Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-02-15
The Dolliver Bill.

The Dolliver school bill. now pending in
tic Senate with a favorable report. chal-
lenges criticism in three main particulars.
1t proposes a complete separation of the
schools from the municipal adminstra-
ton and the people. 1t abolshes the
board of education and thereby concen-
trates responsibility in an executive head
chosen by the federal commissioner of
lie sentiment. Finally. it displaces fifteen
of the present educational officials and
provides for the appointment in their
stead cf seven assistant directors. whose
functions are to he more or less identical
with those exercised by the displaced as
s:s;ants and supervisors.
The provision OF the bill that the super
visins principals he abolished is apart
from the main purpose of the measure.
which is 10 readjust the administrative
school organization. with reference to the
higher appointive power. AS far the
teaching body Is concerned. the plan to
concentrate responsibility in director by
whomsoever named reed not stand in any
degree as threat o: displacement. The
new school law OF 1906. now in effect.
carried no such threat Ot disorganiZation
as the supervising principals clause of the
Deliver hill. I. proposed the abolition OF
only single office. It's proponents repeat
eGly declared that under it no person
should lose place. Yet it actually resulted
in disorganizing process probably with
out parallel in the history of the schools.
The teaching force is justified today in
asking whether the Dolliver bill with its
proposed displacement of fifteen officials to
make seven positions. will not yield an
even s-sater harvest of decentralization
and distress.
In their anxiety as TO the possibilities
of school reorganzat ion under the Dolli-
yer bill. the teachers are wondering
whether there is to be any guarantee of
home rule. The director. named by fed
eral official from outside o. Washington
is more than likely to be himself an
outsider There is nothing in the law
as proposed to prevent such an appoint
mtnt. Or 20 prevent the director, when
the chosen. from naming his seven as
s'siants entirely from beyond the bound
aries OF the District. 1t is entirely prob
able that he would in such circumstances
select at least a ajority of his staff from
the states. How far this process of i'm
portation would carry is only to be
imagined.
The supervising principals are close to
the teaching body and to the public as
we'll Each of them has his individual
standing and hold upon the community,
based upon and measured by his personal
character and professional efficiency The
Dolliver bill proposes not merely a change
In the system of supervision. but the Off
cial decapitation of the thirteen super
visors. under conditions which give small
promise to the individual supervisor Of
resurrection and future life as assistant
director. There is no public condemnation
or even criticism which applies to all the
supervisors. They have not been con-
cerned in the wrangle between the board
and the late superintendent. The sug-
gestion that the entire body be displaced
to make way for seven assistant direc-
tors has not only brought keen distress
OF mind to the threatened supervisors,
but is causing widespread unrest on the
part of parents. who do not relish this
additional upheaval. certain to cause a
weakening of the schools efficiency for
several seasons.
Educat.Onally. the wisdom of the SUBJ
stitution of seven assistant directors for
the thirteen supervising principals has
been brought seriously into question by
some who are qualified to speak on the
subject. There are square differences of
opinion among students of pedagogy as to
the best methods of supervising and di-
rection. This is subject that requires
careful consideration. Il should not be
decided off-hand; and. when decided. the
conclusion reached should not in practical
operation be hastily, drastically and crue,-
~ applied