Louisville, with a population less than a third of that of St. Louis, has a board of equal size. The Denver board consists of only six members. The boards differ not only in the proportion of members, but also in respect to mode of election and tenure of office. The boards are constituted by provision of the State laws; in some States there is a general provision therefor; in others city boards are constituted by provision contained in the city charters. In a few cases special provision is made to meet the peculiar wants of particular cities. In general the members are elected by popular vote to represent subdivisions or wards of cities and to hold office for two or three years, one-half or one-third of the members being elected each year.

The aim of the most intelligent friends of our schools has been to separate their administration as far as practicable from the influence of party politics. In this direction, however, much remains to be desired. Everywhere there are unscrupulous politicians who do not hesitate to improve every opportunity to sacrifice the interests of the schools to the purposes of the political machine. Here is found the source of the most general, as well as the most serious, evil of our city systems. Long ago this evil became so grievous in some of our largest cities that the election of school boards by popular vote had to be abandoned. In New York it was replaced by appointment by the mayor; in Philadelphia, by appointment by judges of a superior court; in Chicago, by election by the city council. In other cities various expedients have been resorted to as safeguards against the "harmful influence of ward politicians" in the administration of school affairs: in Pittsburgh, for example, the members of the central school board are elected by the local school boards; in Boston for a number of years past the members have been elected on a general ticket. Perhaps there is no city whose school board is constituted in a more objectionable manner than that of the city of Buffalo, which is merely a special committee of the city council, holding office for one year only. On the other hand, it is safe to say that no city has ever come nearer to the realization of the ideal school board than has the city of Denver. The members of this board have been, from its origin, so far as I was able to ascertain by inquiry on the ground, unexceptionable in respect to character, ability, and faithful devotion to the interests of the schools. The choice has been made at a special election for this purpose alone, without any connection whatever with municipal or State elections. I am far from concluding, however, that this happy result is attributable solely to the mode of election; it is due to a peculiar concurrence of circumstances in connection with the mode of election; and the long continuation of similar results is too much to expect. In a few States women have been made eligible to school boards, not, however, as yet with any marked results; and in several States women have been granted the privilege of school suffrage, as a means of counteracting political and other corrupting influences. in the election of school boards; but as yet women have shown but

little disposition to avail themselves of this franchise. Thus it appears that the two directly opposite expedients of extending the suffrage to women on the one hand and on the other of suppressing even male suffrage have been adopted as means of securing more competent school boards; but it must be admitted that the problem remains unsolved; and without doubt this is the supreme educational problem which remains for our educational statesmanship to grapple with.

In a few cities there are local school boards sharing the responsibility of school management with the general board, notably New York, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh. In the last two they are elected by the people; in the first this mode of election has been replaced with great advantage by election by the general board. Experience has proved that independent local boards are not only undesirable, but highly objectionable. But local managing boards, wholly dependent on the general board, both in respect to appointment and functions, as in the London system, seem to be not only desirable but quite necessary in the administration of large city systems. In Philadelphia the adminis tration affords a remarkable example of decentralization, there being no less than thirty-one local boards, comprising from ten to twenty members each. Paris, on the other hand, presents a striking example of centralization, the vast and efficient school system of that city being administered by a single director, without the interference or support of any school board whatever.

The primary school board of Boston (appointed by the grammar school board), which was abolished thirty years ago, consisted of about two hundred members, the idea being to make the number equal to the number of teachers under its charge.

The following table shows (1) the population of a few representative cities, (2) the number of members in each school board in those cities, (3) the terms of service, (4) the representation, and (5) the mode of choice.

Organization.-In Massachusetts cities the mayors are ex officio presidents of the school boards, but in general school boards elect their

In 1883 in the State of New Hampshire, where women have been granted the school franchise, less than a hundred women, it is said, voted for school officers.

presiding officers from their own members. There are two prevailing types of organization for the performance of administrative duties, of which St. Louis and Cincinnati may be taken as examples. The St. Louis board has only twelve stauding committees, which are as follows: (1) On teachers; (2) on lands and claims; (3) on leasing; (4) on building; (5) on course of study, text books, and apparatus; (6) on auditing; (7) publications and supplies; (8) on the library; (9) on janitors; (10) on ways and means; (11) on salaries; and (12) on rules and regulations. Of these committees, only three (1, 5, and 12) have direct reference to matters relating to instruction and discipline, the other nine being business committees. There are no committees whatever on school districts or schools, although the committee on teachers acts as standing committee on the normal school and is required to visit and perform some other duties in respect to the high school.

The Cincinnati board of education, on the other hand, has twenty-five standing committees,' designated as follows: Boundaries, buildings and repairs, claims, course of study and text books, discipline, drawing, examinations, fuel, funds and taxes, furniture, German department, gymnastics, law, lots, music, night schools, normal school and teachers' institute, penmanship, printing, reports and excuses, rules and regu lations, salaries, stoves and furnaces, supplies, and ungraded schools. In addition to this formidable array of standing committees, there are thirty-four subcommittees on districts and schools.

