It was the idea that membership on the board should be looked upon solely as a service to the community. In St. Louis it has been necessary within the year to get a legal opinion upon a question involving the exclusive charter right of the superintendent of schools to initiate educational measures, but in that city the opinion adverse to the right of nonprofessional initiative was apparently accepted as final and no legislative action has been sought looking toward the removal of the safeguards against lay interference embodied in the charter of 1909. OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY ON POWERS OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF INSTRUCTION. I herewith submit my opinion on the power of the board to adopt and to put into effect the resolution offered by Dr. J. P. Harper at the May meeting of the board. That resolution had for its object a material change in the organization of the teaching force and would have had an important bearing on the conduct of the schools. Its adoption was sought without regard to the opinion or recommendation thereon of the superintendent of instruction. The question is: Has the board, as distinguished from its superintendent of instruction, the power under the law to deal with such a question as this? What are the relative rights of the board and its executive officers, particularly its superintendent of instruction? Reference to sections 11029 et seq. of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1909, being the charter of the Board of Education of the city of St. Louis, will quickly dispose of the question. At the very outset, in section 2 of the charter (sec. 11030, R. S. Mo., 1909), it is provided: * Every city in this State now having or which may hereafter have five hundred thousand inhabitants or more * * shall be and constitute a single school district, shall be a body corporate, and the supervision and government of public schools and public school property therein shall be vested in a board of 12 members superintendent of instruction and a commissioner of school buildings. * * and in a Thus, in the very section of the act creating the board and dealing with its powers and duties, the legislature expressly states that the government of public schools and public school property shall be vested not in the board alone, as might be supposed, but in the board and in the superintendent of instruction and commissioner of school buildings. But by section 7 of the act (sec. 11035, R. S. Mo., 1909) the powers of the superintendent of instruction and his duties and obligations are specifically set forth and defined. There it is provided the superintendent shall nominate his assistants. The number of them and their salaries are to be fixed by the board, but who they shall be is determined by the superintendent, and not by the board. The section closes with the provision that the superintendent "shall be responsible to the board for the condition of instruction and discipline of the schools." * * * * * * Under the provisions of the charter, the board of education, as distinguished from its executive officers, is given exclusive authority over the expenditure of public money for school purposes. It is charged with the responsibility of securing the best qualified experts available to carry on the work of public education and then is under the obligation to supervise the work of such experts and to see to it that they are performing their duties adequately and efficiently. But it is obvious that by virtue of the provisions of the statutes above quoted, the organization of the teaching force of the public school system is entirely under the supervision and control of the superintendent of instruction, and any change therein can be made only when recommended by him. If the board of education, as distinguished from its instruction department, were to exercise such power as was attempted to be invoked by the resolution under consideration, it is conceivable that a situation might easily develop wherein the superintendent of instruction, an expert chosen by reason of his peculiar qualifications as an educator, would be without any voice in the organization of the teaching force, and consequently, without any power or control over the organization of the instruction and of the discipline of the schools, and yet, by reason of the express provisions of the statutes, be still chargeable with the responsibility for the proper conduct of the schools. * * * This is the most vital and most important feature of our charter, and is the feature that distinguishes it from the school law which preceded it, and from school laws generally existing throughout the country at the time our charter was adopted. * * * That this view of our school law was well understood and acknowledged by those interested in its enactment is abundantly demonstrated, not only by the testimony of its framers and advocates, but also by contemporaneous publications discussing and analyzing the new legislation. * * * A society was formed called the Civic Federation, whose sole object was to draft a new school law and to bring about its enactment by the General Assembly of Missouri. *** There were people and publications, of course, who were opposed to the bill which this committee prepared and which the Civic Federation induced the legislature to adopt. That these opponents of the measure recognized and acknowledged the great power and independence given by the new law to the superintendent of instruction is seen in the articles appearing at the time in the St. Louis "Mirror" which gave much space to criticisms on this