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.

IV. The wise superintendent will not allow his advice to teachers to conflict with that given by an assistant or principal of a building.

He will, however, make it his purpose to be the superintendent of instruction in all that the title implies. Discipline and the mechanical work of the schools may well be left to principals of buildings, but the carrying out of methods of instruction, whether by specialists or by assistant supervisors, should be under the direct control of the head of the system.

I am aware that these points are not a discussion of the question of the "best system," except as they may present the question, from the standpoint of securing the greatest good to the pupil.

Hon. H. S. JONES, Erie, Pa.: Ladies and Gentlemen: The educator must be a practical man. There are two reasons why our schools are weak; the first is, the frequent change of directive power. I go into our little city and look at a business, and say, "Is this a success?? I turn to Dunn's Book, and I find that it is. I trace back its history, and I find that the directive power of this business has not changed for twenty years. I turn to education, and I say to A, "How long did you serve?" "I served three months." I turn to B, "How long did you serve?" "I served a year." To C, "How long?" "I served three months and wanted to serve more. I got really interested in the work, but a young fellow came out, and here I am in the bench." I find that our superintendents generally change schools in two or three years. We cannot run a saw-mill in Pennsylvania if you change every three years; you could not even run a grocery store in that way. This is the main reason why we want more supervisory power.

The second reason for the weakness of our public schools is the transient connection of most teachers with the business of teaching. The large majority of the teachers are not even apprentices. They are called teachers, but they are often mere laborers. The average teacher generally expects to stop teaching next year, or she expects to stop when "somebody" calls. I once said to a young man, "I wish you would become a teacher." He began, and the glow of the teacher became fixed on his cheek. I said to him, "You are a nice fellow," and he was blossoming out into a success, but he did not have very much money, so he gave it up, and went out to obtain subscriptions for an album; in two weeks he had made more than he had in two months' teaching. He said he guessed he would stick to the album.

Now a word as to county superintendents. The most of them that I know, if they have a large county, have good horses and beautiful roads, and drive about, sometimes seeing three or more schools in a day. It makes me think of a physician, who comes in, feels his patient's pulse, says "You are badly off! you have typhoid fever," and then goes out. The county superintendent comes in, and if the school is a failure, he says nothing and goes out; if it is a good one, he says "You are doing splendidly," and goes out.

We really need some good supervision, some of the kind that has been spoken of here, that which permits the teacher to retain spiritual lib. erty. There are a great many people who, if they can only get a chance now and then, will have some liberty. These workers, if they could have the experience, would soon get the skill. I do not mean this kind of skill that we see once in a while. These workers ought to be under the influences of care and sympathy. These influences would lift them up, and there would not be this kind of teaching which we have, which is no better in the main than it was fifty years ago. The boys come in, and the girls come in; and the boys go out, and the girls go out, with all their freshness and sweetness, and when the teachers do remain, as I said, they gain a kind of skill that will never make a right usage of what we have, unless we supervise it. In every county there are some that might do more if they had supervision. Now, unless we have some skill and stand at the shoulder of this laborer, this apprentice, we can. not succeed as we would like.

I will give you an instance of it at home: Surrounding our city is a township on the east and south and west. Its schools were nowhere, and they said, "Let's have a sort of a superintendent," and they appointed one man to overlook fourteen schools. Those schools jumped up in less than a year, and at a small expense. They tried it in several other places, and some judge said, "Stop; that is not according to the statute." Now they have no district superintendent, and I think there are none in the State. If you bear in mind, first, the great business principle upon which our schools are based; and second, the coming and going of this great army of so-called teachers, you will see our difficulties, and I think the best thing we can do is to strengthen the directors and the teachers by more supervision.

Prof. W. H. BARTHOLOMEW, Louisville, Ky.: I take it, my co-workers, that there has been no more important question that has been presented for our consideration than the question of supervision. I indorse most heartily the paper of Mr. Higbee, and the suggestions of those who have occupied the floor before me on this question, and it would seem that there could be no difference of opinion here as to by whom and how our schools should be supervised. How would it be possible for the superintendent to be one who is engaged in secular pursuits, one who is not trained and skilled in the developing of the mind? I desire to make this plain in reference to the city where I live, in order that my remarks on this occasion in reference to this subject may have their proper weight. In the supervision of our schools, although our board is elected directly from the people, it understands that the responsi bility of the proper supervision of the schools of the city rests with the superintendent and those who may be associated with him in that work. In the arrangement of the course of study, the adoption of text-books,. and all that goes to make up the proper supervision of schools, the teachers of the city are all, without exception, selected in reference to this work.

