THE RELATIONS OF THE SCHOOL BOARD AND THE TEACHERS*

DR. W. A. HUNT

Ex-President of the Minnesota Association of School Boards, Northfield, Minn.

T

HE primary aim of the public school system is to train and educate the youth of the nation toward the highest morality and the best citizenship. Education alone carries with it no certain guarantee of future usefulness, but when coupled with good morals and good sense is the most efficient agency the state can use for the promotion of the common good. The accomplishment of this end by these agencies not only insures the future welfare of the state by an increase in the intelligent and moral forces, but at the same time tends to reduce crime and all those conditions which lead to deterioration and decay. So that free education, described by Bishop Spalding as "a people's deliberate effort to form a nobler race of men," becomes largely a matter of selfprotection and self-preservation to the state, as well as an agency for the general elevation of mankind. On these grounds, the state has assumed the duty and claimed the right to educate its youth, to train them into useful and upright citizens; and on these grounds the great expense and care which the public school system requires to maintain it are fully justified.

Authority to supervise and means to provide for this most important undertaking are intrusted by the people to boards of education. Few offices in the gift of the people carry with them such responsibilities or such possibilities for great good.

To them are intrusted the duty of directing public education along the most approved and progressive lines, and, what is of no less moment, the performance of this task in such a manner that the interests of the public may be judiciously and faithfully observed. On the one hand, these boards are held to account for the state of public education in their respective localities; on the other, they are responsible to the people for the wise and efficient employment of vast sums. It is in their power to make or unmake the public school. They may blight it by a niggardly, bigoted, or unwise policy, or they may by a broad and liberal policy raise it to a high degree of efficiency and place it in a position to do incalculable good.

It is of prime importance, therefore, to secure for these positions only capable and intelligent men and women, who are willing at times, if need

*From Report of Proceedings of N. E. A:

be, to sacrifice their own interests for the advancement of such an end. From the best citizenship only of a community should be chosen those who are to manage and supervise a school system. Being responsible to the district for the character of the work done and the results accomplished in the school, as well as for the wise expenditure of the school fund, each member of a school board is in duty bound to have general oversight of everything pertaining to the school. The responsibility placed upon him does not, however, require that he should be a professional architect or builder, should a new school building be needed. But it does expect in transferring this work to the practical builder the school board member shall be competent to pass intelligent judgment upon and procure for the district healthful and pleasantly located grounds, a building adequately planned and adapted to its particular needs, with equipment and furnishings appropriate to those needs, and with satisfactory hygienic and sanitary arrangements. Nor does the authority given him by the people contemplate his acting as engineer or janitor of the building, but expects him to transmit to competent and trustworthy employès the care and protection of the building and school property. Nor, again, is it expected that a school director shall be a professional educator, or possess such a knowledge of educational subjects and methods as to enable him to conduct personally the school work proper; but it is presumed that he will delegate these duties to those especially fitted and trained for such work. Thus the field of work of the school board is mainly one of legislation, with a corps of skilled laborers to execute and carry out the general wishes and ideas of the supervising board. To be able to pass intelligent judgment on the efficiency of and the results accomplished by the various employès of the board demands much study, thought, and time. Especially does this apply to the professional or educational lines of work, in which the average school board member is less informed.

The attitude of the school board, when considered in relation to the teaching force, is of the greatest consequence to the welfare of the school. The superintendent chosen to manage and direct the local school system should be selected with the greatest care. His duties and privileges, and his relation to the board and to his fellow-teachers should be clearly defined and well understood. How much liberty he is to enjoy in carrying out his preferred plans and methods of developing and perfecting the school system is a matter for the board to decide. Of late it has been advocated by many prominent educators that the selection and dismissal of teachers, the choice of text-books and courses of instruction, and similar duties should devolve entirely upon the superintendent, the board withdrawing fully from any participation in these duties; that the superintendent, being wholly responsible to the board for results, should have the right to surround himself with only such assistants as would in his judgment best and most helpfully coöperate with him in securing desired results; that he have the power to use such means and introduce or continue such methods as will best tend to the same end; that perfect freedom and power to develop and execute the school work should be fully transferred to him; that his opinion and choice on all matters

concerning the school work should prevail and be final. The board has the legal right thus to transfer to the superintendent all these particular duties, but whether its relation to the people and to the taxpayers, as well as to the child whose interests are mainly in question, will warrant the shifting of responsibility so fully must be decided by each board. The conditions may be so varied and the points of view so numerous that each board is justified by law and reason in deciding for itself how much liberty it shall give to the superintendent. With a thoroly competent superintendent a board can safely and for the best interests of the school give him full power as regards selection and dismissal of teachers, choice of text-books, courses of study, and all other school work but, in giving him this large liberty, the board should always fix conditions under which such authority is to be exercised, and should also retain the power within itself to withdraw or modify the conditions at any time. Like school boards, but perhaps less so, all superintendents are not ''magnificently capacitated for their high calling." A board should not fully abdicate its power to a superintendent found deficient in certain qualifications and await bad results or failure before intervening. The general policy of the board, based as it is on local needs and conditions, and often limited by the funds at its disposal, must at times negative the well-meant and ambitious desires of the superintendent, even tho they may be right in general theory. So that, however superior the qualifications of the superintendent, or however inferior those of the board, it is undoubtedly best that in every phase of school board duty the veto power should, whether used or not, remain with the board. This removes the sting from the "oneman power," and prevents the board being placed in the position of simply a "committee to register the will of an educational dictator." It allows the board, if it wishes, to give without reserve into the hands of its educational expert the full details of the school work, or to step in, should occasion demand, and curtail and modify the authority formerly delegated; or it allows the board to reserve and share with the superintendent some of the responsibilities.

As to choice of teachers, the selection should devolve primarily upon the superintendent. He is best fitted, by training and experience, to know the qualification of the efficient and capable teacher. He is responsible to the board for the success of the schools, and should be allowed the right, so far as possible, to choose his subordinates.

He has more at stake than any member of the school board. To him success is a vital matter; it means success or failure in his life work, while to the member of the board, however public-spirited, the schools are but an incidental interest.

A superintendent's powers should at least be coextensive with his responsibilities. No board can fairly hold to strict account for bad results or failure a superintendent upon whom it has thrust incompetent and refractory teachers, or whom it has denied sufficient facilities to conduct the school work to his own satisfaction. In the first case, more freedom should be given the superintendent in choosing his assistants, or in that much the board should shoulder the responsibility; in the second, the blame, if any,