ALBERT R. MANN 
 LIBRARY 
 
 New York State Colleges 
 
 OF 
 
 Agriculture and Home Economics 
 
 at 
 Cornell University 
 
Cornell University Library 
 LA 339.N5A3 1913a 
 New York school inquii7;BeP'y of *" * ss 
 
 3 1924 013 063 890 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924013063890 
 

 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY 
 
 °Reply of the 
 Superintendents 
 
NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY 
 
 Reply of the Association 
 
 of District Superintendents 
 
 of New York 
 
 TO 
 
 Certain Findings and Recommendations of 
 
 Professor Frank M. McMurry and 
 
 Professor Edward C. Elliott 
 
 PREPARED BY A COMMITTEE 
 
 Edited By 
 JOSEPH S. TAYLOR, Pd.D. 
 
 New York 
 1914 
 
LA 
 
 3?9 
 MS 
 
 A3 
 
 Copyright, 1914, 
 By Joseph S. Taylor 
 
 321961 
 
THE COMMITTEE 
 
 o 
 
 William L. Ettinger, Chairman 
 
 Joseph S. Taylor, Secretary 
 William J. O'Shea, Ex-Officio 
 Charles W. Lyon 
 Albert Shiels 
 Edgar Dubs Shimer 
 Grace C. Strachan 
 Joseph H. Wade 
 
PREFATORY NOTE 
 
 A Committee on School Inquiry of the Board of Esti- 
 mate and Apportionment, consisting of Hon. John Purroy 
 Mitchel, Hon. William A. Prendergast, and Hon. Cyrus 
 C. Miller, conducted an examination of the New York 
 school system which began in 1911 and ended in 1913. 
 The results were given to the public as the investigation 
 proceeded in a series of so-called "ad interim" reports. 
 The final report, in three large volumes, aggregating 
 some 1,870 pages, is dated May 29, 1913. 
 
 The professional management and organization of the 
 inquiry were in charge of Prof. Paul H. Hanus, of Har- 
 vard University, who was assisted by a corps of experts. 
 Early in 1913 a monograph was issued covering the fol- 
 lowing problems: "The Quality of Classroom Instruc- 
 tion"; "The Course of Study"; "The Supervision by 
 Principals." The first two topics were treated by Prof. 
 Prank M. McMurry, of Columbia University. The last 
 was handled by Prof. Edward C. Elliott, of the Uni- 
 versity of "Wisconsin. 
 
 Soon after the appearance of this monograph the Asso- 
 ciation of District Superintendents appointed a com- 
 mittee to study the report for the purpose of ascertaining 
 the findings which are correct and the recommendations 
 which should be approved. The following pages embody 
 the conclusions of the committee. The report as here 
 presented was unanimously adopted by the Association 
 and is now modestly offered for the candid judgment of 
 schoolmen and the public. 
 
 The Editoe. 
 
 September 1, 1914. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Page 
 General Summary 11 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Introduction. 
 
 1. Unrest a Sign of Progress 18 
 
 2. A Change Due 19 
 
 3. Our Method of Procedure 20 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Prof. McMurry's Report. 
 
 1. The Quality of Instruction 22 
 
 (1) The Supporting Data 23 
 
 (2) The Standard of the Committee on School 
 Inquiry 26 
 
 (3) Prof. McMurry's Measuring Scale 26 
 
 (a) Analysis of the Standard 27 
 
 (b) Analysis of the Teaching Process 30 
 
 (4) The Elliott Measuring Scale 31 
 
 (5) Important Items Neglected by Prof, Mc- 
 Murry 34 
 
 (a) Personality 34 
 
 (b) The Method-whole 36 
 
 7 
 
Page 
 
 (c) Control of Class 37 
 
 (d) Effort -• 38 
 
 (e) Results 39 
 
 (A) Different Kinds of Knowledge 41 
 
 (B) The Public Demands Knowledge 43 
 
 (6) Conclusion 46 
 
 2. Unification of Kindergarten and Primary 
 
 School '. 46 
 
 3. Limiting the Tendency Toward Uniformity. . 47 
 
 (1) A Plurality of Curricula 48 
 
 (2) A Plurality of Methods 49 
 
 4. The Status of the Classroom Teacher 52 
 
 (1) Obedience as a Virtue 53 
 
 (2) The Liberty of the Teacher 54 
 
 (a) Danger of Too Much Supervision 55 
 
 (b) The Martinet Principal 57 
 
 (c) Freedom Necessary to Personal De- 
 velopment 59 
 
 (d) Liberty Within the Law 61 
 
 (3) Unlimited Uniformity 62 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 Prof. McMurry's Report (Continued). 
 