very point. * * * And that the great power and independence of the superintendent of instruction are not an unforeseen and accidental result of haphazard legislation, but were deliberately planned and intended by the framers of the law, is equally discoverable from the newspapers and periodicals of the time. Members of the Civic Federation committee testify with positiveness and pride that this was the chief end they as a committee unanimously worked to accomplish. The view of these framers of our charter was reflected in an article published in 1903 in the “Educational Review." * The article appears in volume 26, pages 464 et seq., and was written by Mr. Edward (. Elliot, one of the leading members of the St. Louis bar. * Not only does * * it make clear the relative rights, duties, and powers of the board and its executive officers, but it also brings out most conspicuously the great advantage to the school system of St. Louis resulting from the scheme of school administration established by our charter: "The fundamental principle of the St. Louis law lies in the centralization of the administrative functions in expert school officers, while the supervisory control is left to persons elected by the people, but not specially qualified in the various departments of educational work. To attain the efficiency of one man, together with the wisdom of a larger number, not impairing either quality by the intermingling of their duties, is the new element of discovery, if such it may be called, in connection with this law. "The business of the schools is divided among four departments, over each of which is an officer appointed by the board. These officers are known as 'Superintendent of Instruction,' 'Commissioner of School Buildings,' 'Secretary and Treasurer,' and 'Auditor.' The law defines the qualifications, which are such as specially fit the officers for their respective duties. Their terms of office are fixed, and they can be removed by the board only upon a two-thirds vote and for cause. Immediately upon their appointment they become to a great extent independent of the board and directly responsible to the public." In 1905, Boston reduced the number of members of its school committee from 24 to 5. Persistent attempts have been made, one within the year, to increase the membership, but so far without avail. In other cities which have reduced the size of their school boards, there appear to have been no serious attempts to return to former conditions. In the list of cities that have reduced the size of the school board are: Perth Amboy, N. J.; Naugatuck, Conn.; New Orleans, La.; Lynn, Mass.; Covington, Lexington, Newport, and Paducah, Ky.; and Newton and New Bedford, Mass. Under the commission form of government, Chattanooga, Tenn., has one commissioner of education instead of a board of education. Stockton and Sacramento, Cal., and Salem, Mass., have changed from the district with large board to a commission form with five members. The Kansas State Legislature two years ago enacted a law providing for boards of education composed of six members in all cities of the first and second class, that is, all cities of 2,000 population or more. The State of Ohio has this year enacted a law which limits the size of school boards in all cities of the State. Boards in cities of less than 50,000 inhabitants will consist of not less than three nor more than five members elected at large; similarly in cities of 50,000 to 150,000 inhabitants the minimum number of members will be two and the maximum seven; in cities of more than 150,000 inhabitants the corresponding limits on membership are five as a minimum, seven as a maximum. All cities in Pennsylvania, except Altoona and Wilkes-Barre, have reduced. the size of their school boards under the provisions of the new State code. In every case the smaller board has been more efficient and business has been transacted more promptly and with less friction. The New York City school board still consists of 46 members. Recently the two experts who were employed by the board of estimate to investigate the organization, status, and procedure of the department of education, Prof. Goodnow, of Columbia University, and Dr. Howe, of the People's Institute, have announced their findings and recommendations: The board of education is acting upon the false conception of its proper powers and functions. Instead of confining itself to the larger problems of legislation and surveillance contemplated for it by the charter and dictated to it by all considerations of efficiency, it has attempted to intervene either as a whole or through standing committees in the overwhelming mass of minute details involved in the administration of the department. The board should divest itself of all its purely administrative functions. It should be reduced in size. The charter should be amended to provide that the board shall consist of eight members, three of whom shall represent the city at large and shall have three votes each, and the remaining five of whom shall be appointed, one from each of the five boroughs, with the members from Manhattan, the Bronx, and Brooklyn having two votes each and the members from Queens and Richmond having one vote each. The experts state that this reorganization along these lines would promote facility in handling the larger affairs and problems of the board of education, and would place the purely detailed matter of administration upon the school and supervising authorities. It is not always the big city that needs to have its school administration simplified. Among the cities that have new charters Schenectady, N. Y., furnishes a striking example of what to avoid in charter making. The school board of this city furnishes the taxpayers with the following information: one The Schenectady public schools are conducted under a special school charter which became effective May 23, 1908. This charter provides for a board of education of five members, appointed by the mayor. The term of three members expires on year, of two members the next, and so on alternately. In this way each mayor, elected for two years, has the power to appoint an entirely new board of education. The charter defines the powers and duties of the board, making both positive and negative provisions. The board Positive provisions. 