The Washington times., 1906-12-28

Certain recent happenings affecting the
District schools, particularly an inter-
view with the superintendent published
in The Times of last Sunday, and
letter sent by him TO the members Of
the Board of Education, impel this paper
10 break rather a long silence on school
affairs.
When the present school law was ap-
proved by the President, The Times
hoped the need for special activity on
its part in school matters had passed
A reorganization which every interest
of the system required had been accom-
plished; the pay of the teachers had
been adjusted-in part. at least; needed
educational inspiration was fairly TO be
expected; il had been made plain that
the schools must be conducted for the
good OF the pupils, and no one else.
Under such circumstances the duty Of
this paper was TO report the proceedings
OF the new officials without favor or
prejudice, and comment upon them edi-
tOridlly only when special occasion de-
manded. That occasion has now arisen
through series of extremely unWise
and regrettable outbursts from the new
superintendent, of which the two in
dicated are the latest.
Opposition TO the new authorities
created by the present school law de-
veloped at the outset In one certain
quarter, and has been continued in that
quarter alone. Before DR.. Chancellor
could reach Washington he was con-
demned. Since that time he has been
bitterly. almost maliciously, attacked for
not meeting $1,000 pupils of the
system personally, for not provid-
ing courses OF study. for going
South TO inspect advanced schools for
eolored youth, for a purpose to remove
efficient teachers without reason or
form. and for lobbying in Congress.
Practically all this criticism is utter
ly unfounded. Ii is an absurdity to ask
the head OF a system like that of Wash
ington 10 meet 5000 pupils Individually
Courses OF study, improved far beyond
those of last year. had been promuI-
gated at the opening of the term. and
We're IL force at the very time this
charge was published. The trip South
was taken at the direction of the Board
of Education. and 1t. not the superin-
tendent was responsible for the whole
project There has never been the slight
est good reason 10 think the superinten-
dent ever undertook to remove any
teacher save to fulfill a program Of
promoting the efficient and dismissing
the inefficient as a competent peda~ogue
was able TO judge the value of his sub
ordinates. Inquiry at the Capitol tails
to show the slightest substance to sup
port the accusation that the superin-
tendent offended there against any
standard of good morals or good taste.
campaign along such lines was sure
TO fail. More than that, it was sure
10 enlist in support OF the person at
tackled the sympathy of every clear
minded and earnest citizen. 1t has been
decidedly gratifying. and it promised
well for the whole cause of public edu-
cation IN the District. that the superin-
tendent recognized this, 8rd waited for
the right TO assert itself.
However. a new factor entered into
the situation. Other authorities than
the Board Of Education and the super
intendent came into contact. and con-
fict, with them as TO the enforcement
of the law. BY its provisions-perhaps
unfortunately-the Commissioners had
to rule upon certain expenditures of the
board. Subsequently, the District Su-
preme Court had to pass upon the
boards construction of the law in re-
moving one of its subordinetes.
Here there was special need for every
one connected with the schools to be
s-s1fiasha- The District Commission