[This is the report of a sub-committee of the Fifteen, of which
President Draper of the University of Illinois is chairman.]
It is understood that the committee is to treat of city school systems,
which are so large that persons chosen by the people to manage them,
and serving without pay, cannot be expected to transact all the
business of the system in person, nor to have personal knowledge of all
business transactions, and which are so large that one person employed
to supervise the instruction cannot be assumed to personally manage or
direct all of the details thereof, but must, in each case, act under
plans of organization and administration established by law and through
assistants or representatives.
The end for which a school system exists is the _instruction of the
children_, attaching to the word instruction the meaning it attains
in the mind of a well-educated person, if not in the mind of an
educational expert.
To secure this end, no plan of organization alone will suffice. Nothing
can take the place of a sincere desire for good schools, of a fair
knowledge of what good schools are, and what will make them, of a
public spirit and a moral sense on the part of the people, which are
spontaneous, or which can be appealed to with confidence. Fortunately,
the interest which the people have in their own children is so large,
and the anxiety of the community for public order and security is so
great, that public sentiment may ordinarily be relied upon, or may be
aroused to action, to choose proper representatives and take proper
measures for the administration of the schools. If, in any case, this
is not so, there is little hope of efficient schools. Wherever it _is_
so, it alone will not suffice, but proper organization may become the
instrument of public sentiment, and develop schools which will be
equal to the needs of all, and become the safeguards of citizenship.
Efficient schools can be secured only by providing suitable buildings
and appliances, and by keeping them in proper order on the one hand,
and, on the other hand, by employing, organizing, aiding, and directing
teachers, so that the instruction shall have life and power to
accomplish the great end for which schools are maintained.
The circumstances of the case naturally and quickly separate the duties
of administration into two great departments, one which manages the
business affairs, and the other which supervises the instruction. The
business affairs of the school system may be transacted by any citizens
of common honesty, correct purposes, and of good business experience
and sagacity. The instruction will be ineffective and abnormally
expensive unless put upon a scientific educational basis and supervised
by competent educational experts.
There will be a waste of money and effort and a lack of results, unless
the authorities of these two departments are sympathetic with each
other; that is, unless, on the one hand, the business management is
sound, is appreciative of good teaching, looks upon it as a scientific
and professional employment, and is alert to sustain it; and unless, on
the other hand, the instructors are competent and self-respecting, know
what good business management is, are glad to uphold it, and are able
to respect those who are charged with responsibility for it.
To secure efficiency in these departments, there must be adequate
authority and quick public accountability. The problem is not merely
to secure some good schoolhouses, but good schoolhouses wherever
needed, and to avoid the use of all houses which are not suitable
for use; it is not to get some good teaching, but to prevent all bad
teaching, and to advance all the teaching to the highest possible point
of special training, professional spirit, and of life-giving power. All
of the business matters must be entrusted to competent business hands
and managed upon sound business principles; and all of the instruction
must be put upon a professional basis. To insure this, there must be
deliberation and wisdom in determining policy, and then the power to do
what is determined upon must be present and capable of exercise, and
the responsibility for the proper exercise of the power must, in each
case, be individual and immediate.
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.
Those who show teaching power, versatility, amiability, reliability,
steadiness, and growth must be rewarded with the highest positions:
those who lack fibre, who have no energy, who are incapable of
enthusiasm, who will not work agreeably with their associates, must
go upon the retired list. Directness and openness must be encouraged.
Attempts to invoke social, political, religious, or other outside
influences to secure preferment must operate to close the door to
advancement. In general and in particular, bad teaching must be
prevented. In every room a firm and kindly management must prevail
and good teaching must be apparent. All must work along common lines
which will ensure general and essential ends. Until a teacher can do
this and can be relied upon to do it, she must be helped and directed:
when it is manifest that she cannot or will not do it, she must be
dismissed; when she does show that she can do it and wants to do
it, she must be left to exercise her own judgment and originality
and do it in her own way. In the schoolroom the teacher must be
secure against interference. In all the affairs of the school her
judgment must be trusted to the utmost limit of safety. Then judgment
will strengthen, and self-respect and public respect will grow. The
qualities which develop in the teacher will develop in the school.
To develop these qualities with any degree of uniformity, in a large
teaching force, requires steady and uniform treatment through a long
course of years under superintendence which is professional, strong,
just, and courageous, which has ample assistance and authority, which
is worthy of public confidence, and knows how to marshal facts,
present arguments, and appeal to the intelligence and integrity of the
community with success.
It is the business of the plan of organization to secure such
superintendence. It cannot be secured through an ordinary board
of education operating on the old plan. It is well known what the
influences are which are everywhere prevalent and must inevitably
prevent it. It 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 schools should not be mixed up with
partisan contents 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 relatively small board, each member of which board
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 is 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 cannot 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 autonomy
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, and 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 centres 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
substantial 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
gives 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.
On the Training of Teachers.