Year: 1876

it demands the consideration of all inter-


ested in the welfare of our public school


system. A rule of the board, which has


existed from the earliest times, gives to each


sub board the power to nominate teachers


in their respective districts, subject to con-


firmation by the general board. The rea-


son of the rule and its propriety are very


evident. The members of the sub-board
are supposed to visit the schools under
their charge frequently, and to understand
the qualiic atoms of the teachers, and they
are looked upon as responsible for the con-


dition of the schools. That there may
have been cases in which personal friend
ship or sympathy influenced them to retain
teachers not fully qualified is not lmpos-
sible. The weakness that would lead to
this is at least amiable. The change pro-
posed was to amend the rule so as to re-
quire the nominations of the sub-board to
be referred to the committee on teachers
for revision, in order that that committee
might weed out those considered incompe-
tent. The amendment was lost, but


nevertheless, the nominations were re-
ferred by a majority vote. 1t is to the re-
suit of this action that we call the atten-
ton of our readers. The sub boards, as
appears from the record of the meeting,
Immediately made pro .torna nominations
of the entire list of last year, and upon the
committee then deyolved the duty of re-
visIng the list 1t will be seen at once
that this relieved the sub-boards of all re.
spensibility. Let any name be dropped,
each member of the subboards can say. if
demonstrated with, we are not respon.
sible; we nominated you, but the commit
tee struck off your name. Who, then, are
the committed What superior knowledge
have they? They represent the first five
districts. If each of them cannot be trusted
in his own, where he may have some
knowledge, how much more worthy of
confidence will he prove voting in cases
of which he can have none3 They are
open to anonymous and irresponsible com
plant from all who have grievances, real
or imaginary, and who have not the cour-
age or fairness to lay them before SUBJ
board which may know all the facts. We
know of just such cases.


But it may be said that they can obtain
the opinion of the superintendent. But is
he infalliblei Is he-whose visits to each
school cannot average three-quarters of
school day in year-to be the final arbiter
of the destinies of more than two hundred
teachers? Is he more free from favoritism
or prejudice than the trustees? From
small beginnings these schools have sd-
vanced to their present condition, con-
stantly increasing, not only in numbers,
but in efficiency and all that gives value.
This progress has been made, not by vic.
lent changes or sudden revolutions, but by
steady, regular and healthy development.
1t has been made under teachers appointed
and continued under the old system, which
has led them to look upon trustees as their
friends, ready to aid them by advice,
counsel and encouragement, and when
necessary by sdmonilion and reproof.
They have felt that while fidelity and
efficiency would be followed by apprecia-
tion and promotion, neglect, inefficiency,
or positive error would be plainly but
kindly reproved; and when a change was
believed TO be necessary, that the reasons
would be frankly stated to them and their
feelings considered by giving them an op-
portunity of resigning. As we have al
ready said, mistakes may have been made,
but the general result has been favorable.
The system has borne its fruits in that
mutual confidence between teachers and
trustees which has inspired those efforts
which have given US the schools of which
We are justly proud.


But now it is proposed to change the en-
tire system. Instead of imposing the duty
of making the recommendations upon the
sub-boards, and holding them responsible,
it devolyes it upon q committee, large
majority of whose members probably never
even saw the teachers on whom they are to
pass judgment. Teachers are to be re-
moved by those who never gave them sd-
vice, assistance or admonitien, and who in
secret session may listen to all the charges
that malice can invent, and yet afford no
opportunity for defense all responsibility
is avoided. "Thou canst not say did it"
may be the reply of each member of this
secret tribunal when demonstrated with for
his action. IT heretofore trustees in some
cases might have retained friends in posi-
tions for which they were poorly qualified,
now they can with impunity make room
for friends by removing competent teach
ers. The danger is greater in this case
than in the former, for in thst case ''the
crime carried its own punishment" by i'm
posing an additional burden of care upon
the trustee who retained an incompetent
teacher La this 1t brings q reward
by bestowing patronage. Selfshness could
be relied on to prevent the former evil from
running into excess, but it encourages the
growth of the latter. While teacher re-
moved under the old system might feel
that the act was inspired by sense of duty
to the school, guided by knowledge of its
wants, what can be his feelings, what the
effect on the morale of the entire corps,
when after years of diligent labor, during
which he has been daily at his post even when
bodily weakness tempted to absesce; ever
faithfu!-though, perhaps, in some respects
defcient-one is removed by the vote of
those who court secresy, and when the
scale may have been turned by the ballot
of a trustee who has not made even pre-
teDce of dischsrging the duties he had
sworn to perform, and from the beginning
to the end of the year has neglected to visit
even the schools under his immediate
charge? Agsipst the change now inaugu-
rated we protest. 1t is demanded by moth
ing in the history and present condition of
our schools. 1t tends to substitute, on the
part of the teacher, servility for indepeud-
ence, terror for trust, harassing doubt
for friendly confidence. thus re-
placing the motives which inspire to
cheerful and self-sscrifcing effort by those
which destroy self-respsct and chill all en-