdivision of the territory, or any party or element in the political, religious, or social life thereof. Where this principle is not enforced, the members will feel bound to gain what advantage they can for the district or interests they represent; bitter contests will ensue, and the common interests will suffer.

Attempts to eliminate partisanship from school administration, by arraying an equal number of partisans against each other in school boards, do not, at best, lead to an ideal organization. In some instances they have proved fairly successful; in others, very mischievous. The true course is to insist that all who have any share in the management of the schools shall divest themselves of partisanship, whether political or religious, in such management, and give themselves wholly to the high interests entrusted to them. If it be said that this cannot be realized, it may be answered, without admitting it, that even if that were so, it would be no reason why the friends of the schools should not assert the sound principle and secure its enforcement as far as possible. We must certainly give no countenance to make-shifts, which experience has shown to be misleading and expensive. The right must prevail in the end, and the earlier and more strongly it is contended for, the sooner it will prevail.

Relatively small boards are preferable to large ones. In a city of less than a half-million of inhabitants, the number should not exceed nine, and might well not exceed five. In the very largest cities it might be enlarged to fifteen.

The term for which members are appointed should be a reasonably long one, say, five years.

We think it an excellent plan to provide for two branches and sets of powers in the board of education; the one to have the veto power, or, at least, to act as a check upon the acts of the other. This may be accomplished by creating the office of school director and charging the incumbent with executive duties on the business side of the administration, and by giving him the veto power over the acts of the other branch of the board, which may be called the “School Council.” Beyond the care and conservation which is ensured by two sets of powers acting against each other, it has the advantage of giving the chief executive officer of the system just as high and good a title as that of members of the board, it is likely to secure a more representative man, and gives him larger prerogatives in the discharge of his executive duties and better standing among the people, particularly among the employees and teachers associated with the public-school system.

If this plan is adopted, the school director should be required to give his entire time to the duties of his position, and be properly compensated therefor. He should be the custodian of all property and should appoint all assistants, janitors, and workmen, authorized by the board, for the care of the same. He should give bond, with sufficient sureties and penalties, for the faithful and proper discharge of all his duties. He should be authorized by law to expend funds, within a fixed limit, for repairs, appliances, and help, without the action of the board. All contracts should be made by him, and should run in his name, and he should be charged with the responsibility of seeing that they are faithfully and completely executed. All contracts involving more than a limited and fixed sum of money should be let upon bids to be advertised for and opened in public. He should have a seat in the board of education; should not vote, but should have the power to veto, either absolutely or conditionally, any of the acts of the board, through a written communication. This officer and the school council should together constitute the board of education.

The board of education should be vested with legislative functions only, and be required to act wholly through formal and recorded resolutions. It should determine and direct the general policy of the school system. Within reasonable limits, as to amount, it should be given power, in its discretion, to levy whatever moneys may be needed for school purposes. It should control the expenditure of all moneys beyond a fixed and limited amount, which may safely and advantageously be left to the discretion of the chief executive business officer. It should authorize, by general resolutions, the appointment of necessary officers and employees in the business department, and the superintendent, assistants, and teachers in the department of instruction, but it should be allowed to make no appointments other than its own clerk. With this necessary exception, single officers should be charged with responsibility for all appointments.

This plan, not in all, but in essential particulars, has been on trial in the city of Cleveland for nearly three years, and has worked with very general acceptability.

If this plan is adopted, the chief executive officer of the system is already provided for and his duties have already been indicated. Otherwise it will be necessary for the board to appoint such an officer. In that event, the law should declare him independent, confer upon him adequate authority for the performance of executive duties, and charge him with responsibility. But we know of no statutory language capable of making an officer appointed by a board, and dependent upon the same board for supplies, independent in fact of the personal wishes of the members of that board. And right here is where the troubles rush in to discredit and damage the school system.

We now come to the subject of paramount importance in making a plan for the school government in a great city, namely, the character of the teaching force and the quality of the instruction. A city school system may be able to withstand some abuses on the business side of its administration and continue to perform its functions with measurable success, but wrongs against the instruction must, in a little time, prove fatal. The strongest language is none too strong here. The safety of the republic, the security of American citizenship, are at stake. Government by the people has no more dangerous pitfall in its road than this, that in the mighty cities of the land the comfortable and intelligent masses, who are discriminating more and more closely about the education of their children, shall become dissatisfied with the social status of the teachers and the quality of the teaching in the common schools. In that event they will educate their children at their own expense, and the public schools will become only good enough for those who can afford no better. The only way to avert this is by maintaining the instruction upon a purely scientific and professional footing. This is entirely practicable, but it involves much care and expense in training teachers, the absolute elimination of favoritism from appointments, the security of the right to advancement after appointment, on the basis of merit, and a general leadership which is kindly, helpful, and stimulating to individuals, which can secure harmonious coöperation from all the members, and lends energy and inspiration to the whole body.

This cannot be secured if there is any lack of authority, and experience amply proves that it will not be secured if there is any division of responsibility. The whole matter of instruction must be placed in the hands of a superintendent of instruction, with independent powers and adequate authority, who is charged with full responsibility.

