whether the desired funds shall be appropriated. Estimates for buildings and sites must run the gauntlet of both the council and the city board of estimates.

THE SUPERINTENDENT.

The selection of the city superintendent is another point upon which there are interesting differences of practice. He is usually elected by the school board, but in San Francisco, Buffalo, and some other cities he is a city officer and is elected at a popular election. A man must be a good politician as well as a good educator to succeed in obtaining office under these conditions, and the field of choice is necessarily narrowed to men well known and popular in the city. Such a thing as securing as superintendent a man who had made his reputation in another city would be out of the question. Philadelphia secured both Mac Alister and Brooks from other places; Cleveland, Ohio, brought Draper from New York and Jones from Indianapolis, and so many others of the most successful superintendents have found their widest fields in places far distant from the scene of the beginning of their careers; but this style of selection is not for San Francisco or Buffalo. Nevertheless the list of superintendents of those cities embraces several names prominent in educational circles.

In some of the New Jersey cities the same plan of the popular elec tion of superintendents prevails, and the result has been in many cases the choice of men without even the pretense of an expert knowledge of school matters. The law undoubtedly contemplated that the superintendent elected should perform the usual duties of the office, but this has not proved advisable in some instances. In one city the board of education has appointed a supervising principal, who is to all intents and purposes the superintendent in the ordinary sense of the term, while the superintendent, officially so called and elected as such by the people, is but little more than the treasurer and maker of reports.

The most powerful city superintendent in the country, so far as the law can make him so, is Mr. L. H. Jones, of Cleveland, Ohio. With absolute control over all that relates to instruction, he has the full power of examination, appointment, and removal of teachers. He himself is the appointee of one man, the school director, though he must be confirmed by the school council. It remains to be seen whether time will prove this plan to be wise. It may or may not lead to more frequent and sweeping, and therefore harmful, changes in policies and personnel than does the usual practice of making the superintendent amenable to the government of a continuous board. The same man has been director since the beginning of the present system four years ago, and both the superintendents whom he has appointed have been not only men of marked ability, faithfulness, and probity, but have been believers in the same general educational policies; so that "the Cleve land plan" has not yet been put to any real test.

In Washington, D. C., the same authority which appoints the members of the school board also appoints the superintendent, and the latter does not depend for his official position upon the former. The relations between the board and the superintendent have been in the main cordial and harmonious, but at one time a bitter controversy arose between the first superintendent and the board, which was very demoralizing to the schools. The board earnestly sought to change the method of choosing the superintendent, urging that if he were their own appointee such disputes would be impossible. They failed in this, but secured the removal of their antagonist.

SELECTION OF TEACHERS.

Next to the actual instruction of pupils, the selection of teachers is the most important duty connected with the schools. A certificate of fitness of some description is always required before appointment, and that certificate is, or should be, good evidence that the holder will perform reasonably satisfactory service. Selection from certificate holders would therefore seem to be attended with but little risk. But the examination for the certificate is at best only a partial test, and many pass it who could scarcely be rated as mediocre teachers, and occasionally some may fail who are capable of doing good work in the schoolroom. The examination is a help in the work of selection, but no more. It narrows the field, but does not designate the individual.

Commonly the examination and choice of teachers are given to the school boards, and the details are matters of local regulation. No matter what the rules might be, the judgment of the superintendent is, under normal conditions, treated with a deference that practically amounts to putting the choice in his hands. It has been said of one superintendent that he has planned every schoolhouse built and has selected every teacher appointed in his city for the last twenty years. And nominally his duties include neither. This, if literally true, is exceptional, but it is natural and proper that the man who directs the work of the teachers and is to a great extent responsible for its character should have a voice in their selection. In many cases the choice rests wholly with the superintendent. The absolute control exercised over examination and appointment by the superintendent at Cleveland has already been mentioned. The same power as to appointment rests with the superintendent at Buffalo, but there is an examining board appointed by the mayor, whose tests candidates must meet before they are eligible for appointment. In some places, as in New York and Cincinnati, the superintendents nominate the teachers and boards make the appointments. The superintendent is nearly always one of the examining board or committee.

If the reports of the central boards of the cities concerned be true, and there is no reason to think they are not, the appointments made

by local trustees in cities in which there are such officers are not always of the best. District committees at Hartford have often employed persons as teachers and then sent them to the school visitors to be examined; and one case is mentioned in a recent report of a person who was found teaching in the schools without a license, and was directed by the visitors to present herself for examination. It was only after repeated attempts and by the exercise of great leniency because of a desire for harmony that she was able to pass at all.

This merely illustrates the difficulties that are liable to arise when separate boards have concurrent jurisdiction over the same subject.

CONCERNING THE DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS.

In the following pages I have presented the details of the systems of 23 cities so far as they are set forth in the school laws. I have shown the historical development of the systems of New York and Washington, in the first case because of the interest which has been aroused by the recent reorganization of the schools, and in the second because that was the only way in which a just comprehension of the system could be obtained.

The arrangement of the cities is in order of their size. All those having over 200,000 inhabitants are included, and some smaller cities are given because of especial features in each case that make them interesting specimens of school organization.

