Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1875-08-09
THE SCHOOL QUESTIONING. 0
To the Editor of the Ledger;

sented to the public a plain statement {
facts coming under my observation dui
ing the last two years. Acareful revie'
of these facts will most conclusivel.
show that the superintendent is solel,
responsible for the present condition 0
affairs, and l have only written of BIZ
official acts. 1t is only Of his acts as
public servant that l have to do. Tit
interests of the schools demand a compe
tent, efficient and practical superintend
ent. The question naturally arises, shall
the schools be sacrificed by the retention
of an inefficient superintendent, or will
the people demand hat the schools be
saved by his removaI2 Ii it of more
consequence to this people that the
schools should be made a success by a
changei in the superintendent or continue
in their rapid decline by his r~etentiouf
In No. 4 Of my series Of papers | men
toned the fact and reeited in detail his
violations of the rules of the School
Board, whose servant he is, and to whom
he is, or should be, responsible for his
official shortcomings. In other papers
| have shown how, by vague. loose and
indefinite course Of study, the energies
Of the teachers have been crippled and
the best efforts Of an efficient corps rem
dered entirely futile in the management
of the schools. / have spoken of his
ephemeral theories promulgated from
time to time, and of the disastrous re-
suits produced in the schools by their in
PRODUCTION. l have informed the people
how he employed bis time when visiting
the schools, of his anecdotes and of his
frequent hllusion to his family history.
/ have shown hat his normal lectures
were little more than a rehearsal Of
family incidents and an egotistical dis.
play of personal accomplishments. |
have, moreover, told the people that the
superintendent proposes next session to
inaugurate a radical change in the ma
chinery Of the schools; that the expert
ment entails an additional expense in
the executive department. of $3.50 by
the appointment of two assistant super
intendents or district principals; that a
normal school $50 called) is to take the
place Of the high schools heretofore in
existence, and that the management Of
the schools is entrusted almost entirely
to ladies. 1t is no defense to plead want
Of cooperation On the part of principals
and teachers. Such is not q fact. No
set Of men and women ever endeavored
more faithfully to do his bidding. To
successfully put into execution his theo-
ries was simply impossible. The effort
was bona fde made, aud the removal Of
fifteen ladies by the superintend-
ent for any such assigned cause was
an act Of official power that will
in time consign its author to merited re-
buke. 1t viii not do to attempt TO shift
odium Of their removal to principals
schools. The rule Of the Board gov
the election of principals and
teachers is SO plain that the superintend-
ent cannot shirk the responsibility.
Section "a, page 45, of the rules is
as follows: Principals and teachers
shall be elected by the Board only
their nomination By the super
.intendent, president and committee
on teachers, but the Board may
to elect the nominee" 1t is man.
ifest that the President and committee
only make nominations from a list Of
names submitted by the superintendent.
Principals could not (under the rule) be
required to furnish the committee with
a list Of teachers. The superintendent
was the only proper person to make
nominations. 1t is not likely that the
President or committee could know who
were proper parties for election and who
Tor rejection. / conclude that under the
rule the superintendent is responsible
for the removal Of the ladies referred to.
and not the principals Of schools. II
he did not make the nominations he has
violated a rule of the Board, for which
he should be removed. In matters of
such serious import to the schools as
this such things o1ght not to be passed
over in silence. 1t is no defense for the
superintendent to hurl his inveetiyes
against the State Legislature, and spe
cially against Hon. Luke W. Finlay. as
the author Of the ten-cent clause in the
school law. do not know what motive
actuated the lawmakers Of our State in
the reduction Of the school tax. but /
think may safely hazard the opinion
that it was not intended to initiate
against the schools, as they should be
managed, not as they are managed. l
can easily see how the emorooouo,