FIFTH SESSION.

The president introduced Hon. E. E. HIGBEE, State superintendent of Pennsylvania, who read the following paper:

CITY AND COUNTY SUPERVISION.

We assume at the outset that the public schools in our counties and cities need supervision. Were all the teachers and boards of control professionally qualified and earnest in their work, even then the inter-relation of schools and grades, and the examination of candidates, and the selection of teachers for various positions would demand some supervising headship before there could be any proper general organization. But neither teachers nor comptrollers are perfect, and the need of supervision, from this fact, becomes more imperative.

The supervision of schools is twofold; one part relating to the more external matters of school-work, and the other to the internal. This division we regard as absolutely necessary; and, so far as our experience extends, it is universally made. We can suggest no change in the matter of keeping these two parts under separate supervising jurisdiction. In our judgment, however, there should be a clearer understanding of what is properly included in each part, so that responsibility for results may always rest upon the right parties, and corrections be made without any ambiguity as to the right place at which to begin.

Generally what we have called external matters of school-work fall under the supervision of directors or boards of control, elected by the vote of the districts or municipalities in which the schools are, and acting under the limitation of State law.

To this part of supervision belong, without doubt, the selection and purchase of proper school grounds, the erection or rent of suitable school buildings, the levy of taxes, the determination of teachers' salaries, and the proper furnishing of the schools with all that is required to place and keep them in fitting condition for occupancy and use. For external work of this kind the whole responsibility should rest upon the boards. This is the general practice, although there may be great differences in the specific legal limitations under which the work is done in our various States and Territories; for as yet we have no minister of education with power to suggest an organized educational system which shall be more general than that of the individual States. What we have called the internal matters of school-work require a supervision quite distinct from this. Here, without doubt, belong the examination of teachers and schools, and methods of instruction and discipline, granting of certificates, and the privilege of a wide range of recommendation to the boards. Thus far, what is made to be included in either department of supervision can give but little difficulty.

But to which element of supervision shall belong the important work of determining the grades, the courses of study, the kinds of apparatus, and

text-books, the appointment of teachers suitable to the various schools and grades?

In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania this work is placed almost exclusively within the jurisdiction of the local boards. Superintendents, whether of county, borough, or city, have no power of determination beyond what is simply advisory; yet they are held responsible for didactic results peculiarly dependent upon just these elements of supervision.

If, for example, the school buildings or grounds are out of order through fault of location or construction, or through neglect of repair, or if the children suffer through wrong sanitary ordinances, or from want of school facilities, there can be no hesitancy in fixing the responsibility where it belongs. If, however, the schools languish because right teachers are not in right places, or because the courses of study are inadequate, or unsuitable text-books are kept in use, or defective systems of grading are maintained, or no proper apparatus is in use, the superintendent is very promptly held responsible, although he may have had no voice whatever in determining the selection in either case, beyond that of advice merely. Indeed, if advice has been offered, the superintendent may be charged with meddling in matters quite beyond his official business.

It is true that in most cases superintendents can revoke certificates upon proper evidence of immorality or incompetence on the part of their holders; but this is only a remedy of obstruction, and requires great prudence lest the superintendent defeat his own purpose by arousing the animosity and prejudice of the boards and weakening his whole power of well-doing. Practically, it is often but locking the door after the thief has entered and gone, and then shooting the police officer for untimely interference.

Indeed, the certificate may be all right in itself, and the holder thereof may have general qualifications of a high order, but what the superintendent needs is the power, in some form at least, to put the right teacher in the right place, that he may secure the best results which flow from the specific adaptation of talent and experience. Engineers and firemen, and conductors and brakeman, are alike needed in running a railroad train; but sad work will follow if these officers change places, although each may be well qualified for his specific position.

Our boards are not always qualified to judge of text-books, or to determine the range of studies needed, or to fix the grades, or to select the right teacher for the right place, or to pass an intelligent criticism upon either the need or character of apparatus. They are not often composed of men skilled in the profession of teaching. They are selected mostly in reference to those external school matters to which we have called attention. Therefore, in our judgment, they should not have sole jurisdiction in this more internal work of supervision.

On the other hand, superintendents are, or should be, selected just because of their professional skill and experience. Therefore, in all cases, superintendents, whether of city, or borough, or county, should not be allowed to enter upon their office simply because they have been elected by the boards. To this should be added the necessity of commissions from the chief educational authority of the State, based upon the severe test of credentials carefully determined by the law.

But should the superintendents of our cities and boroughs have exclu sive control in the appointment of teachers, in the selection of text-books, and in the whole matter of courses of study, rotation of grades, and nature of apparatus? Shall we not run a great risk if we swing the pendulum too far on this side?

Under the very best regulations, and the most carefully devised limitations, a superintendent may be placed in office who will misuse the very powers we thus give him, working for himself and not for the wel fare of the schools. Law must take into consideration the defects of men as well as their virtues-must lessen by proper checks all tempta tions to misuse, while offering every encouragement to well doing.

With some distrust of our own judgment, and with the hope that discussion may give more light, we suggest that in city and borough supervision the commissioned superintendent shall, by enactment of law, be ex officio chairman of the committee having charge of these inner elements of supervision already enumerated, and that his disapproval as such of any action suggested in reference thereto shall necessitate a two-thirds vote of the whole board before it can be carried into effect. Some such check will be of great service in improving our gen eral system of city and borough supervision.