Now, I want to look at the principle which underlies this question. Who can supervise the schools, who has the qualification to do that work, other than those who have been trained for it? As the last speaker said, it seems to me that we ought to agree upon something when we come here. We ought to determine upon the right course, and stand shoulder to shoulder, but in the reaching for wider results we should look on all sides of the question. We should look carefully at the premises and see what the difficulties are. It would seem that there would be no difficulty in reaching the conclusion that that system of supervision is the best over which there preside those who are qualified by education and training to superintend that work. There can be no difference of sentiment here, it seems to me. I want to say this: that that supervision is best which does not seem to supervise. The superintendent who has that genius and that skill by which he can awake to this maximum power the intellectual and moral forces of those who are under him is the best superintendent. Now, perhaps, we ought to look a little at ourselves.

Perhaps some of our difficulty is that we have not learned the secret of power and influence, because we have been elevated to a high plane, which has turned our heads. Instead of realizing that he is greatest among us who is the servant of all, we have reversed that principle. When all the people engaged in this work work harmoniously together, each realizing his responsibility and his duty to contribute to the development of the entire system, then we will reach the solution of this question of supervision. I want to say this: that while we say a good deal about boards of education, I want to say that I have, with few exceptions, never seen a board of education, composed of intelligent men, who, when teachers would approach them presenting a unanimity of feeling and of sentiment in reference to what ought to be done for proper supervision-I have never yet seen a board that did not or would not listen to them in reference to this work. The trouble seems to be that we do not ourselves agree upon this question. Now then, he who is thus qualified to discharge this grave responsibility, he who has the honesty of purpose and of conviction to give the proper educational value to the work of those who are under him, who recognizes merit, who is governed by principle, he will have this influence. We ought to establish ourselves upon principle in this question. A doctor could not come in and supervise our schools, a lawyer could not come in and supervise our schools. They have not the qualifications. The necessity for training schools and for schools for the proper development and training of teachers, has no right at all to exist if it is true that we are going to promote those who are not trained in this work, to let them come in and take upon themselves the grave responsibility of controlling and directing this system of schools. I believe, from what I have observed and my experience in reference to boards of education-though, perhaps, it has been limited-that, wherever the teachers of a given locality will

present this question to the board, so that it reaches its understanding, that there has always been brought about a reform.

I wish to say this: that in the State of Kentucky we are fast getting hold of the community, and that this principle is recognized, and that it is incorporated into the laws of the State that every superintendent must be a practical teacher. I think that if a superintendent does his duty conscientiously he has got to strike something or somebody. I think the one thing that we need, because it is all that is required to determine whether the plans and schemes that are employed for the proper development of the child be correct or incorrect, whether they will accomplish their legitimate results or not, is that there should be associated with those who are required to administer the schools a tenure of office, because injustice may be done those who are not acquainted with the system and intimately connected with it in all its details. They may come to erroneous conclusions and may thus throw out those who are fully qualified to discharge its responsible duties. I think that the superintendent should nominate his assistants, and that the principal of the school should nominate his assistants, and these two ideas taken together constitute, in my judgment, complete supervision.

Hon. AARON GOVE, Denver, Colo.: I do not want to talk, but I want to ask a question. We have been told that the most efficient supervision was that where there was no supervisor. That sentiment was heartily applauded. We have since been told that what we need is more supervision, which was also received with hearty applause. As a seeker after truth, I would like to have this matter cleared up.

Col. F. W. PARKER, Normal Park, Ill.: There is a path which leads right to glory, and teachers must walk in that way. The superintend ent is to stand just outside of the way, in order to see when they get out of it and to push them in again. That is keeping out of the way. He should be just outside enough to push them into the way. His position enables him to see them when they get out of the path.

It seems to me that the supervisor is a teacher of teachers. His whole work is to help teachers to learn. Everything he does, in all his examinations and all his rules and regulations, everything should come to one point, and that is, to incite and help to instruct and direct and suggest the study of the science of teaching on the part of teachers. The only good thing, the only right thing, and the only thing that will lead to greater success, is the investigation on the part of the teacher of the science of education, and the supervisor is one who leads that investigation and incites and helps it in every possible way.

Each teacher is, in a certain sense, an independent student of the science of teaching. He is led to apply that which he finds in the science of education, not outside of it. So that each teacher is striving after the truth, to apply that truth, and the superintendent stands. there to support and help. I hold that the one great means of setting the teacher free is examination.