Evening star., 1920-03-30
DR.. \. B. LEARNED
HEARD AS WITNESS
AT SCHOOL INQUIRY
Indorses Criticism of Supt.
Thurston Made by School
Board Members.


Of the board of education, was re-
sponsible for his appointment on the
board, DR.. H. B. Learned testified be-
fore the Senate select committee in
vestigating the school system Of the
District today.
He told the committee that he had
been approached by DR.. Van Schaick
on the matter and that after reflect
ing for ten days he had replied that
he would serve if appointed.
After that he heard nothing more of
the matter, DIR. Learned said, until he
was appointed.
responsible for your appointment as
member of the board of education so
far as you know" asked Senator Har-
rison, a member of the committee.
That rs an entirely fair statement.
1 think" replied DR.. Learned.
The witness testified that DR.. Van
Schaick had first approached him In
the Cosmos Club regarding the matter.
He said that he did not know DR.. Van
Schaick we'll at the time. For thirty
years. he said, he had been in touch
with teachers and educational mat
ters. for time at Yale University.
While in Washington, he said. he had
been engaged in research work at the
Library of Congress. preparing book.
Criticises supt. Thurston.
The witness repeated in effect the
criticisms of Superintendent of
Schools Thurston made by other men,
bers of the board, accusing him of
being dilatory and procrastinating.
He said he believed that fault was
largely responsible for the delay In
the case of Charlotte Hunter. a
teacher in the colored schools. who
nected with that of Moens. DR..
Learned denied that he had asked the
superintendent to delay action in the
case of Miss Hunter, and criticised
that official for not taking the matter
up with Assistant Superintendent of
Schools Bruce in December. 1918.
DR.. Learned's Appointment.
Questioned by Senator Harrison of
Mississippi as to how he happened to
become member Of the board of
education, DIR. Learned said that he
Schaick and asked if he would serve
on the board II appointed. DR.. Learn
ed said that at the time he hardly
knew DR.. Van Schaick at all. He
gave the matter consideration for ten
days, he said, and then replied to DR..
IL
appointed.
DR.. Learned said that Supt. Thurs
ton had been reelected just previous
ly. and that. therefore, that matter
did not come before him for consid-
Grafton when he sss appointed to the
ss.;s.s ssss.sf B. ssSs;sR saa sssn eas
any way RESPONSIBLE. SO far As he
knew. for his appointment as a mem-
Der Of the board.
"If it is an entirely fair statement
sponsible for my appointment" re-
piled DR.. Learned.
Knew In . General Way.
The witness AAtold the committee
that he knew in a general way that
there had been a question as to
the advisibility of re-electing Supt.
Thurston in 1917. and that, therefore,
he had determined to keep his eyes
open in regard to the superintend-
ent's Qualification and his ability to
handle the job. In 1918, he said, he
mind as to the matter. He said that
it seemed that the schools had run
fairly smoothly.
Dr. Learned said, however. that 1t
began to appear to him that the
superintendent brought far too many
discussion. He said that the board
met at $3.50 o'clock and consumed a
long time in its private conferences
before going into open session.
Now and then there was helpful
discussions about these matters sub
mitted by the superintendent" said
the witness, but there were entirely
too many little matters. I asked my
self why? That was one of the mat
ters which began to trouble me about
the superintendent and the schools.
"In the summer OF 1913 discussed
president, and my colleagues on the
board. 1t seemed advisable. and 1t
was determined that at 4:30 o'clock
on the days of the meetings the board
should go into open session and put
through whatever had been deter
mined upon.
Wanted Business Calendar.
'In the autumn Of 1918 I urged
upon Mr.. Hamilton and the super
intendent the Advisability of having
the superintendent prepare a docket
be Submitted to the board. This plan
seemed to strike the superintendent
favorably. Mr. Hamilton and drew
up a simple statement regarding the
plan. 1 have kept track more or less
of the workings OF this docket. l
tween March 19. 1919. and November
5. 1919. showing how the plan
worked"
DR.. Learned said that in ten meet
ings 1873 subjects were put on the
docket by the superintendent and
that the board disposed OF forty
seven, which left balance of 106.
which. he said, may or may not have
been disposed Of at other meetings.
DR.. Learned said that it had been
his experience as an instructor at
Yale, and now Stanford University.
that not more than four or fve topics
can be discussed intelligently in an
hour at conferences similar 10 tnose
held by the board.
Kept "Flooding In"
81 asked the superintendent why we
had to discuss so many topics. when. in
all human weakness, we could not get
through with more than four or five.
Yet these topics kept flooding in to the
hoard l felt sure that proper ad-
ministration of the schools did not call
for SO many minor topics to be pre-
sented to the board. especially when
some of the larger topics were pending,
for instance, the Hunter case.
"What were some of these minor
tonics YOU think the superintendent
shonid have handled without submit
ting to the board?' asked Senator Har-
riSon.
The witness replied that ne could not
give the details offhand. Refreshing
his mind from some of his records, he
suggested the following as minor topics
as presented to the board by the super
intendent:
A request regarding the community
opera. a memorandum regarding secret
Societies, the situation concerning
woman laborerS for the schools.
Senator Harrison wanted to know if
such topics might not. after all, be
somewhat important.
The witness replied that they might
be important, but that he considered
they should have been dealt with by the
superintendent.
DIN xour opinion the PRESENTATION of