an annual report on the condition and working of the school system, with recommendations as to the policy to be pursued, wholly independent of the report required of the superintendent. The practical working of this strangely anomalous and whimsical contrivance was what any unbiassed, practical man would naturally expect. There was no longer a responsible head. If the superintendent attempted to assert and maintain his prerogative as superintendent in chief the result was a conflict. If he accepted the situation, the superintendency became only a seventh supervisorship. Necessity has at length compelled some modifications of this unwise system of supervision, and the superintendent has been formally declared by the school board to be its chief executive officer, with some authority in directing the labors of the supervisors. As this scheme is without precedent, so it is believed it will have no imitators. The plan of assistant superintendents, after the pattern of New York and the other large cities, is the only rational mode of reënforcing and supplementing the one man superintendency. There is no longer occasion to seek arguments to prove the expedi ency of employing expert supervision of city systems of schools. The day for that service to the cause of education is in the past. That the superintendency has been the most effective instrumentality in bringing about the existing advanced condition of things in our city systems is beyond a doubt. Men of exceptional ability and devotion have been employed from time to time, in some cases for a series of years, in the more conspicuous situations in different sections of the country. These men, by their practical wisdom, their indefatigable labors, and their unselfish devotion to the best interests of the schools under their charge, have afforded noble models for imitation, whose widespread influence has largely inspired and shaped city supervision throughout the country. In a large number of less prominent positions, and even in humble places, superintendents possessing in no small measure desirable qualifications have been secured and retained for a longer or shorter period. But we are a long way yet from perfection in the matter of supervision. Too many school boards, through incompetence or indifference to the public interest, have employed superintendents of inferior qualifications. Incompetent teachers and inefficient schools are the inevitable result. Like produces like: as is the school board, so is the superintendent; as is the superintendent, so are the schools. It is hardly too much to say that the chief use of school boards is to get and retain and sustain good superintendents. Forty years ago there were no city superintendents, or next to none. Instruction in city schools then was scarcely better than instruction in country schools. The immense superiority of city instruction over country instruction at the present time is due mostly to the introduction of supervision. But the capabilities of this instrumentality have thus far been but partially utilized. Public sentiment should hold school boards to the strictest accountability in the choice and treatment of superintend

ents. Fifty years ago the Dutch common schools were the best in Eu rope; and Cousin, in stating that all authorities agree in attributing this superiority to the exceptional excellence of the supervision, relates that the venerable Van den Ende, who had been the chief administra tor of the system for twenty-seven years, said to him, "Take care how you choose your inspectors; they are men whom you ought to look for with a lantern in your hand." The French philosopher, in framing the French system, spared no pains in providing for a competent inspection. And twenty-four years ago, Matthew Arnold, in speaking of the French system said, "The primary inspectors are the very life of the system; their inspection is a reality." During the last quarter of a century the supervision in France has been greatly improved and strengthened, and it is at the present moment more than ever the "sinews" and life of the system.

The question with us, then, is no longer whether superintendents shall be employed, but how to get the best, how to utilize their abilities, how to organize supervision. I consider the New York plan of supervision an excellent model for a large city. The first talent must be invited to this all important field of activity by rendering the status of the superintend ent more desirable. The superintendents of the past have had to do much rough, pioneer work. Their tenure of office was precarious. In too many cases they had to fight for the very existence of the office which they held. My predecessor in Boston was severely crippled in his efforts and finally driven to resign by the bitter and persistent opposition of members of the board bent on abolishing the office. In the earlier days of superintendency many a worthy officer encountered similar opposition. They were baffled, hampered, and humiliated. They had to make bricks without straw. They had to build the walls with the trowel in one hand and the weapon of defence in the other. The tenure of office of superintendents should be rendered more stable. Perhaps it would be well to make their removal depend upon the concurrent action of some superior authority. They should be invested with powers adequate for the accomplishment of the ends in view. Certainly the inducements for men of ability and culture seeking a career of large usefulness to enter this service are far greater than they were two or three decades ago. My opinion is that we have already entered upon a new epoch in this respect. The recent creation of the office of superintendent in Philadelphia and the mode of proceeding in filling it are, in my view, a cheering omen. I am inclined to agree with the eminent pedagogue, Dr. G. Stanley Hall, in the following sentiment expressed by him in a recent able article in the North American Review:

There is now no line of intellectual work to which a young baccalaureate can devote himself with greater certainty that industry and ability will find their reward in usefulness, reputation, and position than to the professional study of the theory and history and institutions of education.

And what our cities want more than anything else to insure their future educational progress and success, is a full supply of supervising agents who have had the advantages of such a course of training. The men of the future can hardly be expected to excel the men of the past in practical sense, in earnestness of purpose, or in abundance of labor; but they must be men of broader culture, of wider scope of mental vision, of deeper philosophy, and they must be far better equipped with the knowledge of pedagogical science and pedagogical history. Facilities for obtaining the requisite professional knowledge have heretofore been wanting. A capital beginning has been made, however, in supplying the needed facilities by the establishment of chairs of pedagogy in the Johns Hopkins and Michigan Universities and in some other institutions of superior instruction of less prominence.

It is greatly to be desired that similar chairs of pedagogy should be instituted at Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and indeed at all the principal universities throughout the country.

