Our School Management

Able Letter from Prof. E. C. Goddard

A change in policy

The separation of educational from business functions advocated--How a superintendent is hampered in his work

To the Editor of the Argus:--

I have not heretofore burdened your columns with communications, but certain phases of our school problem have seemed to me of such importance that I have often wished they might be called to public attention. The interest in school matters at the present time and the editorial in your columns last evening seem to make this an opportune time to make a few suggestions with reference to the permanent educational policy of our school board. It is not my purpose to take part in the controversy that has recently received attention. I have very great respect for members of the school board personally, and share the deep affection of the community generally for the principal of our high school, I regret the misunderstandings that arose and believe they would have been avoided under a more modern educational policy.

It might be supposed that our city, with a world-wide reputation as an advanced educational center, would be at least abreast of the times educationally. But, however progressive we are in general, in one important matter I have reason to think we are far behind the times. The able and progressive editorials in the Argus from the pen of one of the editors, who has himself had long experience as a school man, are such as to leave no doubt that he is fully aware of the changes that have been going on in the school administration, and I am sure he must approve in a general way of what I am about to suggest, namely, that there should be a separation of the educational from the business functions in the management of the schools. The Board of Education is composed of business men and very properly has entire control of the business management of the schools; but it is not, nor is it desirable that it should be, composed of educational experts. This educational side should be put in the hands of a man who has made that his life work, the board retaining to itself the functions of confirmation and rejection, similar to the powers exercised by the United States Senate on nominations made by the President. In other words, appointment and dismissal of teachers, the adoption of text-books and courses of study, should be in the hands of the superintendent, who should be a man that can safely be trusted with these functions. When he loses the confidence of the board or the people so that they are unwilling to entrust him with such power, he should be dismissed and another superintendent secured who is capable of performing such duties. This is no new plan but is already in successful operation in Cleveland, Indianapolis, Chicago ad other cities, and has been, in fact if not in name, followed in great numbers of cities who schools are efficient.

Our former superintendent, who for so many years served us faithfully and well, often said to the writer that one of the most discouraging things about his work was that he was hampered in his selection of teachers. Instead of being able to search out the best, he was compelled to choose the least objectionable among the candidates whose application had personal support on the board or in the city. Without criticism of the many very able teachers in our schools, under some of whom it has been my good fortune to sit as a scholar, I submit that in future changes the best is none too good for us in selecting a teacher for our children, and the only inquiry that should be made in appointing a teacher is who is the most efficient and best prepare candidate that by searching can be found. The man to make this search and decide on this candidate is the superintendent and no the board nor any committee nor individual on the board, however intelligent or worthy of respect and confidence.

Anyone who has had experience with general letters of recommendation will know how useless and unreliable they are, and how little value there would be in such a comparison of letters favoring different candidates by the members of the Board of Education as you suggest in your editorial last evening. So far from being one of the "functions of the board which it should not abdicate" it is precisely a function that the board should abdicate in favor of the superintendent. By personal interviews or confidential letters he can usually learn the qualifications of teachers with substantial accuracy and his technical skill should enable him to decide as no Board can do on the best candidate. If the end of our policy is to secure the best possible schools such a division of functions between the board and the superintendent is much needed. We have a superintendent who has made school work his life business and he has had years of successful experience. Let us leave with him these educational matters. It was the most serious blunder of the committee whose report caused such a commotion that it decided on the action without even consulting the superintendent. 

One other suggestion which I make with some reluctance for fear of being misunderstood. I have been greatly rejoiced that factions and politics have been kept out of our schools. This is a blessing for which we cannot be too thankful and I trust we shall never see the time when a citizen shall be elected to our school board as the candidate of any class. Neither the business men nor the professional men, nor the laboring men, nor the members of the faculty of the university as such should have any candidate, nor ask any representation on the school board. But progressive and representative business men, professional men, and even members of the university faculty should be eligible to the school board as representatives of our whole city, and I, for one, am not particular how many of the members of the board belong to any or all of the classes. As a member of the faculty then, I wish to say that I do no believe in trying to have a member on the board represent the faculty. So far as my personal knowledge goes there never has been one. But having a representative of the university on the board is another matter and it has always seemed to me unfortunate that there has not been such a representative. 

One of the most widely noted virtues of the Michigan school system is the close connection and progressive development of its schools from the primary to the high school and the university. I should like to see this connection in the University City made still closer by having one man from the university on the school board. This would not mean any control, or attempt at control, for he would be only one man in nine, but it would mean a closer co-ordination, and more sympathetic union of all grades of our school work. I have no criticism to offer of any of the candidates who have been nominated for the board at the coming election, and write this with no thought of influencing this election, but I have a hope that it may receive consideration when candidates are chosen in the future. From this point of view it seems unfortunate that the first member of the university faculty to be nominated for this position in many years should be a man connected with one of the professional departments. The connection of which I speak should be with the literary department, for it is that department that is in organic connection with the earlier grades of school. I trust that there may be such a representative of the university at no distant day.

Yours respectfully, E. C. Goddard. September 9, 1903.