Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

It is obvious from the foregoing statement that the small number of towns without superintendents of schools and ineligible to State aid is rapidly reducing. The reduction in number during the past two years is specially noticeable.

The Movement of Eligible Towns towards Supervision by Superintendents. — If now similar data are shown, for the past five years, for towns eligible to State aid, a very different showing is made:

[blocks in formation]

It is clear from this presentation that the growth of district superintendencies is nearly at a standstill. It is at a standstill, not chiefly because the towns in general do not need it or want it, but largely because of difficulties in securing concert of action either in forming districts or in maintaining them when they have once been formed. Inquiries were recently made of the school committees of the 78 towns eligible to State aid, but without superintendents, for the purpose of ascertaining what action, if any, these towns had ever taken with reference to the State's offer. Their replies brought out the following facts:

1. Thirty-nine of the towns, or just one half, have once, twice or several times each voted to accept the State's offer, and to unite with other towns for the employment of a superintendent. Sixteen of these towns have either withdrawn from districts or been forced out of districts by the withdrawal of others. The withdrawal of a single town often disrupts a district and throws out all the rest. The number forced out of districts is considerably larger than the number of voluntary withdrawals. The cause that is usually assigned for withdrawal is dissatisfac

tion with the superintendent. Without venturing to inquire how far such dissatisfaction in any case may have been well founded or not, one may at least say that it is exceedingly unfortunate, when the principle of supervision is on trial for the first time, if the superintendent does not commend himself or his methods to the communities that employ him. It is the old story of a good cause prejudiced by a bad presentation of it. The remaining 23 towns of the 39 have with more or less patience endeavored to effect unions with neighboring towns, but have thus far failed. It sometimes happens It sometimes happens that every town of a natural group is in favor of uniting with the other towns thereof, but they cannot all bring themselves to say so at the same time. Some vote readiness the first year, but not the second; others, readiness the second year, but not the first; and so, though all are willing, they remain asunder.

2. Twenty-seven towns have voted adversely. 3. Twelve towns have never taken any action.

The school committees were requested to state, so far as they could do so, what they conceived to be the attitude of their respective towns. Doubtless their views about the opinions of others are shaped somewhat by their own opinions. Still, it may be worth something that in at least half the towns that have not thus far acted favorably the committees believe there is a growing sentiment in favor of the superintendency. A common situation is this: a goodly number of thoughtful, earnest people strongly desiring it, one or two persons of influence in town meeting strongly opposing it, and citizens in general voting with the stronger or more active leadership. Conservatism has a certain advantage in such discussions, since it holds the fort and acts on the defensive. In some towns, as Nantucket, Gosnold, Gay Head and others, because of isolation, or the existence of but a single school, or other exceptional conditions, the employment of a superintendent presents special problems.

The Order of Development in Legislation. It is interesting to note, in connection with many if not most of the measures embodied from time to time in the school legislation of the State, that the order of development has been somewhat as follows:

1. An increasing adoption of a school measure by the towns in a voluntary way, a development based presumably on merit.

-

2. A limit reached in such voluntary adoption a little short of universal acceptance, the development checked by a residue of rather unyielding conservatism.

3. Final registration by the Legislature of the people's verdict in the form of law, the development made universal and permanent.

It was not, for instance, until all the towns of the State except forty-seven had voluntarily extended their schooling to eight, nine and even ten months that the Legislature required that all the towns should keep their schools at least eight months.

Again, it was not until all the towns of the State except thirty-nine had voluntarily abandoned the old school district system that the Legislature required all the rest to give it up also.

Even the employment of school committees was once on a voluntary basis. After the majority of the towns had fallen in with the plan, and its excellence was assured, the Legislature made such employment obligatory upon all. Such instances can be multiplied. In each one of them the time came to take the measure out of the arena of discussion and uncertainty and put it on a permanent and universal basis. The State's rightnay, the State's duty to do this, when convinced that the welfare of the schools requires it is beyond question.

