with reference to existing national institutions and customs. So our educational pioneers of half a century ago had to shape the fabric and spirit of our school system, so far as they were instrumental in introducing modifications and improvements, in conformity with existing political and social arrangements. Hence any attempt on their part to advocate any reform relating to the status of the teacher, in conflict with the prevailing theory and practice touching the status of other public servants, would have been impracticable and utterly futile. Improvements do not advance on all lines simultaneously. They made advancement where advancement was possible.

Now what was the status of public officers and employes, whether in the service of the Nation, the State, or the municipality, fifty years ago, in respect to tenure of office? Our political institutions are founded upon the theory that public officers are public servants, and precisely at that period, more than at any time in our history, the opinion prevailed that the officers and employes of the public had no interest or property whatever in the offices and situations which they occupied. Out of this prevailing sentiment grew the pernicious custom of what is called rotation in office; where the tenure of office was not fixed by law, as in the case of the judiciary, custom limited the tenure to one or two years. Taking advantage of the prevalence of this sentiment, which claimed for itself the credit of being the spirit of true democracy, President Jackson inaugurated the custom of removing officers without regard to their qualifications for their duties or their behavior.

The assumption and exercise of this arbitrary authority made the public officers in the service of the Nation dependent for their bread and butter on the will of the

executive. Nearly all State officers, from the governor down, held their office, for the most part, for a single year only; the same was the case with municipal officers, including school committee. In some States even the judges of the highest court were elected by the people, to hold office for a short determinate period; and so the office of teacher of public schools, which, in the days of Master Cheever, was held by life tenure, was made to conform to the general custom in respect to tenure of office; and even the clergy, who had always held by lifetenure, began to hold by a limited tenure. He, therefore, must have been not only a bold man, but an unwise one, who, as an educational reformer, should have in those days dreamed of undertaking to render the status of the teacher more desirable by advocating for him a permanent tenure of office. Hence the reformers of those days directed their efforts to other objects.

But an immense change has taken place since that time in public opinion, as well as in legislative provision, respecting the tenure of office of public officials. The civil service reform, to which has been accorded the largest plank in the platform of the dominant political party, is a declaration of the principle that Justice to servants is essential to good service, and that justice is incompatible with the tenure of office, which carries with it no ownership or interest on the part of the incumbent.

The essence of the civil service reform consists in its aim to substitute a permanent tenure of office for the short and uncertain tenure; all the rest is incidental. This carries with it appointments and promotions by merit, and not by favoritism. This revolution in public sentiment has made the opportunity to undertake a reform in the status of the teacher by making his tenure

of office permanent. To secure a permanent tenure of office for teachers in the public schools is the next great step to be taken in the interest of the people's schools. In my judgment this is the most important educational reform of our school system that has ever been undertaken. The substitution of the permanent tenure for the present precarious limited tenure would doubtless be regarded by teachers as a great boon, but I am looking more especially to the public welfare, the public interest is the paramount interest.

The theory which it is my present purpose to propound and advocate is this: Permanency of tenure would enormously increase the desirableness of the teacher's status; that while it costs nothing to the public to grant this permanency, to the teachers it would be an inestimable boon; that, as a means of compensating teachers, it would be equivalent to a vast increase of school revenue; that the salary, even though raised to the highest practicable limit, when subject to the offset of short and precarious tenure, with all its train of evils, is insufficient to bring into the service of teaching, and retain there the requisite teaching talent. In substance, then, the question of permanent tenure for teachers is, in the first place, a question of economy the question of conservation of forces; that is, the question whether the money compensation of teachers shall be in effect largely supplemented by what costs nothing. In the second place, it is a question of educational results, for salary plus permanent tenure is the indispensable condition of the ideal teaching corps, and hence the indispensable condition of the ideal school and the ideal education.

The reasoning on which this theory is based is extremely simple, and is the following:

1. Permanency of situation everywhere and always counts largely with the salary in estimating the emolument of the situation, and it is self-evident that these two elements together are greater than one of them alone.

2. The addition of permanency of tenure to salary is necessary to make teaching a career sufficiently attractive for persons of ability and culture, as a life work, and it is only from such persons devoted to teaching as a life work that the best teaching can come.

This reasoning is the plain lesson of history, which he who runs may read. It is well known that the German States, and more especially Prussia, took the lead in the organization and development of the modern system of public instruction. And it appears that in Prussia from the outset the life tenure of office for the teachers was adopted as the first principle of the incipient system; and, in fact, the Prussian law long ago expressly prohibited the appointment of any regular teacher for a determinate period. This was the original stock upon which improvements were from time to time grafted, until at length its present vigor, completeness, and symmetry of development have been produced. Forty years ago Horace Mann thus characterized the teachers produced by this system: "As a body of men their character is more enviable than that of any of the three so-called 'professions." " In all the other European countries the point of departure and the process of development have been substantially the same. It is safe, I think, to say that in no one of them has it been thought expedient to attempt to carry on a system of schools on the plan of choosing teachers for a short, determinate period.

On the other hand, it seems to have everywhere been taken for granted that there could not be such a thing as

an efficient and economical school system without making provision for securing the services of teachers who should. be devoted to the business of instruction as a life profession. Accordingly, we find that, although public school teachers have, perhaps, nowhere received entirely satisfactory treatment, they have generally been secure in their position and in their revenues, all too slender though they may have been. Thus the beginning was made by laying a foundation for a status of dignity and independence. This was all important as the initial provision. The rest followed logically, although not without delays and difficulties. As it is the teacher that gives character to the school, which no well-informed person will deny, so we find that most of the measures of progress and improvement have been such as were calculated to ameliorate the condition and elevate the status of the teacher, to provide better professional training, to improve the scheme of examination and certificating of candidates, to increase the compensation, to secure a more competent and trustworthy superintendence and inspection, to afford the best means of appreciating and rewarding merit. These were the objects always uppermost in the aims and efforts of intelligent promoters of educational progress. And thus by degrees have been created the conditions requisite to render teaching a veritable career; not a career, indeed, leading to wealth and luxury, but a career of assured independence, dignity, and support.

In our country the point of departure and the process of development have been quite different from those we have considered. We have undertaken to develop and build up an efficient system of instruction while acting on the assumption that the teacher cannot be recognized as having a claim to any ownership in a position of service.