It has been charged that the supervision of the present day is too much occupied with the "perfecting of the machine;" that it magnifies the importance of the mechanical and routine operations of the school; that it mistakes the means for the ends; that it is too busy about the non-essentials; that it insists too rigidly upon uniformity in methods and results; that it treats pupils en masse and ignores individuality; that its preposterous programs and perpetual examinations are only contrivances for facilitating and enforcing cram, instead of means for promoting profitable culture; and so on to the end of the chapter. That there is a tendency to such faults is, perhaps, true. Some of them may even be quite prominent in certain localities, and others in certain other localities; but sweeping assertions as to the general existence of this array of faults in the supervision, at least to any marked extent, seem to me unjustifiable, and when made they seem to be due either to ignorance or ill intent. But, whatever may be the actual defects in our supervision, the remedy is not to be sought by reckless and indiscriminate criticism, but by the gradual process of training and bringing into the service the most capable and thoroughly equipped superintendents. I have here a remark to make about the "machinery" of our systems, which of late has been a favorite subject of criticism, especially among amateur educational reformers. They complain that too much attention is paid to the perfecting of what they call the "machine;" that the "machine" is already too perfect; and, in fact, that the perfection of the machinery is its peculiar demerit, and that this excess of perfection is one of the chief evils to be reformed. They tell us, further, that the present and past generations of superintendents, who have worked up this machinery to such a state of perfection, have been for the most part but "hewers of wood and drawers of water;" that the men of the future must ignore this mechanical business and give their

attention to what is more intellectual and spiritual. I have no objection to make to the demand that supervision should largely occupy itself with what is intellectual and spiritual. But what I have to say is this: The application of the terms machine and machinery to a school system has no meaning whatever unless these terms are intended to mean what we commonly designate as organization; and organization is nothing more than a system of arrangements whereby means are adapted to ends for the production of the desired results. This is too plain to be disputed. This being the case, it is obviously quite impossibe to make the so called machine or organization too perfect; for it is certainly impossible to adapt means to ends too well. The plain fact is that the great and undisputed success of our city systems is the result of their good organization. The imperfections in the results (and they are not denied) are due not to the excessive perfection of the organizations, the adaptation of means to ends, but to precisely the opposite cause, namely, the need of still further improvement in these organizations. It is true that organizations can do nothing without the agency of living actors, but in the ultimate analysis there must be organization of action as a means of securing these agents: and the more perfect the organization the more success in securing agents of the right stamp.

I conclude my observations on this topic by a brief reference to some of the characteristics of the policy of two classes of superintendents, the one standing at the top of the roll of honor and the other at the bottom.

The typical superintendent of one of these classes is the true reformer. He regards nothing as done while anything remains to be done; but he never goes to extremes. He believes that wisdom consists largely in moderation, and so his model school is that in which nothing is pushed to excess and nothing is neglected; that in which nothing is overdone and nothing is underdone. He is fruitful in expedients, but not in experiments. He is never content with things as they are, if he can discover a chance for improvement. He has the capacity to profit by the experience of others, and so spares no pains in making himself acquainted with the best things that have been thought and done touching the business in hand. He has the courage of his convictions and holds firmly to what he believes to be good. His aim is to produce better results with each passing day. But while doing his best to administer the system in the most effective and judicious manner he is simultaneously carrying on another work; I mean the development and perfecting of the system itself. With this end in view, he always has some project in hand: the establishment of a training school for teachers, an evening school, or an industrial school; the adoption of a better method of examining and certificating teachers; a plan for aiding and encouraging teachers in self improvement; provision for instruction in sewing; an improvement in the plan of constructing school-houses; the devising of a more rational program and a more rational system of school examinations. In this line of effort he

is creating new instrumentalities, each of which, when once put in operation, goes on indefinitely, contributing its addition to the good results of the system as a whole. In this sphere of his labor he incurs risks, for it brings him more or less in conflict with the views of members of his board; but this risk he accepts, trusting to time for his justification.

The typical superintendent of the other class is of a different charac ter. He is considerably in earnest and displays no little activity and industry in supervising and directing the minor details of the business. His supreme ambition is to carry on the routine operations of the system with as little friction as possible, and with this end in view he virtually says to his board, "I am here to obey your instructions. Tell me what to do and I will do it with alacrity and delight." He means well, is fairly intelligent, and has a sincere desire to make himself useful; but he does not possess the qualities of a chief, of a leader, of an organizer. His forte lies in obeying rather than in directing. He performs a good deal of useful drudgery under the direction of the committee. His reports are meagre in valuable information, either statistical or of any other description, about the schools. In place of pertinent facts and suggestions, he substitutes rather commonplace generalities, the correctness of which no one would think of calling in question, winding up with the assurance that, thanks to the wisdom of the board and the faithfulness and ability of the teachers, the schools have made commendable progress and are in better condition than ever before. All are highly gratified to be thus assured and are highly content with their amiable and industrious superintendent.

PROGRAMS.

It is the function of the program to indicate the succession or order of the several studies, to assign each class its group, and to mark definitely the standard to be aimed at in each stage of the course. Some programs indicate the work for each quarter, some for each half year; but, for the most part, they divide the work into stages requiring one year's work each. The program, the methods, the examinations, are interdependent factors in school economy. The examination should aim to conform to the program, while it is, in effect, an authoritative interpretation of the program which the teacher feels bound to accept; moreover, it necessarily influences the method. The program indicates and determines to a greater or less extent the method, while the method must be taken into account in estimating the time to be allowed for any subject. The program is an essential instrumentality in the graded system involving promotion and graduation as the result of test examinations. Only a few years back the program was, in general, nothing more than a list of text books prescribed for each class. At that period systematic examinations were rare; the work in the lower classes was