PLAIN FACTS ABOUT PUBLIC SCHOOLS

SAMUEL P. ORTH

I

WERE you ever a member of a school board? If not, then have hardly been revealed to you, in their fullest measure, the machinations and tendencies of the dual forces that combine to establish our public schools: the educational forces on the one hand, and the public or political forces on the other. To the thoughtful board member are revealed the inherent weaknesses of the public-school system as developed in America. To him are shown the foibles and fancies of the educationist, the heedlessness and pettiness of the more thoughtless element in the constituency, and, alas! the limitations of the teachers. And he is constantly comparing the ideal schools he supposed to exist before he got his intimate insight and the schools he really discovered after his official relationship began. This disillusioning is distracting.

Just at present there is a stirring about in the publicschool world. Some mild muckrakers have been busy with the rake, and are trying to find out "What is the matter with our public schools"; and a few conscientious critics are pointing out genuine weaknesses in the results of our public-school system. This commotion comes almost like a shock, after a long lull, which had put us to sleep in the pedagogical cradle, bringing us pleasant dreams about the great public-school system, the pride of the land, the glory of the nation, and so forth. For everybody

was quite sure that these schools were the bulwark of our freedom, and that they somehow were too sacred to be criticized. At the same time, everyone reserved the right to decided personal opinions about the way these schools should be run. For there is no other public institution so universally lauded in bulk, and so criticized in parvo, as the public-school system.

The results of the school system that are challenged in these newer indictments may be brought under three groups.

First, we are told that the pupil does not gain real knowledge. He studies about things, in an indefinite sort of way, but never learns the solid facts. The whole system, from the happy kindergarten to the mimic-college high school, is permeated with the haze of indefiniteness. There is present only the mirage of learning, not the substantial reality. The old-fashioned drilling has vanished. The line upon line and precept upon precept method, that builds real brain-substance, is replaced by pseudo-psychological methods taught in normal schools. The result is, the pupil is not trained in exactness and thoroughness.

Secondly, we are told that the pupil does not even learn to use his mind. Schoolmasters give as an excuse for the lack of exactness in their pupils, that the boys and girls have learned how to use their mental equipment even though they do not know very many facts. But here is a substantial arraignment of this supposed result of modern school methods. The school is an enslaver of memory instead of an emancipator of reasoning. Originality is tabooed, and servility demanded. The curse of the lawyer, the search for precedent, is written on the brow of pedagogy. Logic and reason are not encouraged.

And, thirdly, the results of our schools are not practical. This is heard on every hand. The schools do not fit for bread-and-butter earning; they rather make a boy or girl unfit for the hard tasks of life.

A fourth count in the indictment is sometimes added by the moralist, who claims that the moral traits of the child are hardly awakened, and that the boys and girls, especially those who break the ranks before the eighth grade is reached, are entirely unfit to meet the severe demands that the temptations of life make upon them.

These, briefly, are the charges. They may be summed up by saying that, in a very general and unsatisfactory way, the schools teach the elements of mental processes; that they, to this extent only, teach morals; and that they leave the aptitudes, manual and mental, in about as dormant a condition as they found them in.

These charges are made against the results of our public education. But these results are the outgrowth of conditions. I do not wish here to discuss the indictment, I wish only to describe frankly some of the conditions that prevail in our public schools, from which these undesirable consequences have grown. These plain facts I present, as they were unfolded to me while serving on the Board of Education in one of our large cities, where conditions are perhaps a little above the average.

And I begin with the teacher. For the teacher is the school. And in considering the teacher we must begin with the superintendent. The position of superintendent of schools is unique and anomalous. It demands the learning of a college president, the consecration of a clergyman, the wisdom of a judge, the executive talents of a financier, the patience of a church janitor, the humility of a deacon, and the craftiness of a politician. The position demands that the superintendent manage the schools purely as an educational investment for the public, without being in any degree influenced by the passions and impulses of the public. It is because of these requirements, which would tax genius and divinity, that there are so few real superintendents. If you should attend a meeting of the National

Association of Superintendents, for the purpose of seeking one for your home town, you would be depressed by the scarcity of first-class material for so important a place. You would learn, on inquiry, that most of these men drifted into the superintendency they just happened into the job. Some were educated for the ministry, some for the bar, some for medicine, a few had been in business, all of them had been teachers, but only a small minority had started out in life by choosing the regal following of educational leader as a profession and had persisted in their laudable ambition with courage and perseverance.

Until very recently, there was no college or university that paid any attention to school administration in its curriculum. Those great centres of learning to which the nation rightly looks for educational guidance were blind to the great needs of the common schools; so that a young man, ambitious to become a successful superintendent of schools, had to pick his own way, prepared by experience and inclination, but not by scientific guidance. The result was perfectly natural. The making of superintendents was left to chance, and to those interested forces which contrived to gain the mastery of the situation. Some superintendents were thus made by party politics, some by certain commercial interests, some by coteries of teachers or cliques of busybodies, and some, we may be very sure, by a happy and conscientious choice. These last have been, fortunately, the propulsive force in American public education, and the nation owes a large debt of gratitude to the great pioneer superintendents, who rose above the circumstances of their appointments and gave conscience and professional prowess to their tasks.

Happily there is now growing up in our country a group of young men who have definitely chosen educational administrative work as their profession, who have been trained for their calling in colleges that have recognized

their special needs, and who, it is hoped, will prove strong enough to withstand the temptations that are peculiar to public office. But ideal professional guidance in publicschool affairs will not be possible until some of the conditions surrounding the office of superintendent are changed. The office must be entirely separated from the haphazard of politics. Formerly the superintendent was elected in many states by the people on party tickets. One of our large cities even to-day clings to this barbarous custom, to its shame and the great detriment of its school system. At present it is almost the universal custom to elect the superintendent through the board of education. Even under this practice he is still made to feel the insecurity of his tenure. For the board members are elected, and through them the people can strike at the superintendent. Every city is prone to have a superintendent war about every ten or twenty years. A man who has to direct so many teachers, placate so many parents, and come in practical contact with the public every day, will make enemies, especially if he is a robust and enterprising man. And these enemies will seek revenge at the polls. So, in order to raise a generation of professional superintendents, it will not be enough to have them trained in the technique of their profession. The tenure of office must be made long enough, and secure enough from interference by either the board or the public, to attract scholarly men.

While there has been so much of chance in the making of the superintendent, there has been a more earnest attempt made in the training of teachers, although even our normal schools are of comparatively recent origin. School-teaching is even now scarcely a profession. People still think that almost anyone can be a teacher. In truth, anyone who can pass the required examinations and get a certificate is legally qualified to teach. These requirements are usually so low that a graduate of an