The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-12-19
TIE PROBLEM OF SUPERVISING
TEACHERS.


In u very thoughtful article In the
December number Of Education, Il. II.
Fishback, Il school principal, DISCUSSES
the problem How In dealing with
teachers, can the ideals of the super
lintcndent or principal best be carried
out?" Mr. Fishback stands firmly for
discipline, and the legitimate and wise
authority OF the superintendent OF
principal, but he maintains that In
order to insure the one and enforce
the other SO as to command the best
work both from the teacher and the
pupil, first and foremost the loyalty
of the teacher must be secured.
There are superintendent and prln-
cipals. he notes. who may feel proud of
themselves, and think they are getting
I things done II by 4 wave of the hand
they can cause the whole teaching
CORPS to quake. These command obc-
dicnce, but not loyalty. however. The
teacher may try to please such 4 SUI
pcrintendent or principal willie lie is
present, although his orders are against
their judgment, yet, after he leaves,
the situation and impulse are very
different. and the orders are carried
out only in half-hearted way Those
above should not forget MIR. Fishback
lays down as an axiom that those be-
low have also q sphere of authority.
and. in order that the former may
be guaranteed the genuine loyalty of
the latter, lie argues, "thcre must he
Keen sense Of respect OF the teachers
authority on the part OF the superln-
tendent or principal"
1t is the little thing that counts
the human nature element that tells,
more Than anything else in solving the
problem. the don't" more than tho
does at the last. Mr.. Fishback holds,
ana by way of Illustration he goes
into some details
There Is, he affirms. and soundly,
VIC agree, sphere in which the
teacher should reign, and any med
ding. especially in tho case or tar
woman teacher. destroys self CONT
dcnce and tends to induce over-con-
seriousness. 1t is humiliating, he
noints out. to Il teacher to have a
principal or superintendent come into
the room, walk to tho window and
raise or lower the blinds to suit his
own ideas, without consulting her. 1T
puts her In Il bad light before The
pupils and, obviously, as the writer
implies, lowers the respect of tn.
children for the teacher. Again. OBJ
serves Mr.. Fishback, IL makes a
teacher dihident TO have her rcclta-
tion taken unceremoniously from her
by ono who has not prepared for il,
who understands nothing OF the pur-
pose of this particular lesson, and
whose only excuse for taking II is his
authority. Mr.. Fishback admits that
a principal or superintendent has all
power. and logically all power. to take
n pupil from the room without the
consent of the teacher, but he doubts
seriously the discretion OF exercising
II, and runs no chances of making a
mistake in saying that the superin-
tcndent or principal would find that he
MAKES more scll-Teiiant ana reliable
| teachers IL he asks permission to talk
| to the child.
Another thing Mr.. Fishback strongly
| antagonizes is the. habit OF some prin-
cipals and superintendent Of dealing
with teachers as some teachers deal
with children-that Is TO say. giving
the teacher all the details of work
themselves. The evil OF this. of not
permitting q teacher to suggest, is
clear. he thinks, and SO It strikes US.
when we reflect that not only arc
teachers more interested in q course