The Control and Management of Education.—As the national constitution gives the federal government no power to control education the responsibility rests with the several states. Every state has established a system of free, public education, but the methods of control and management differ greatly from one state to another. Some states have centralized the management of the schools in the hands of the state authorities; others leave this very largely to the school officials of the counties, cities, or districts. Everywhere there is a state department of education, with a board or a superintendent in charge, some states having both. The local educational unit may be the city, town, township, school district, or (especially in the Southern states) the county. A school board, usually elected, erects the school buildings, chooses a school superintendent, appoints principals and teachers (on the recommendation of the superintendent), and appropriates money for the support of the schools. The detailed work of managing the schools rests primarily upon the superintendent.[[243]]
Where should the chief control be lodged?
Central vs. Local Control of Schools.—To what extent should the public schools be under the control of the state authorities? Is it advisable that local school boards should be left free to manage the schools as they think best, without interference from the state? These are questions upon which the opinions of educators differ. It is argued that the school board, in every city, town, or township knows best the needs of its own community and hence ought to be given a free hand in meeting these needs. This policy, moreover, affords each school a chance to try experiments and it is through experiments that progress in education, as in everything else, is usually made. On the other hand it is logical to assert that if the state laws make education compulsory and if the state treasury grants money to local schools it is the right of the state to see that the money is properly spent. If every city, town, and village were left free to manage its schools without any central control there would be no uniformity in the subjects taught, in the qualifications of teachers, or in the organization of the schools. It would be difficult in that case for a pupil to transfer from one school to another, outside the same community, without finding himself a misfit in the new institution. A certain amount of central control seems therefore to be desirable, but it is not for the best interests of education that every school throughout the state should be conducted in exactly the same way. A system of that sort tends to deaden the whole process of education. There is a great deal to be said for home rule in education, provided there is a sufficient amount of state supervision to keep the schools up to a proper standard.
Keeping the schools out of politics.
School Boards and Politics.—It is generally agreed that party politics should have no place in the management of the public schools. There may be justification for party politics in lawmaking bodies; but in school boards there is none. There is an efficient way of managing the schools and an inefficient way; but there is no such thing as a Republican way or a Democratic way. Yet elections to school boards are, in many communities, contested upon party lines. Men and women are nominated and elected, very often, because they belong to one or the other political party, not because they have good judgment or a deep interest in school affairs. In this, however, public sentiment is gradually changing. In many places the school board elections have become non-partisan; party designations have been taken off the ballots, and it matters little which party a candidate belongs to. Why should it? What relation is there between a man’s views on the tariff or the league of nations and his ability to serve his own neighbors acceptably as a member of a local school board? There is no visible relation. Taking the schools out of politics means that the taxpayers get greater value for the money which is spent in maintaining the schools, that all questions are decided upon their merits and not by political favoritism, and that every pupil gets the benefit of better schools, better teachers, and better educational methods.
Educational Work of the National Government.—The national government, as has already been pointed out, possesses no formal powers with respect to education in the states. Nevertheless it has done a good deal to promote the interests of public education by publishing the results of investigations into educational problems, and by rendering advisory assistance to the state authorities. |The national Bureau of Education.| It maintains a Bureau of Education which is now within the jurisdiction of the Interior Department. At the head of this bureau is a Commissioner of Education appointed by the President. The functions of the bureau are almost wholly of an informal character; it collects data for the use of educators and publishes this material in annual reports and bulletins.[[244]] There has been a strong movement to make this bureau a regular Department of Education, with a member of the cabinet at its head, and to increase its powers considerably; but this movement has not yet been successful.
Federal Aid to Education.—Within the last few years there has been a good deal of controversy, both in Congress and outside, over a proposal to appropriate further funds from the national treasury for the promotion of general education in the states, particularly in those states where the common school system needs toning up. |The Towner-Sterling Bill: its merits and defects.| This proposal is embodied in a measure which has been before Congress for some time but upon which no favorable action has yet been taken.[[245]] In favor of the measure it is argued that public elementary education is a national necessity and that if any state cannot raise sufficient money to keep its common schools up to a proper standard the interests of the whole nation will suffer in the end. There is just as much reason, and more, it is asserted, for federal aid to state schools as for such aid to state roads. On the other hand it is objected that the policy of large federal subsidies to education would involve the taxing of the populous and thriving states of the East, the Middle West, and the Pacific Slope for the benefit of those other states, especially in the South, where the school system has heretofore been backward through lack of funds. Most of the federal government’s income is provided by the taxpayers of states like New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Massachusetts. But in these states the public school system has already been brought up to a standard where there is no urgent need for federal assistance. The chief gainers under the new plan would be the states which contribute very little of the revenue. In other words, we should be taxing some states for the benefit of others. A somewhat more weighty objection, to some minds, is found in the possibility that if the national government begins the practice of making large annual grants to the states for educational purposes it may, in due course, undertake to exercise control over the public school systems of the entire country. When a government grants money for any purpose it has an undeniable right to make sure that the money is being properly spent. To do this it must create some system of inspection. Inspection leads to supervision, and supervision sooner or later merges into actual control. It is feared in some quarters that this would be the ultimate outcome of federal aid to common school education on any large scale.
| THE PUBLIC | |||||||||
| BOARD OF EDUCATION | |||||||||
| CLERK | SUPERINTENDENT | COUNSEL | |||||||
| SECRETARY | |||||||||
| PRINCIPALS | |||||||||
| ENGINEERS | SUPERVISORS | ||||||||
| JANITORS | |||||||||
| TEACHERS | |||||||||
| PUPILS | |||||||||