County supervision, because spread over so much larger territorial space, and including a larger number of boards and a greater variety of conditions, requires different treatment.

The very first effort towards improvement here should be to bring the supervision into narrower limits, by subdividing the counties into subordinate inspectorates.

Our counties in many States are large and populous. Indeed, in Pennsylvania the average number of schools to a county is three hundred and eight. How can a county superintendent supervise and inspect so wide a field? The mere statement of the question involves the answer. Every county, excluding the cities and larger boroughs therein, should be properly districted into inspectorates including not less than twenty schools, and not more than fifty, over which a well-qualified inspector should be placed, elected by the boards, and commissioned by or subordinate to the county superintendent. These inspectors should have the whole management of local institutes and the general direction of local school work, representing the county superintendent in a wide range of official duties. Within the limits of his supervision, the inspector should be ex officio chairman of all committees which have to

do with appointing teachers, fixing courses of study, grading schools, and determining upon the selection of proper text-books and apparatus.

This will insure more frequent visitation, and more constant inspection; and thus we may avoid the multiplication of officers, co-ordinate in authority with the county superintendent, who should be chief, for the more general purposes of granting certificates, holding county institutes, and directing the educational sentiment of the county; and also for reporting the general status of the schools of the county to the department of public instruction.

Beyond these few suggestions of improvement we can see no practical methods of securing a better system of county and city supervision than that which now prevails.

Hon. R. W. Stevenson, Columbus, Ohio, being absent, the president called upon Hon. W. R. Comings, of Norwalk, Ohio, to open the discussion.

Supt. W. R. COMINGS, of Norwalk, Ohio, said: I am familiar with the school system of no State except Ohio, and Ohio has no system outside of the cities. This want of a system is a misfortune to the State and will probably remain so, so long as its product, the "Ohio man," keeps to the front as an object lesson to the State legislators.

Content with seconding Dr. Higbee's paper, I turn to a somewhat dif ferent phase of this question of supervision.

A good system of school supervision is without doubt a help to the securing of a good education by the children with which it deals. But the danger in any system is to run into methods that are purely mechanical, and that have for their purpose the showing off of the system, thereby perverting the good which they might do into an evil.

A good education, which should be the result of a good system, is a factor in the evolution of a higher man, a nobler race, and a better Government. Whatever the system, then, we must look beyond it to its fruits.

The proper test of school supervision must be based upon the work done by pupils, not on that done by assistants, principals, or teachers. Considering this question, then, from the standpoint of the greatest good to the pupils, I shall merely make a few suggestions.

1. The superintendent should not be a mere compiler of statistics. Statistics are important but not vital.

Monthly reports from teachers covering every conceivable form of attendance, punctuality, nationality, age, physical condition, mental progress and what not, are almost useless, unless it be to afford a superintendent or his clerk occupation in recording, summarizing, and reducing to per cents. I do not say that these things should not be obtained, but that, to the pupil, these things, that take so much time and effort on the part of the teacher, are of no value.

Statistics have their value; but may they not be secured from a term report, or from even an annual report made by the teacher, as well as from one made each month? In other words, is it not possible to turn the energy they require into other channels that will be of greater benefit to the pupils ?

If there could be concert of action in this matter of statistics, I believe it would be possible to have a uniform system in the shape of annual or semi-annual reports, starting from the common school teacher and reaching, by way of the State officers, the United States Commissioner of Education.

The chief value of statistics is for comparison, and without uniformity comparison is impossible.

II. The superintendent should not be merely an examiner.

There is a better place for a general than in the rear of his army. A school system like an army must be led, not driven. "Reviewing" an army is no test of generalship. Examination of a school, however thorough, is no test of a true supervisor. All the good a school can get from a written examination can be secured by written recitations or reviews. These can be given as a part of the regular routine of schoolroom work, and as such are of high educational value.

But severe examinations, whether as a basis for promotions or to test the teaching qualities of the teacher, are of a nature to do more harm than good to the pupils, whose interests are, above all other things, to be considered.

Correct and efficient supervision calls for an educational leader. This leader should be a broad and philosophical thinker, yet conversant with all the methods and other minutiæ of school-room work.

A very intelligent lady, formerly a teacher in Cleveland, Ohio, said to me not long ago, that Dr. A. J. Rickoff's power as a superintendent lay in his habit of suggesting high ideals, of pointing out the ends to be secured, leaving the teacher to discover the best means for reaching the end. It was not his habit to suggest methods until he had brought his teachers to feel their need of help. And it is said that he preferred originality on the part of teachers, rather than mere copying of methods in a mechanical manner.

Such a superintendent soon finds his teachers in a mood to discuss intelligently and earnestly the best methods of doing work, and his teachers' meetings soon show an earnest spirit of progress; they become not the occasion for berating teachers, but the means for healthful discussion of school-work and aims.

III. The wise supervisor is loyal to his board of education. A faultfinding superintendent cannot lead his board in educational work.

He should be loyal to his teachers in every earnest effort they make for self or school improvement.

He should be loyal to the public school system, promoting it by reformation rather than by criticism or denunciation.