The epitome in tabular form at the end of the chapter will be convenient for comparison.

NEW YORK CITY.

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT.

The constant tendency of legislation relating to the control of the schools of New York City has been in the direction of centralization of authority.

In the infancy of the system, fifty years or more ago, each ward or district was practically supreme in the administration of its own schools. The local trustees selected their own teachers, subject to the approval of the inspectors, who were also ward officers, chose their own course of study, and decided upon the methods of school organization.1 They purchased their own supplies and sent the bills to the board of education, who exercised no control over their expenditures, but simply divided the school moneys between the several wards in proportion to the number of children in school.

At this period, that is, under the law of 1844, which was the first under which the system was effectively organized, each ward elected at a special election two commissioners, two inspectors, and five trustees. One commissioner and one inspector were elected each year to serve two years, and one trustee was elected each year to serve five

1 Public Education in New York City, Boese, page 70.

years. All the commissioners in the city composed the board of education, but the inspectors and the trustees were purely local officers, the latter having practically all the power in relation to the management of the schools, and the former auditing the bills and performing certain visitorial functions. The commissioners were ex officio members of the boards of trustees of their respective wards, and largely controlled the expenditure of the money allotted by the board of education to the ward schools. In feeling and in practice they, too, were more local than general officers, so that there was nobody who made it his especial business to look after the school system of the city as a whole.2 There was a" county superintendent," it is true, who was appointed by the county board of supervisors and who was amenable to the rules and regulations of the State superintendent. But his powers and duties were not such as to give him any authority over the schools, and his influence in unifying the schools was not appreciable, even if any attempt was made to accomplish such a result.

3

The special election feature failed to be successful in practice. The interest of the people could not be sufficiently aroused to "bring out the vote," and in 1851 special elections were discontinued, and since that time all popular voting for school officers has been done at general city elections.

A city superintendent was provided for by the same law, to be appointed by the board of education, to whom the power was given to fix and pay his salary. Among his duties were the licensing of teachers in conjunction with the inspectors, and for cause he had the power to annul licenses. But this was of little account, for there was nothing to prevent the trustees from employing a teacher without a license, if they chose, until the board of education in 1854 passed a regulation preventing such employment.

Serious defects in time became apparent in the system. The shifting of population produced great inequalities in the population of the several warus and gave the more southerly wards undue predominance in the board. Great differences became manifest in the efficiency of the schools of the various wards. Some trustees were negligent and others were even unduly ambitious in advancing the interests under their charge. Irregularities of various kinds were brought to the surface,2 and, since the laws did not clearly define the functions of the several classes of officers, conflicts of authority inevitably followed.

The revision of 1864.-There could be but one outcome to such an unsatisfactory state of affairs, and in 1864 a law was passed greatly strengthening the board of education and enlarging the powers of the inspectors.

The division of the city into wards, then 22, was still recognized in

1 Act of May 7, 1844, in Manual of the Board of Education of 1850.

2 Public Education in New York City, page 94.

3 Act of May 7, 1844.

Thirty-seventh Annual Report Board of Education, 1878, page 26.

the new law in the election of trustees, five of whom were to be elected for and by each ward, one each year, for a term of five years.

But for commissioners and inspectors the city was divided into seven school districts, in each of which one commissioner was elected every year for a three-year term. The number of members of the board of education was, therefore, fixed at 21 instead of 44, as before. The election of inspectors by the people was discontinued, and they were to be appointed by the mayor with the confirmation of the board of education. There were three for each district, and their term of service was fixed at three years, one being appointed each year. The commissioners were no longer to be ex officio members of the board of trustees, the expectation being that if they were separated from the administration of local affairs they would better realize their duties to the whole city.

The appointment of principals and vice-principals was made subject to the confirmation of the board of education, but the appointment of other teachers and of janitors remained in the control of the trustees as fully as before. Power was given to the board of education to remove any school officer for immoral or disgraceful conduct in any manner connected with his official duties, and this power was utilized on several occasions.

The source of support of the schools remained as before, namely, taxes laid by the county board of supervisors at the demand of the board, within specified limits. Nor was there any change in the method of the distribution of money between the wards on the basis of the number of pupils in school, though the limits of age were extended.

Attacks on the board.-Great hopes were entertained of the effects of the new scheme of organization, but dissatisfaction soon appeared, and a vigorous attempt was made in 1867 to procure the passage of a law entirely changing the management of the schools. A bill was introduced in the legislature which contemplated the abolishment of the board of education, the inspectors, and the trustees in toto, and the substitution in their stead of a commission of seven persons to be appointed by the governor with the confirmation of the senate, to be called the metropolitan board of instruction. This board was to exercise the powers of all the school officers whom it was expected that it would supplant, and its members were to hold office for eight years and receive salaries of $5,000 each per annum.

In support of this bill it was charged that the existing system had failed to accomplish the objects for which it was established; that the teachers appointed by the trustees were incompetent and inefficient; that the rules and regulations of the existing board had failed to secure proper discipline and an economical and judicious expenditure of the public money; and that the entire administration of the systems imperatively demanded a change in the officers and agents to whom it was confided.