 1. Opinions of Outside Superintendents 65 
 
 (1) William A. Greeson, Grand Rapids, Mich. 66 
 
 (2) Richard B. Clement, Elizabeth, N. J 66 
 
 (3) Herbert S. Weet, Rochester, N. Y 67 
 
 (4) Thomas S. Weaver, Hartford, Conn 68 
 
 (5) Isaac 0. Winslow, Providence, R. 1 68 
 
 (6) A. R. Brubaker, Schenectady, N. Y 69 
 
 (7) Ella Plagg Young, Chicago, 111 70 
 
 8 
 
Page 
 
 (8) Martin G. Brumbaugh, Philadelphia, Pa. . 70 
 
 (9) Asher J. Jacoby, Elmira, N. Y 70 
 
 (10) Henry P. Emerson, Buffalo, N. Y 71 
 
 (11) John R. Wilson, Paterson, N. J 71 
 
 (12) Charles E. Gorton, Yonkers, N. Y 71 
 
 (13) P. M. Hughes, Syracuse, N. Y 71 
 
 (14) J. M. H. Frederick, Cleveland, 72 
 
 (15) Henry Snyder, Jersey City, N. J 72 
 
 (16) Charles H. Judd, The University of Chi- 
 cago 73 
 
 (17) J. M. Greenwood, Kansas City, Mo 75 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 Dr. Elliott's Report. 
 
 1. The functions of the District Superintendent 78 
 
 (1) The Theory of the District Superinten- 
 dency 80 
 
 (2) The District Superintendent and the Local 
 Board 82 
 
 2. The Size of Supervisory Districts 84 
 
 (1) The Quality of Supervision by Principals. 85 
 (a) "Where the Inquisitors Failed to Inquire 88 
 
 (2) Transferring Supervisory Functions to 
 Principals 91 
 
 (a) Approval of Requisitions 92 
 
 (b) Changes of Furniture 92 
 
 (c) Visiting Blanks for Teachers 93 
 
 (d) Teachers in Charge of Schools 93 
 
 3. The Method of Selecting District Superin- 
 
 tendents 93 
 
 (1) The Facts in the Case 94 
 
 9 
 
Page 
 
 (a) Summary 99 
 
 4. The Supervisory Activities of District Super- 
 
 intendents 100 
 
 (1) The Standard of Qualification 100 
 
 (a) Direct Evidence in the Case 102 
 
 (b) Indirect Evidence in the Case 103 
 
 (c) Conclusion 108 
 
 5. The Eating of Teachers 108 
 
 (1) Causes of Variations 112 
 
 6. The Bating of Principals 114 
 
 7. The Net Eesult of the Inquiry 116 
 
 10 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 GENERAL SU.MMARY 
 
 In the following twenty-nine paragraphs the discus- 
 sion of this report is briefly summarized : 
 
 1. Unrest and a clamor for change are normal phe- 
 nomena attending progress. Therefore the criticism of 
 the existing school system is not in itself an unfavorable 
 sign. 
 
 2. Our method of procedure is to reverse the order 
 of the investigators. We start with the formulated con- 
 clusions and work back to the facts on which these con- 
 clusions are based. 
 
 3. Prof. McMurry says "twelve persons" shared in 
 the collection of data. He should have given the names 
 of these persons, so that we might know whether they are 
 qualified to sit in judgment on the work of New York 
 teachers, principals, and superintendents. 
 
 4. He says he collected facts in sixty schools ; but he 
 fails to name the schools or to tell what facts were 
 found in each school. It is therefore impossible to verify 
 his report. Hence his work is unscientific; for science 
 is verified and verifiable knowledge. 
 
 5. The four standards — motivation, values, organ- 
 ization, and initiative — which Prof McMurry applied 
 
 11 
 
12 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPOET 
 
 as the sole test of teaching ability, are inadequate for 
 the purpose because : 
 
 (1) They are admittedly new and unusual. v 
 
 (2) They are not accurately denned. 
 
 (3) They are not quantitative units. 
 