Nor does this complete the list. The "union board," composed in part of members of the board of education, which has charge of the high schools, employs in the performance of its functious no less than fifteen committees, so that the management of the whole system of schools is shared by seventy four committees. The organization of the Chicago board belongs to this type, the whole number of its committees being seventy-nine.

Cleveland, on the other hand, follows the example of St. Louis in dispensing with district committees altogether and in judiciously limiting the number of standing committees. The old organization of the Boston board, in complication and decentralization, belonged to the Cincinnati type; while the new organization, in simplicity and centralization, and consequent efficiency and absence of friction, approaches much more nearly that of St. Louis. The St. Louis type of organization is, no doubt, much better than that of Cincinnati.

Powers and duties.-For the most part school boards are invested with authority to manage whatever relates to instruction within the limits prescribed by law and to control the expenditure of the funds legally provided therefor. They have the power to certificate, elect, and dismiss teachers and fix their compensation; they determine the

'Previous to the recent reorganization, by which the number of members is reduced to 37 and the standing committees to 18.

10153-No. 1--2

17

grading and courses of study of the schools and prescribe the text books to be used. They make the regulations for admission of pupils to the different grades of schools, for promotion from one class to another, and for graduation, but are not empowered either to establish schools or to provide for instruction not authorized by law, neither have they the custody and disbursement of the school moneys.

There are, however, important cities where the powers are much more restricted; for example, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Hartford. In the former two the central boards share the powers and responsibilities of school management with local boards, having exclusive control only of the high schools. They have, however, control of three vital ele ments of school economy, namely, (1) that of determining the number of teachers to be employed, (2) of fixing their salaries (within the limits of the appropriations), and (3) of prescribing the text books and the courses of study. In Hartford we have perhaps the extreme existing example of decentralized administration. In this city ultraconservatism has succeeded in retaining, until the present time, the antiquated district system, which has been so long disapproved by every intelligent school man; each district raises and expends its own school money, builds its own school houses, and in fact has almost absolute control over its school matters within the limits of the State law, leaving to the central board little authority except the control of the high school. Under this system, while the wealthiest districts have had good schools maintained on a liberal scale, the poorer districts have not fared so well; in some parts of the municipality the schools are hardly adequate to the preparation of pupils for admission to the high school. The district system is essentially antagonistic to the great principle which should control school legislation and school administration, namely, equality of burdens and equality of privileges.

In contrast to these examples of decentralized power there are some cities where a single moderate sized board exercises almost absolute authority in the management of school affairs. Of this number New York and St. Louis are the most prominent. In New York the board has almost unlimited authority in all matters relating to school property, not being dependent on any municipal body either for the purchase of sites or the erection of school-houses. The St. Louis board has still larger powers, and that city is one of the few municipalities where the school boards are intrusted with the disbursement of school moneys. All boards, with perhaps the exception mentioned below, are probably alike in one particular, namely, in being limited by law, or by the action of some other city authority, as to the amount of money they may expend for school purposes. The school boards of Massachusetts, though invested with less power in some respects than those in some other sections, possess one power which is peculiar and highly impor tant: they have the right to determine absolutely the number, the grade, and rates of salaries of teachers, without regard to the amount appro

18

'In Pittsburgh of the colored schools also.

priated for this purpose by municipal authorities. On the other hand, the municipal authorities have the power to stop school expenses and close the schools at the end of six months in each year if they think the scale of expenditure is too high for the approval of the popular will. This balance of power, which has long been a feature of the school system, has worked most satisfactorily, giving to the board sufficiency of independence in the matter of expenditures and to the administrators of the public revenue the power to check any extravagance on the part of school boards. This wise, far-reaching, and fruitful provision is doubtless one of the very best features of the system. The result has been a liberal support of the schools, while the tendency to extravagance on the part of school boards and the tendency to parsimony on the part of city councils have been kept under wholesome restraint. As a matter of fact, the schools have in no case been actually suspended from lack of funds.

Another important power which is believed to be peculiar to the school boards of this State is that of providing school accommodations temporarily without regard to municipal appropriations therefor. The result of this power is that, as a rule, no children are deprived of schooling from lack of school accommodations.

School boards may be divided into three classes respecting their power in purchasing sites and building school-houses, namely: (1) the class exercising all the power in purchasing sites and building school-houses, (2) the class which divides this power with the city council, (3) the class which has no authority whatever in providing school accommodations. St. Louis affords an example of the first class; Chicago and Boston, of the second class; Philadelphia and Hartford, of the third. In Chicago the sites are purchased by the city council; the rest is done by the school board. In Boston until 1875 the school board had no authority in determining the location or character of the school-houses; since that date they have had the veto power, both in respect to location and plans, and this division of power has thus far proved very satis factory. Had this veto power been given twenty years earlier the four story school-houses in that city would have been fewer.

The history of city systems of schools makes it evident that in the matter of administration the tendency is towards a greater centralization and permanency of authority and that this tendency is in the direction of progress and improvement. No doubt excessive decentralization of administration has been one of the chief obstacles to improvement in every department of our free school system.2

ORGANIZATION OF INSTRUCTION.

The characteristic fact in the pedagogical organization of our city

'A student of this subject would also do well to note the experiences in Ohio and other States along the line of application of the so-called Akron school law for the organization of city boards of education.