Report of Committee of Superintendents
Another recent document which throws much light on the problem of the relation between school officers is a report presented to the Department of Superintendence, a division of the National Education Association. This report opens with extracts from a number of letters from superintendents in all parts of the country. The discussion then proceeds as follows:
OBSOLETE ADMINISTRATION SYSTEM
The impression which a careful study of this material [referring to the material upon which the report is based] makes on one’s mind is the painful one that most administrative situations are undefined and shifting. Schools are administered, sometimes well, sometimes badly, but in most cases without clear definition of responsibility or authority. Public interests are fortunately protected in most instances, but the machinery is the primitive machinery of the vigilance committee, with now the superintendent, now the board of education, now the city council, now a parents’ association, trying to determine what steps shall be taken to promote public welfare.
STATUS OF SUPERINTENDENCY VARIES
In such a situation the accidents of personal influence play an unjustifiable part. Several of the letters from successful superintendents state explicitly or show between the lines that they are entirely in control of the policies of the schools. Some go so far as to say that any effort to define the responsibilities and authority of the superintendent would curtail their influence and would therefore be undesirable. At the other end of the scale are reports which show that the superintendent is shorn of all influence. In many cases he is little more than a clerk, dependent from day to day on the accidents of the board’s attitude for the meager authority which he tries to exercise. In some cases he goes to the board meeting only when especially invited. He has teachers sent to him by the board, and he knows nothing about the financial management of the system. Such a superintendent usually recommends the adoption of a state law endowing his office with rights.
The extreme situations referred to above may occur within a single state, showing that there is no such thing as a typical and clearly defined American school administration.
DISTRICT CONTROL DISCARDED SYSTEM OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION
The origin of the present situation is not far to seek. American schools were first controlled by the citizens of the district. They met in intimate neighborhood groups and settled the problems relating to their children. Communities were fairly homogeneous, the course of study was simple, school buildings were all about equally unsanitary, and teachers were equally untrained. A majority vote was a democratic and accepted method of carrying the community through these undesirables.
AN EFFECTIVE SUBSTITUTE TO BE DISCOVERED
Within a half century all this has changed. We know to-day that every center in a state is involved in the behavior of each of its communities. Indeed, our generation is witnessing the assumption by the federal government of an influence and authority in education which is without precedent in American history. This is not the place to comment at length on these changes, but one result is absolutely certain—the simple district control of schools is gone. It remains for us to decide what we shall have in its place. What we have to-day is a series of experiments of every variety that can be set up through the exercise of human imagination. Most of these experiments are going on behind closed doors. Most of them involve sooner or later a conflict of authority. Very few of them are understood by the people of the communities in which they exist.
DANGERS OF THIS PERIOD OF ADJUSTMENT
The result is, first, much clumsy administration, even where everybody acts in the spirit of most cordial coöperation. Matters of vital importance to the school are delayed. Secondly, baneful agencies, seeking to profit unjustly, can set up in the school system influences which would have no weight if there were clear and definite responsibility and authority. Thirdly, the people of the community, being uncertain about what is going on, often become restless and critical and unwilling to give adequate support to the schools. Fourthly, the teaching staff sometimes becomes demoralized and relatively inefficient, at times the disorganization goes so far that teachers are actually and openly antagonistic to the board or superintendent, or both.[26]