tion which raised the question whether the board had the authority to override the superintendent in making changes in the teaching force. The board called upon its attorney for an official opinion concerning the matter. In that opinion it is held that, under the provisions of the charter of the City of St. Louis, the board is given exclusive authority over the expenditure of public money for school purposes; that it can determine the questions of general policy, its chief function being the supervision of the work of its executive agents; that it is responsible for procuring the best qualified experts available, and for seeing to it that they perform their duties efficiently. But it is distinctly held in that opinion that the organization of the teaching force of the public school system is under the supervision and control of the superintendent of instruction, and any change therein can be made only when recommended by him. If the board of education were to exercise such power as contemplated by the resolution under consideration, a situation might easily develop wherein the superintendent, an expert chosen by reason of his peculiar qualifications as an educator, would be without any voice in matters pertaining to the teaching force, and, consequently, without any power or control over the instruction and discipline of the schools, and yet he would still be responsible therefor.3 A similar attack upon the professional freedom of the superintendent occurred in Chicago not long ago, when there was appointed by the school board a special committee on commercial education, to take upon itself the solution of all the professional problems involved in that phase of education. The superintendent, Mrs. Ella Flagg Young, promptly made protest against the committee's undertaking such work, arguing that if a special committee should be appointed for every special subject, the professional influence of the superintendent would be reduced to nil, and that the administration of instruction would undoubtedly be fraught with calamitous results. As a 3 American School Board Journal, October, 1913, p. 27. result of the protest of the superintendent, the board discontinued its committee on commercial education, and placed its work in care of a committee, of which the superintendent is the chief member, thereby making amends for an unwise step in school administration. There are other professional functions which the superintendent should be allowed to exercise without let or hindrance; but in the exercise of every function he should be held to a strict account by the board. A plea for his professional freedom by no means implies that the board is to become the subservient creature of the superintendent, far from it: the contention is that the board should function in its own proper sphere, leaving to the superintendent professional functions, which can not be exercised by members of the board without sublime folly and without disastrous consequences to innocent children. Again in a negative way, the board fosters with certainty and in high degree the advancement of the schools if its members resolutely set their faces against the introduction of partisan political methods into the administration of school affairs. The public schools are established for the benefit of all classes and conditions of people, regardless of their several political affiliations. Surely, education is one affair in which men should cooperate with one another upon one basis, and only one basis, viz., the best interests of the children to be educated. Surely, no capable superintendent or teacher should be compelled to walk the plank because of refusal to become identified with a political party or faction. Concerning the truth of the contention that political methods should not obtain in the management of schools, there can be no question, yet it is not infrequent that educational considerations are overridden by the exigencies of political warfare. Such an attack upon the integrity of educational administration was made not a great while ago in the good state of Illinois. The Illinois Governor, so it is reported in School and home education for October, 1913, appointed an entirely new board for The Western Illinois State Normal School. The Governor being a democrat, his appointees are democrats. The Governor, however, made it clear that he desired in every way to conserve the welfare of the school. He recommended no candidate for any place, and he had no favor to ask of the board, collectively or individually. The new board, however, after adopting at one meeting a resolution requiring the president of the normal school to nominate persons for all positions in the school, violated this rule at its very next meeting by choosing certain individuals without their nomination by the president. It is charged by School and home education that this act of the board is calamitous, that it was born of a conspiracy to prostitute public office to the service of the personal machine of a local politician, and that the normal school will become a byword for political inefficiency and for a betrayal of sacred duty to the Governor, to the people, and to the children of the state. 4 It is a lamentable fact that the Illinois incident above recited does not stand alone, for, in the official conduct of school boards in every state in the union, there have been, from time to time, instances of the blighting influence of partisan politics. The truth is that at least one of the great issues, if not the paramount issue, in American school administration is the separation of the school affairs of the community from municipal politics. Professional school men and laymen with educational insight have been insisting for years, and with some degree of success, that, inasmuch as the public school system is a state affair, the organization and conduct of the schools in any town or city have no place in the domain of municipal politics. The schools of the city of Dallas, for example, do not belong to Dallas, but to the State of Texas. The whole public school system in this state is founded upon the constitutional power of the state to levy taxes for educational purposes. It would seem, therefore, the part of wisdom and prudence for the state, while leaving many 4 School and Home Education, October, 1913, P. 40-42. details of school management to the several subordinate units of school control, to establish by law some measures such as: 1, The confining of the powers of the school board largely to legislative activities, and to the oversight of its expert agents; 2, the recognizing of the professional functions of the school superintendent by vesting in that officer at least the initiative in the election, assignment and removal of the teachers, as well as in all other matters that lie within the domain of instruction; and 3, the separation of school administration from all the phases of strictly municipal government. Many other important considerations having a bearing upon the efficiency of the school board, have not even been mentioned in this paper, in which, let me say by way of summary, effort has been made to show the validity of only these doctrines: 1. The school board is responsible for the financial side of school administration. 2. The school board is to be charged with the kind of supervision which is established and maintained. 3. Interference with the superintendent in the exercise of his professional duties is irrational and disastrous. 4. The separation of the management of school affairs from the realm of politics is a prime necessity. Perhaps the whole matter could be summed up in this one sentence: The school board ought to attend to its own legitimate duties, being guided only by its sense of obligation to the welfare of the schools, and manifesting no interference whatever with the business of other people. W. S. SUTTON UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS V THE PARADOX OF GERMAN UNIVERSITY AND MILITARY IDEALS No small portion of the civilized world would characterize Germany at the present moment as a baffling paradox of culture and brutality. Many of those in whose minds she has long been associated with the sublimest achievements in modern philosophy, science, literature, music, and education have a tendency now to condemn her as the wanton provoker of a war as brutal as it is unnecessary and appalling. There is a grave danger lest the former stage of admiration which was to a large extent wholesale and unthinking, be succeeded by a stage of censure and condemnation equally wholesale and equally unthinking. The German paradox of which the world at large appears to be just beginning to be conscious is not a new one. It has been present in the German social structure from the beginning of her present era. It arises out of the effort to unite in one, two ideals as inherently contradictory as they are powerful. It is not possible to determine with any degree of satisfaction whether those things which are greatest and most admired in Germany today arose out of, or in spite of, the conditions produced by the pursuit of this ideal. However, the former of these two conclusions would not preclude the question whether the ideal which had made possible Germany's priceless contributions to culture is still adequate, is still consistent with the world which she herself has helped to create, or whether it has outlived its usefulness. These questions can be answered only by a study of the ideal as it appears in some specific concrete social expression. Many of Germany's public policies, many of her social institutions, offer an opportunity for such study, because the ideal is omnipresent and all-pervading. An attempt will be made |