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.