appointments he is able to secure for his district, but by the efficiency of his services to the whole system.

Many of the evils of the school-board administration are due to two causes-large boards and ward representation. Large boards means administration by committees. This means rivalry, and in many instances jealousy and combinations. If a member gets a new building for his district, each other member thinks he must have an equivalent for his own. It is impossible for a member to serve on all committees; hence he knows but little about some departments of board work, and as a consequence is often indifferent or hostile. But I have serious doubts about the superiority of the mode of election advocated by Mr. Jones. As far as my observations go, the plan does not have much to commend it. But few cities have tried the experiment of choosing members at special election, nominations having been made by petition. When the experiment was tried in Indianapolis a few years ago, it was found that the persons whose names appeared near the head of the ticket ran far in advance of others who had even better qualifications than they. This was due to the fact that many voters did not know the candidates personally, so they voted for the persons whose names were first on the ticket. To my mind this is sufficient to condemn this mode of election.

I am acquainted with no method of electing school boards superior to the Indiana plan. This plan, of course, is not perfect, but it has stood the test of time and is regarded as one of the best parts of the educational system of the state. The law provides that the school board of each city, other than Indianapolis, shall consist of three members, elected by the common council. Each member represents the entire city, and is elected for three years. The law further provides that one member shall be elected each year; so, unless there is a death or resignation, there are always two experienced members. The board has the absolute power to levy taxes, not to exceed a certain per cent., and has great freedom in expenditures for school purposes. Each member must give heavy bond, and no money can be expended without the consent of a majority of the board and the knowledge of all. An itemized report of all receipts, expenditures, and debts must be made to the county auditors annually, which report is open to public inspection. While it is possible for the boards to be dominated by politics, and the individual members to be influenced by unworthy motives, yet, so far as I am aware, there are fewer scandals, less jobbery and corruption, and more efficiency than in boards appointed or elected in any other way. I do not claim that the Indiana system is perfect; yet it has much to commend it.

But neither this nor any other method of election or appointment will always insure the election of honest, capable men. If councils wish to elect competent members of school boards, they usually have no difficulty in finding them. The same is true if the people elect or the mayor appoints. So, in the last analysis, we find that public sentiment is the dominant factor in choosing good or bad members of school boards. If the most influential classes in a city really want good members of school boards, they will find some way to get them. If they are indifferent or do not want such members, bad boards will be the rule.

In molding public sentiment, many factors are to be considered. The public press is important. The pulpit is also a factor. Leading business and professional men exert a powerful influence. The acts of the different members of the board itself are very important. Not only may a system of schools, but the sentiment of an entire community, be changed by the aggressive acts of one honest, fearless school-board member—a man who is broad enough and big enough to perform his whole duty toward the schools. And finally, the efficiency of the superintendent and teachers is most powerful in molding public sentiment. Let the people once have a concrete example of good schools-schools economically administered and free from politics and favoritism of every kind; schools in which superintendent, teachers, and janitors are really efficient and public sentiment will as a rule demand good school boards.

SUPERINTENDENT W. W. CHALMERS, Toledo, O.-I have the pleasure of representing a city organized on the general plan described by President Jones. I want to differ with the last speaker in his statement that good members of school boards are more often secured by election by city councils or appointments by the mayor. Our city is organized on the general plan of just five members, each selected for five years by the city at large, and was so organized before Indianapolis adopted the plan. One of the best men on our board of education today could not have had the position with the approval of the city machine representing both the political parties. He could not have been elected by the city council, nor would he have been appointed by the mayor; yet, when nominated by petition, he received more votes than all of the other three candidates combined. I believe you can always trust the people to select good school-board members, if you keep them informed what the schools are doing. I believe you can keep politics out of the schools better by nomination by petition than by election by the city council, appointment by the mayor, or election by wards. I have had many years of experience with the old plan, and now I have had five years' experience in a city organized upon the plan outlined in Mr. Jones' paper, except that the business manager is elected by the board of education instead of being elected by the people. This plan has been tried long enough to be thoroly tested, and in practical operation it has given to Toledo a school board whose personnel cannot be excelled by any school board in the country.

