Supervision
The next stage of representative control was reached when the community came to a recognition of the necessity of some kind of intelligent supervision of teachers. Visiting committees were appointed, usually including the clergyman of the town, to look into the work of the classes and report to the town meeting.
So long as communities were small and fairly homogeneous in their social and intellectual characteristics it remained possible to get on with direct town-meeting control of the schools in all except the details of teaching classes and the supervision of teachers. One reads, to be sure, of disagreements at times between the town meeting and the teacher. The visiting committee and the teacher sometimes had a clash, and the supporters of each presented their views with vigor before the whole community. Problems of organization and administration were not lacking even in those simpler days, but the machinery of school management was fairly direct and simple.
Sketch of Development of a School System
How this direct control of schools became impossible with the growth of communities can be illustrated by a single example. In the city of Chicago in its early years the schools were independent of each other. Indeed, in the first years immediately after the incorporation of the town, the schools were private schools to which the taxpayers paid a stipulated sum out of the proceeds of the sale of school lands or out of district levies. The variable character of the teaching which was secured under this plan led to the adoption in 1835 of a partially centralized system of inspection and management. The districts were left independent in all financial matters, but a central board of inspectors was provided which was to unify the schools of the town. This central board was continued after the incorporation of the city, in 1837, but the districts were left independent in financial matters even after that date. The districts voted on the amount to be paid to teachers, on the housing of the schools, and on other matters relating to taxes. There were district committees to care for these local financial matters.
Even though the city government was centralized by the incorporation of 1837, the schools remained distinct. The central board of inspectors adopted certain textbooks, but it appears that the schools paid little attention to this action. How meager was the district provision for schools appears in the fact that it was not until 1845 that the first public-school building was erected.
It is not difficult to imagine the chaos under which such a system suffered. In 1851 the city council took away from the districts the power of hiring teachers and gave it to the central board of inspectors. It also appointed a business manager. The board of inspectors thus gained in power and influence, but they found themselves confronted by educational problems which they could not solve. In 1853 they adopted the plan which was relatively new in American cities, but was coming into vogue, of appointing a superintendent of schools. This officer at once graded the children, organized a uniform course of study, and took steps to equalize instruction in the schools of the city.
The Community Slow to delegate School Control
The historical sketch outlined above gives us a clear insight into the way in which problems of school organization arise. The community must delegate the work of carrying on schools. There is a natural hesitation in intrusting this important work to anyone. As a result, the community is constantly taking a hand, even in these latter days, in all kinds of school discussions. Sometimes the whole city is drawn into a discussion of school matters. Sometimes the individual parent, in his capacity as a citizen, attempts to take into his hands the authority of the community, especially when the way in which the schools are being managed seems to him to be unfavorable to the interests of his children.