1. Elects annually one of its members president. 2. Elects annually a secretary who shall not be a member of the board. 3. Elects a superintendent of schools for an indeterminate term. 4. Appoints clerks, attendance officers, physicians, nurses, teachers, etc. 5. Prescribes the courses of study, textbooks, and all apparatus of instruction. 6. Adopts rules for the general management of the schools. 7. Recommends the purchase of land for school sites. 8. Recommends the erection of new buildings. Negative provisions. The board 1. Shall not appoint school janitors. 2. Shall not control the janitors. 3. Shall have no voice in determining when school buildings shall be altered or repaired. 4. Shall have no power to prepare plans or draw up specifications for new buildings. 5. Shall have no power to fix salaries of any employees, whether clerk, nurse, physician, teacher, principal, or superintendent. 6. Shall have no power to expend money, but all purchases shall be made by the commissioner of public works. 7. Shall have only limited powers of contract. 8. Shall own nothing, sell nothing. By charter provision, therefore, the commissioner of public works transacts the fllowing board of education business: 1. Appoints janitors. 2. Defines the duties of janitors. 3. Transfers janitors. 4. Determines when repairs shall be made and decides what these repairs shall be. 5. Prepares plans for new buildings and writes specifications for the same. 6. Expends all the money in the board of education budget except teachers' salaries. The board of estimate and apportionment transacts the following board of education business: 1. Fixes all salaries of janitors, nurses, physicians, teachers, principals, superintendent. The board of aldermen control the following board of education business: 1. Purchase of school sites by recommendation of the board of education. 2. The alteration of old buildings. 3. The erection of new buildings. The board of contract and supply transacts the following board of education business through the commissioner of public works: 1. Makes all purchases amounting to more than $250 and writes the specifications for the articles purchased, such as pianos, scientific instruments, manual-training equipment, school furniture, library books, textbooks, etc. 2. Makes all contracts and writes the specifications for the same, such as building constructions, ash collections, etc. 3. Sells school properties when authorized by the board of aldermen. In contrast with this complex administrative scheme, that provided for the Pittsburgh school system under the new Pennsylvania Code is impressive in its simplicity. The city of Pittsburgh was constituted a city of the first class by the enactment of the school code May 18, 1911. Under the new law, which became operative in November of the same year, the entire management of the public schools of Pittsburgh and the former Allegheny school district is vested in a body of 15, who are appointed by the judges of the courts of common pleas for a term of six years, and who are collectively and officially known as the board of public education. The secretary, who is not a member, is the board's general executive. The board of education has three standing committees-finance and administration, property and supplies, and instruction. The school controller, elected by the people as the city controller, approves all financial orders authorized by the board not contrary to law and audits all accounts of the board. The school treasurer receives all funds belonging to the district and pays out the same on proper orders approved by the school controller. The superintendent of buildings has general charge of all matters pertaining to the physical school plant, including construction, repairs, permanent equipment, and operation. The superintendent of supplies is the general purchasing and distributing officer of the board and has charge of all material duly authorized for the various departments in school operation. The superintendent of schools is the educational head of the school system and is elected for a term of four years. He is empowered to recommend to the board all subordinates in his department, plan and supervise their work, and shape the constructive policy of the schools. In the general supervision he is aided by one associate superintendent and four assistant district superintendents. The individual school, with its corps of teachers under a principal, constitutes the unit in local management. II. MEASURING THE SCHOOL'S EFFICIENCY. The attempt to establish definite standards of efficiency is as new in the business and industrial field as it is in education. Mr. Taylor began his experiments at the Midvale Steel Works, in the system now known by his name, fully 20 years before he was ready to announce his plans, and in all probability another 20 years will have passed before the Taylor System will have made converts of a majority |