SUPERINTENDENT C. G. PEARSE, Omaha, Neb.- We have had, I think, a little broadening of the topic set down in the paper. We have touched upon what sort of men to put on school boards, what they should do when elected, and what sort of superintendents they should choose. I listened with much interest to what President Jones and Superintend ent Chalmers said, but I do not think I can quite agree to all the superintendent said about how to get good members on the board. His remarks might imply that superintendents sometimes have something to do with these selections, and we all know, of course, that superintendents never mix in anything of that sort. We must remember that this is a representative government- -a government by all the people, not by those we think are the best people; and we cannot always have members all of the kind who move in the highest circles of society. We find that legislatures always represent al classes good, bad, and indifferent; and school boards are likely to be the same. I am not sure but that the residents of "Hell's Half Acre" are sometimes entitled to representation. All citizens should be directly interested in the schools, and one of the best ways to have them interested is for them to have some voice in the selection of the men who manage the schools. The educative influence in the community of a general election of school-board members, in which general school policies are discussed, is good.

Elected boards are more independent. Public bodies usually heed their masters. If the school board is selected by the mayor, that board bows to him; if selected by the city council, the board bows to the council; if the board is elected by the people, no one man or twenty men can command the board's obedience. The elected member can say: "I serve the people."

Another important matter is the levy of taxes the determination of how much money shall be raised in taxes to carry on the schools. The people are unwilling to give the power to fix taxes to any body whose members are not elected by the people direct. I fear my friend from Indiana will find, if members of boards are not elected by direct vote of the people, that the next step proposed will be to take away from this appointed board the power to fix the amount needed for school purposes and place that power in the hands of some other elected body. This seldom fails to result disastrously for the schools.

President Jones says after the superintendent is elected let him appoint, promote, and dismiss teachers. That sounds well, and is an easy way to fix it, but I hardly think it is a wholesome power for a superintendent to have, absolutely. Sometimes we make mistakes: it is an advantage for us to have some counsel in these things. You as

superintendents do not want your boards to appoint or reward with promotion teachers whom you feel you ought not to recommend; you can very well afford to refrain from appointing those your board is unwilling to approve. Why not let this power remain joint—you to nominate, they to approve? Even the president of the United States does not have absolute power of appointment.

A serious menace to good school administration is the bi-headed system proposed this morning-the schools administered by two men, one a business manager, one a superintendent of instruction. With such an arrangement the two parts of the organization will soon be found, in most cases, to be working at cross-purposes pulling apart

like two unwilling oxen under the same yoke. The school is first of all a business organization; the man who controls the business side is master; he should have charge also of the instruction; he should be the superintendent of schools-all departments of the schools; not a business manager merely or a superintendent of instruction merely. If your business manager should be, by chance, a wise and sympathetic man, he might be in fact a superintendent of schools, and encourage and assist the department of instruction to do its work well. But if he proves like most, he will be anxious chiefly to manage the schools economically; the superintendent anxious to make them as good as possible.

To do the best, school systems, like other business organizations, must have a single responsible executive head. The board will be back of him, and he will manage the schools subject to its general direction and approval. To him will report the heads of the various departments in all lines of the school administration. He will be in reality the superintendent of schools.

SUPERINTENDENT F. LOUIS SOLDAN, St. Louis, Mo.-I think it will be of interest to glance at a school system which differs from the types mentioned, both as to the number of members of the board and the manner of election. So far as I know, it cannot be said of any other plan that it has been in operation for five years without any friction to hinder its success.

The typical features are in brief: Number of members, twelve, elected on a general ticket. Election of a board on a ticket at large takes the schools out of ward politics. Ward elections frequently result in giving representation, not so much to the good citizens of each locality, but to the ward politician. A board elected at large represents the whole city, and is not likely to allow the impression to obtain that the parts of the city in which they happen to reside get more attention. In my city, if there is any discrimination at all, we give more attention to those parts of the city happening to have no local representatives on the board.

In administrative matters, it is the plan to have as many departments as there are distinct functions. One officer has charge of the administration of the schools themselves, instruction, teachers, etc.; another, of buildings, including janitors; another, of finances; another officer has charge of school supplies. If there is anything wrong, say in the janitor service, the responsibility does not lie with the board, in the first place, but with one man who has charge of the appointment and dismissing of janitors. If there is anything wrong with the instruction, if there are incompetent teachers, the responsibility lies with the superintendent, who has power to correct the evil. The principle underlying this plan of having independent heads of departments is that of localizing and fixing responsibility.

The law gives the superintendent power to nominate, not to appoint, teachers; he has not the power to adopt text-books, but he takes the initiative in recommending them; the same is true in the matter of school furniture.

