may be secured in the law, and it must be secured there or it will not be secured at all. In concluding this portion of the report, the committee indicates. briefly the principles which must necessarily be observed in framing a plan of organization and government in a large city school system. First. The affairs of the school should not be mixed up with partisan contests or municipal business. Second. There should be a sharp distinction between legislative functions and executive duties. Third. Legislative functions should be clearly fixed by statute and be exercised by a comparatively small board, each member of which is representative of the whole city. This board, within statutory limitations, should determine the policy of the system, levy taxes, and control the expenditures. It should make no appointments. Every act should be by a recorded resolution. It seems preferable that this board be created by appointment rather than election, and that it be constituted of two branches acting against each other. Fourth. Administration should be separated into two great independent departments, one of which manages the business interests and the other of which supervises the instruction. Each of these should be wholly directed by a single official who is vested with ample authority and charged with full responsibility for sound administration. Fifth. The chief executive officer on the business side should be charged with the care of all property and with the duty of keeping it in suitable condition; he should provide all necessary furnishings and appliances; he should make all agreements and see that they are properly performed; he should appoint all assistants, janitors, and workmen; in a word, he should do all that the law contemplates and all that the board authorizes concerning the business affairs of the school system, and when anything goes wrong he should answer for it. He may be appointed by the board, but we think it preferable that he be chosen in the same way the members of the board are chosen, and be given a veto upon the acts of the board. Sixth. The chief executive officer of the department of instruction. should be given a long term and may be appointed by the board. If the board is constituted of two branches, he should be nominated by the business executive and confirmed by the legislative branch. Once appointed, he should be independent. He should appoint all authorized assistants and teachers from an eligible list to be constituted as provided by law. He should assign to duties and discontinue services for cause, at his discretion. He should determine all matters relating to instruction. He should be charged with the responsibility of developing a professional and enthusiastic teaching force and of making all the teaching scientific and forceful. He must perfect the organization of his department and make and carry out plans to accomplish this. If he can not do this in a reasonable time he should be superseded by one who can. The government of a vast city school system comes to have an auton omy which is largely its own and almost independent of direction or restraint. The volume of business which this government transacts is represented only by millions of dollars; it calls not only for the highest sagacity and the ripest experience, but also for much special information relating to school property and school affairs. Even more important than this is the fact that this government controls and determines the educational policy of the city and carries on the instruction of tens or hundreds of thousands of children. This instruction is of little value, and perhaps vicious, unless it is professional and scientific. This government is representative. All citizens are compelled to support it, and all have large interests which it is bound to promote. Every parent has rights which it is the duty of this school government to protect and enforce. When government exacts our support of public education, when it comes into our homes and takes our children into its custody and instructs them according to its will, we acquire a right which is as exalted as any right of property, or of person, or of conscience, can be; and that is the right to know that the environment is healthful, that the management is kindly and ennobling, and that the instruction is rational and scientific. It is needless to say to what extent these interests are impeded or blocked, or how commonly these rights of citizenship and of parentage are denied or defied, or how helpless the individual is who seeks their enforcement under the system of school government which has heretofore obtained in some of the great cities of the country. This is not surprising. It is only the logical result of the rapid growth of cities, of a marvelous advance in knowledge of what is needed in the schools, of the antagonism of selfish interests by which all public administration, and particularly school administration, is encompassed, and of the lack of plan and system, the confusion of powers, the absence of individual responsibility, in the government of a system of schools. By the census of 1890 there are seven cities in the United States, each with a population greater than any one of sixteen States. The aggregate population of twelve cities exceeds the aggregate population of twenty States. Government for education certainly requires as strong and responsible an organization as government for any other purpose. These great centers of population, with their vast and complex educational problems, have passed the stage when government by the time-honored commission will suffice. No popular government ever determined the policy and administered the affairs of such large bodies of people successfully, ever transacted such a vast volume of business satisfactorily, ever promoted high and beneficent ends, ever afforded protection to the rights of each individual of the great multitude, unless in its plan of organization there was an organic separation of executive, legislative, and judicial functions and powers. All the circumstances of the case, and the uniform experience of the world, forbid our expecting any substan tial solution of the problem we are considering until it is well settled in the sentiments of the people that the school systems of the greatest cities are only a part of the school systems of the States of which these cities form a part, and are subject to the