The Andrews Controversy

The Andrews Controversy

Dr. Andrews is ending his position as superintendent of the Chicago schools anything but a bed of roses. The papers announce that his resignation is very probable. Dr. Andrews is a brainy man, a professional educator, progressive and aggressive, apparently as tenacious of the rightful prerogatives of his office as are the members of his board of their pulls. As the professional head of the school system the superintendent is held responsible by the public for the work and proper management of the schools. Having to bear the responsibility for the efficiency of the teaching force and the management of the schools, Dr. Andrews claims the right of initiative in the appointment, promotion, transfer and dismissal of all teachers. On this issue he clashes with members of his board of trustees who have long been accustomed to give these things out as personal favors or to those who have the rail. In the working of this method ;he superintendent's authority has, in he past, been reduced to a small factor, but Dr. Andrews does not propose to be simply a compiler of statistics and maker of reports. He proposes to wield the authority which always accompanies responsibility. Being a professional educator and being paid to devote his whole time to school matters, he rightfully considers himself better qualified to determine the personal qualifications and fitness of teachers han the busy laymen who for the most art, constitute his board. He says he does not desire supremacy - he wishes imply to surround himself with the best teachers and to have each teacher placed where he or she can render the most effective service to the cause of public education. He declares that he has no wish to escape responsibility for his acts but is ready at all times to render the strictest account to his official superiors for his stewardship.

Dr. Andrews is unquestionably right in his contention. He is either better qualified to judge of the fitness of teachers than is his board or he is incompetent for his position and should be discharged, for certainly the prerogatives mentioned rightfully belong to the responsible executive of the school system, and the people will never receive the returns from the schools they have a right to demand until this principle is recognized and practiced. So long as teachers are appointed for any other reason than professional skill and fitness a great wrong is done the school children. School trustees have to legal or moral right to make an eleemosynary institution of the public school. It is a common practice however. In our own city schools, if the principies for which Dr. Andrews contends were recognized, the vicious system of inbreeding which has so long obtained to the detriment of the schools, would be a thing of the past. It is a wise school board that recognizes where its own prerogatives end and those of the superintendent begin. But it is a wiser one which knowing this does not encroach upon those of the superintends.