The fears of my friend from Omaha are not realized. There is no tendency to make one department domineer over the rest. I believe, judging from an experience of five years, that this type deserves equal consideration with other plans described.

THE FREEDOM OF THE TEACHER

CHARLES B. GILBERT, rochester, N. Y.

In the organization of great school systems, which is the passion of the hour, there is danger that the teacher shall become the submerged fraction.

We superintendents need a baptism of the spirit of true education. It is said, justly or unjustly, that this age is materialistic. Certain it is that we are in danger of having our minds forced to dwell too continuously upon the material side of life. We schoolmen are no exception. There is grave danger that in the organization of systems, with the intrusive demands of the architect, the doctor of medicine, and the statistician, we shall, like Martha, forget the higher things.

Dr. Arnold Tompkins, whose fine definition, "The school is a spiritual union between teacher and pupils," is classic, has also said that "the school in its last analysis consists of the self-educating pupil." I cannot but think that Dr. Tompkins, usually so astute and exact, has here slipped. The self-educating pupil is not a school at all; he is simply a self-educating pupil. An aggregation of self-educating pupils does not constitute a school any more than do any other aggregations of people. The one characteristic which distinguishes the school from other collections of people is the presence of the teacher. In more senses than the popular one it is the teacher who makes the school.

The world is full of people who are educating themselves, consciously or unconsciously; who are utilizing all the great agents and forces of life as means of spiritual growth; but only in a figurative sense is the world itself a school. The figure consists in the personification of these various agents and forces, and even of life itself, and treating them as teachers. There is no school without a living teacher entering to some degree into the lives of the pupils, forming some sort of spiritual union with them. It is as true in a practical sense as in a philosophical that the teacher is the school.

Every school administrator knows that his one serious business is to secure good teachers. Courses of study are important, and a good school is more easily secured with a good course of study than with a poor one. Proper organization is important; good schoolhouses are important; good text-books are important-and all the appliances which may be used to further education; but none of these alone, nor all of them together, constitute a school, nor can they make a good school; but the good teacher can make a good school, if any or all of these concomitants, these aids, are lacking. Hence it becomes the chief duty of the executive authorities of school systems everywhere first of all to secure the best possible teachers, and then to remove, in so far

as possible, all obstructions from their paths, to give them free scope, and to aid them in their work in every conceivable way. All the machinery of great school systems-local, state, and national-has for its aim, properly, this one thing: to make it easier for the teacher to teach well.

In the small private school, and in the rural school especially, the teacher is all in all. The teacher makes the school; he is expected to make the school. If the school is good, it is to his credit; if bad, it is his fault. This is not merely theoretically, but practically, true. The best type of school, depending wholly upon the teacher, is the rural school. Here the interference with his work is very.slight indeed; he is compelled to employ his own initiative, make his own plans, organize his institution, and execute his plans. Young teachers, coming from training institutions, are frequently urged to teach a rural school for a while in order to develop the power of initiative, of independent action, thru their necessary exercise in the professional solitude of the country schoolhouse; and it is good advice.

Many of the strongest and best teachers and educational leaders that the country has ever known have received their first impulse, their versatility and breadth of view, and their ability to meet new difficulties, which have made them great, in the small, unpainted schoolhouse in the remote country district where they began their discouraging work. Here they were required to study their pupils and give them work suitable for them, to devise their own methods, to meet emergenciesoften serious-quickly and firmly. In the country school that is good for anything the teacher is "it." Alas, that in any system of schools he should ever cease to be "it"! But there is, unfortunately, in the development of large institutions a tendency to subordinate the individual and to destroy individuality. This is particularly true in great school systems. The tendency seems almost inevitable. The demands of the organization itself are so great, it requires so much executive power to keep the machine running, that the machine itself attracts undue attention and we are in danger of forgetting that the business of the school is to teach individual children. This worship of machines is the most debasing kind of fetish-worship; it destroys the power to judge of values, and, like all worship of inferior gods, it subordinates the higher ends to the lower.

Frequently, in our great city systems, teachers are judged by their ability to run along smoothly in a well-oiled machine rather than by their power of inspiration, their ability to uplift, encourage, strengthen, and really teach children. I have known teachers full of love of youth, possessed of extraordinary inspirational power and ability to make children think, work, and learn, driven from the school system because they did not readily untie red tape. We too often forget that the school systein is useful only in so far as it makes it easier for the teacher to teach ;