The danger of inconsiderate or improper action by one vested with such powers is, of course, possible, but it is remote. Regardless of the legal powers with which he may be individually vested, he is in fact and in law a part of a large system. He must act through others, and in the presence of multitudes. There is great publicity about all he does. When a single officer carries such responsibility, he is at the focus of all eyes. There are the strongest incentives to right action. He cannot act wrongfully without it is known, at least to many persons. If he is required to act under and pursuant to a plan, the details of which have been announced, and of which we shall speak in a moment, a wrongful act will be known to the world, and he must bear the responsibility of it, and the danger of maladministration is almost eliminated.

Moreover, we must consider the alternative. It is not in doubt. All who have had any contact with the subject are familiar with it. It is administration by boards or committees, the members of which are not competent to manage professional matters and develop an expert teaching force. Though necessarily inexperienced, they frequently assume the knowledge of the most experienced. They over-ride and degrade a superintendent, when they have the power to do so, until he becomes their mere factotum. For the sake of harmony and the continuance of his position, he concedes, surrenders, and acquiesces in their acts, while the continually increasing teaching force becomes weaker and weaker, and the work poorer and poorer. If he refuses to do this, they precipitate an open rupture, and turn him out of his position. Then they cloud the issues and shift the responsibility from one to another. There are exceptions, of course, but they do not change the rule.

It will be unprofitable to mince words about this all-important matter. If the course of study for the public schools of a great city is to be determined by laymen, it will not be suited to the needs of a community. If teachers are to be appointed by boards or committees, the members of which are particularly sensitive to the desires of people who have votes or influence, looseness of action is inevitable, and unworthy considerations will frequently prevail. If the action of a board or committee be conditioned upon the recommendation of a superintendent, the plan will not suffice. No one person is stronger than the system of which he is a part. Such a plan results in contests between the board and the superintendents, and such a contest is obviously an unequal one. There is little doubt of the outcome. In recommending for the appointment of teachers, the personal wishes of members of the board, in particular cases, will have to be acquiesced in. If a teacher, no matter how unfit, cannot be dropped from the list without the approval of a board or committee after they have heard from her friends and sympathizers, she will remain indefinitely in the service. This means a low tone in the teaching force and desolation in the work of the schools. If the superintendent accepts the situation, he becomes less and less capable of developing a professional teaching service. If he refuses to accept it, he is very likely to meet humiliation; dismissal is practically inevitable.

The superintendent of instruction should be charged with no duty save the supervision of the instruction, but should be charged with the responsibility of making that professional and scientific, and should be given the position and authority to accomplish that end.

If the board of education is constituted upon the old plan, he must be chosen by the board. If it is constituted upon the Cleveland plan, he may be appointed by the school director, with the approval of two-thirds or three-fourths of the council. The latter plan seems preferable, for it centralizes the main responsibility of this important appointment in a single individual. In either case, the law and the sentiment of the city should direct that the appointee shall be a person liberally educated, professionally trained; one who knows what good teaching is, but is also experienced in administration, in touch with public affairs, and in sympathy with popular feeling.

The term of the superintendent of instruction should be from five to ten years, and until a successor is appointed. In our judgment, it should be determinate, so that there may be a time of public examination, but it should be sufficiently long to enable one to lay foundations and show results, without being carried under by the prejudices which always follow the first operation of efficient or drastic plans. The salary should be fixed by law, and not subject to change in the middle of a term or except by law.

For reasons already suggested, the superintendent, once appointed, should have power to appoint, from an eligible list, all assistants and teachers authorized by the board, and unlimited authority to assign them to their respective positions, and reassign them or remove them from the force at his discretion.

To secure a position upon the eligible list from which appointments may be made, a candidate, if without experience, should be required to complete the full four years’ course of the city high schools, or its equivalent, and in addition thereto pass the examination of the board of examiners, and complete at least a year’s course of professional training in a city normal training school under the direction of the superintendent. If the candidate has had, say, three years of successful experience as a teacher, he should be eligible to appointment by passing an examination held by a general examining board. This board may be appointed by the board of education, but should examine none but graduates of the high school and training school, unless specially requested so to do by the superintendent of instruction. The number admitted to the training schools should be limited, and the examinations should be gauged to the prospective needs of the elementary schools for new teachers. The supply of new teachers may well be largely, but should not be wholly, drawn from this local source. The force will gain fresh vitality by some appointments of good and experienced teachers from outside.

The work of putting a large teaching force upon a professional basis, of making the teaching scientific and capable of arousing mind to action, is so difficult that a layman can scarcely appreciate it. It has hardly been commenced, it has only been made possible, when the avenues of approach to the service have been closed against the unqualified and unworthy. After that the supervision must be close and general, as well as sympathetic and decisive. The superintendent must have expert assistants enough to learn the characteristics and measure the work of every member of the force. They must help and encourage, advise and direct, according to the circumstances of each case. The work must be reduced to a system and the workers brought into harmonious relations. Each room must show neatness and life, and the whole force must show ardor and enthusiasm. By directing the reading, by encouraging an interchange of visits, by organizing clubs for self-improvement, by frequent class and grade and general meetings, the professional spirit may be aroused and the work energized.