The Washington herald., 1920-03-04
Superintendent Flatly d.
MES Charges on Which
Dismissal Was Based.
ALLEGES UNFAIR BIA|
Asserts His Record Demon
strates He Did Not Dodge
Responsibility.

ernoon pitted his strength again
that of the Board of Educatioj
and in a statement made publ
his side of the controversy whic
has developed since the board dc
manded his resignation.
He appeared before the boar(
and an assemblage of 200 teach
ers and citizens in the FrankliI
School board room and read
statement answering charges o
lack of administrative ability and
reluctance to accept full RESPONSE
bility of his post.
Makes Bold Challenge.
In view of his notification tha
the majority OF board member,
would be unable to vote for his re-
election June 80, tantamount to
dismissal. it was thought by SONS
that Thurston's rebuttal would be
a swan song, and sung only for the
benefit of his reputation as an ed
ucator.
Instead. his statement was q
challenge to fight out the issue de-
fined by the board. Not once in the
thirteen typewrittcn pages does the
school superintendent refer to q
forthcoming resignation and the
last paragraph contains the infor-
nation that "at later date he may
go more fully into administrativeI
matters
1t is quite evident from this that
Thurston intends to throw the
whole conflict between himself and
the board into the investigating
mill of Senator Sherman's special
committee on schools, which just
has opened hearings. Out of that
probe may come a complete reor-
ganization of the executive system
of District schools. Thurston evi-
IDENTIFY views with equanimity the
several possible eventualities OF
his fight with the board.
Claims Public Confidence.
Thurston defended his record as
| follows:
Il hold that my record shows
progressive leadership under condf-
| tions of exceptional difficulty; that
it shows administrative strength
in the face of enormous demand
and in spite of inadequate forces:
that 1t shows a meeting of emer-
gencies and vital essentials: that
responsibility has not been avoided,
Out sought, and that with a clear
conception of the proper function
OF board of education and of a
superintendent of schools l have
not taken any attitude or position
which should justly lead to diff
ferences with the board.
hold that in very large meas
ure the community has realized
something of my difficulties and
given me its confidence. support
and cooperation. hold that the
vast majority of the force under
me mas confidence in me. and that
lack the support only of that
: group led by a few leaders who
nave not sought conference and CO.
operation. but antagonism and DOM
nation"
Affects Van Schaick's Chances.
When the reading was comnIetaa
the applause seemed to indicate that
the sentiment of the audience.
teachers and citizens was strongly
with the superintendent.
| IL Is felt in official circles that
this development in the school situ-
atlon may prejudice the chances of
Dr. Van Schaick to be confirmed by
the Senate as District Commissioner
: 10 succeed Gwynn Gardiner.
lhurston's statement opened with
mention of the action of board
members in informal conference al
the home of DIR. Van Schaick. which
resulted in the decision to dispense
! with the supcrintendcnt's services
ana at which, he declared. he was
charged. tried. condemned and
+ sentenced in secret and in his ab-
sence"
Quoting many educational au-
thorities to prove his contention.
he summarized in these words:
| fundamentally, a board of educa-
ton. like board of directors in
business. deals with general poll
cles, but ought not attempt to
upsurp the function of the adminis-
trative officer, the superintendent"
Charge OF Interference.
His administration was primarily
impeded. he said, by attempted dicta-
tion OF appointments to the school
force by board members, whereas
the board should approve or dis
approve these changes and appoint
ments and il disapproved the SUPER
intendent must make other recom-
mendations."
He next attacked and frequently
criticised star chamber proceedings
Of the board.
The secret conferences of the
board" he said, give opportunity
! for the free expression of feeling OF
board members against the superin-
itendent in connection with nominal
tions. ] have been attacked and
criticised many times when / wa,
acting fully under The law and when
majority of the board could at
any time turn down a nomination
and force me to make another"
DIR. Van Schaick opposed his ad-
ministration from the first, he
averred. Shortly after his election
as the board president in July. 1916,
he declared. DIR. Van Schaick told
him the schools were in bad shape
! and needed new superintendent,
| but that he would take a year be-
fore finally deciding about Thurston.
Long before the year was up"
coyrISIrD ne pAar rua