[ocr errors]

The State's Relation to Town Control of the Schools. - In this matter of determining what is best for the welfare of the schools, it should not be forgotten that it is the people as a whole who are supreme, and not portions of them here and there. It needs only an elementary acquaintance with the Constitution of the State to satisfy one that in law the State is not the creation of the towns but the towns rather of the State. The powers of the State are not derived from the towns, but those of the towns from the State. In other words, the people, without reference to towns existing at the time, or to possible towns thereafter, organized the State and fixed its authority. And ever since the State has been making towns and unmaking

[ocr errors]

them, adding to their powers and subtracting from them, and in a thousand ways, within the limits of the original compact, showing its supremacy. This way of putting it, however, is suggestive of a despotism that does not really exist; for it needs to be repeated that the State is not an authority apart and different from the people of the towns, ruling them from a distance and insensitive to their interests. On the contrary, the State is an expression, by formal and solemn agreement, of the will of the people living in these very towns, the highest expression, indeed, the towns' people of the Commonwealth ever made of their civic aspirations and resolves. Whatever authority the town has over its schools, it has by direction or permission of the State; that is, by direction or permission of the people at large, of whom the people of a town are part. Now, this view of the relation of the State to the towns and the schools, supported, as it is, by the Constitution of the Commonwealth, should silence certain ill-considered talk that is heard when new legislation affecting the towns is proposed, about the State's trespassing upon town rights, usurping town privileges, establishing a central despotism, and all that. The fundamental thing about the State's power is that the State, within the terms of the Constitution, can curtail, if it chooses, the rights of towns without trespass, withdraw privileges from them without usurpation, give them new powers without exhaustion of its own, and exercise additional central authority over them, with wide margins for subsequent contingencies. The right of the State, for instance, to determine the nature of the supervision the schools should have is indisputable. The expediency of any particular measure looking to that end, however, is a legitimate subject for discussion.

As a matter of fact, the State has wisely given the towns a large measure of control over its schools, and puts upon them the chief burden of maintaining them. Indeed, in these directions no State in the Union, no enlightened country in the world, goes so far to-day as Massachusetts. This policy has, on the whole, yielded excellent results; and yet it permits painful extremes both in the character of the schools and in the weight of the burdens they impose. If we have fine schools, magnificently equipped and officered, we also have poor schools,

poorly equipped and officered. If we have much to be proud of, we have some things to be ashamed of. If we have towns carrying their schools easily, we also have towns staggering under their load. Further, the fine schools not unfrequently go with the lighter tax and the poor schools with the heavier.

And so there is a strong conviction, annually growing stronger, that, while the State's general policy of encouraging local self-reliance is the true one, and should be strenuously adhered to in principle, it needs to be adapted to present conditions in these two directions: (1) that of insisting, as a State, on the most approved methods of supervising and directing the schools; and (2) that of contributing, as a State, towards the equalization of the burdens of maintenance. Both these principles the State already recognizes in practice, but its practice needs to be enlarged, strengthened and adapted to changed conditions. This does not presuppose that the mere fact of having a superintendent of schools, or an ampler supply of money, or both, will necessarily help the schools. The superintendent may fail, as many a superintendent has failed in the past; the money may be injudiciously expended, as money has been injudiciously expended in the past; and the schools may receive benefit from neither. It is imperative that the superintendent, like the teacher, shall be competent, tactful and inspiring. He must be all this to gain the confidence of the teachers, of the committee and the public. Let supervision by superintendents be made permanent and universal; let the circuitous policy of getting rid of an unsatisfactory superintendent by abolishing the district that employs him or the office that carries him cease for good; let the school committee deal squarely with the man, the office continuing, but the holder thereof retained or dismissed according as he rises or falls in the presence of its high demands and great opportunities. The great fact remains, it is the judgment of the vast majority of school committees as well as of the people of the State, as witnessed by their voluntary action, that a good superintendent is a power for good with the schools. Stronger committees, as a rule, are found; they more willingly render unpaid service; better teachers are nominated and employed; better methods prevail; better equipment is secured; a stronger uplifting force is felt throughout

« ForrigeFortsett »