legislative authority thereof; until there is a plan of school government in each city which differentiates executive acts from legislative functions; which emancipates the legislative branch of that government from the influence of pelf seekers; which fixes upon individuals the responsibility for executive acts, either performed or omitted; which gives to the intelligence of the community the power to influence legislation and exact perfect and complete execution; which affords to every citizen whose interests are ignored or whose rights are invaded a place for complaint and redress, and which puts the business interests upon a business footing, the teaching upon an expert basis, and gives to the instruction that protection and encouragement which is vital to the development of all professional and scientific work. We have undertaken to indicate the general principles which we think should be observed in setting up the framework of government of a large city school system. While we have no thought that any precise form of organization which could be suggested would, in all details, be imperative, we are confident that the form or plan of organization is of supreme consequence, and that any which disregards the principles we have pointed out will work to disadvantage or lead to disaster. ANDREW S. DRAPER, President of the Illinois State University, Champaign, Ill. W. B. POWELL, Superintendent of Schools, Washington, D. C. A. B. POLAND, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Trenton, N. J. I find myself in general accord with the doctrines of the report. There is only one feature of it from which I feel obliged to dissent, and that is an important though not necessarily a vital one. I refer to the office of school director. I see no need of such an officer elected by the people, and I do see the danger of his becoming a part of the political organization for the dispensation of patronage. All power and authority in school affairs should reside ultimately in the board of education, consisting of not more than eight persons, appointed by the mayor of the city, to hold office four years, two members retiring annually and eligible for reappointment once and no more. This board should appoint as its chief officer a superintendent of instruction, whose tenure should be during good behavior and efficiency, and whose powers and duties should be to a large extent defined by statute law, and not wholly or chiefly by the regulations of the board of education. The superintendent of instruction should have a seat and voice but not a vote in the board of education. The board of education should also appoint a business agent, and define his powers and duties in relation to all matters of buildings, repairs, and supplies, substantially as set forth in the report in relation to the school director. All teachers should be appointed and annually reappointed or recommended by the superintendent of instruction until after a sufficient probation they are appointed on a tenure during good behavior and efficiency. All matters relating to courses of study, text-books, and examinations should be left to the superintendent and his assistants, constituting a body of professional experts who should be regarded as alone competent to deal with such matters, and should be held accountable therefor to the board of education only in a general way, and not in particular details. EDWIN P. SEAVER, Superintendent of Schools, Boston, Mass. I concur in the recommendations of the subcommittee on the organization of city school systems, as summarized in the concluding portion of the report, omitting in item third the words: "And that it be constituted of two branches, acting against each other." Omit fifth: "But we think it preferable that he be chosen in the same way that members of the board are chosen and be given veto power upon the acts of the board." I recommend that the veto power be given to the president of the board. ALBERT G. LANE, Superintendent of Schools, Chicago, Ill. CHAPTER XIV. VERBATIM REPORTS OF RECITATIONS IN ARITHMETIC AND LANGUAGE IN THE SCHOOLS OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI. J. M. GREENWOOD, Superintendent. INTRODUCTION. The foregoing report of the committee of fifteen, which is printed in full, contains expressions of dissent by some of the members of the subcommittees. Among them is the dissenting vote of Supt. James M. Greenwood of Kansas City, Mo., a member of the subcommittee on correlation of studies. He claims that in teaching arithmetic, fractions may be taught with almost the same facility as whole numbers. In order to permit professional teachers to judge understandingly of the methods Mr.' Greenwood advocates in teaching arithmetic, and to prove his assertion correct, he had stenographic reports taken of lessons given by teachers under his direction in the Kansas City schools. These reports are here appended as a very valuable supplement to the report of the committee of fifteen on correlation of studies, with the hope that they may induce other teachers and supervisors, to direct their attention to the problem of simplifying methods of teaching and thus save time for other branches, notably for the earlier introduction of algebra. Superintendent Greenwood adds a number of lessons on language and grammar, taken down in shorthand also. These lessons are well adapted to illustrate the method in vogue in good schools in this country; hence will aid teachers in establishing a model of intellectual training through the study to the English language. The correctness of the accounts here offered is vouched for by the teachers and the principals of the respective schools in which the lessons were given. The age of the pupils is also explicitly stated in each case. Mr. Greenwood wishes acknowledg ment to be made to principal J. C. Hisey of the Scarritt school, Kansas City, as the chief author of the details of the scheme of number work here illustrated.-Editor. HUMBOLDT SCHOOL-MISS SHAW, TEACHER. [March 26, 1895-Class A, grade first-64 months in school.] Teacher. You may place eight one-foot rulers on the table.-(Louisa does so.) Teacher. Class may count them.-Class. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Q. How many squares did you make with eight rulers?-Boyd. I made two squares with eight rulers. Q. How many rulers did it take to make one square?-Boyd. It took four rulers to make one square. |