 (4) They do not apply to all kinds of learning. 
 
 6. The above judgment is sustained by twenty-six 
 out of twenty-seven prominent superintendents of 
 American cities who have expressed their opinions to 
 our committee. 
 
 7. Prof. McMurry and Dr. Elliott confessedly based 
 some of their important conclusions upon informal talks 
 with teachers, principals, and superintendents. Surely 
 no one can justly claim that such anonymous informa- 
 tion is scientific evidence. 
 
 8. The School Inquiry Committee of the Board of 
 Estimate condemns such methods of investigation when 
 (speaking of the rejected Moore report) it says : "Noth- 
 ing could hurt the constructive work of this board more 
 grievously, or could militate more strongly against the 
 constructive results of similar inquiries throughout the 
 country, than for this board to permit one of those in 
 its employ to render to it a false and unfounded report 
 without stigmatizing it as such." 
 
 9. The scale for measuring teaching efficiency devised 
 by Prof. Elliott assigns only 5 points out of 100 to the 
 four standards with which Prof. McMurry measured the 
 New York teachers. In other words, Dr. Elliott sustains 
 the judgment of this committee and of the twenty-six 
 outside superintendents quoted, to the effect that Prof. 
 McMurry's measuring scale is wholly inadequate. 
 
REPLY OP THE SUPEEINTENDENTS 13 
 
 10. Some of the vital elements of teaching which 
 Prof. McMurry ignored are: 
 
 (1) Personality. 
 
 (2) The method-whole. 
 
 (3) Discipline. 
 
 (4) Effort. 
 
 ( 5 ) Eesults in the form of knowledge, skill, and habits. 
 
 11. While Prof. McMurry scorns knowledge as a test 
 of teaching, the Mayor of New York, in a letter quoted, 
 the board of education, in a report quoted, and the pub- 
 lic, demand knowledge as the outcome of instruction. 
 
 12. The only concrete evidence submitted by Prof. 
 McMurry on the efficiency of teachers is an analysis of 
 the work of twenty teachers out of a total of more than 
 15,000. In the ease of nineteen of the twenty teachers 
 only one lesson is characterized. 
 
 13. We therefore maintain that Prof. McMurry's as- 
 sertion — "that, in general, the instruction in the elemen- 
 tary school is poor" — is not justified by the evidence 
 adduced. We know from daily observation that, in prep- 
 aration and professional enthusiasm, in skill and fidelity, 
 the great majority of our teachers are efficient ; and we 
 believe that upon the whole they are to-day more efficient 
 than they have ever been before. 
 
 14. We agree with Prof. McMurry that a somewhat 
 closer correlation is possible between the kindergarten 
 and the first grade. But we do not subscribe to the doc- 
 trine that learning in the grades is to be merely an in- 
 cident of play. 
 
 15. Prof. McMurry's statement that each school 
 should make its own course of study is absurd. There 
 
14 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 must be substantial uniformity of results in essentials 
 on account of the frequent transfers of children. Flex- 
 ibility may, however, be secured by a liberal amount of 
 unassigned time and a minimum syllabus. 
 
 16. Prof. McMurry advocates unlimited freedom of 
 method for teachers. Ten years ago he advocated one 
 method for all. He is wrong now, and he was wrong 
 then. There is more than one correct method ; but teach- 
 ers should not be permitted to employ methods which 
 are universally condemned by competent critics as in- 
 effective or harmful. 
 
 17. Prof. McMurry asks whether obedience is a vir- 
 tue in teachers, and says that, if it is, every one should 
 understand that fact. We tell him that obedience is a 
 virtue; for both the charter and the by-laws provide 
 severe penalties for insubordination; and disobedience 
 is insubordination. 
 
 18. One of Prof. McMurry's theses is that the prin- 
 cipal should give "advice" to the teachers as to method, 
 but that the teacher should be free to accept or reject 
 such advice. We repudiate this proposition as utterly 
 pernicious. Authority is absolutely essential to the suc- 
 cessful administration of a school. 
 
 19. Prof. McMurry imputes to us this theory: "On 
 account of the size of the system there is scarcely a limit 
 in the extent to which uniformity is necessary." We 
 show by the submission of concrete evidence that no such 
 theory is either held or practiced in New York. 
 
 20. We deny Prof. Elliott's assertion that the theory 
 of the district superintendency is not, "as to its essential 
 elements, carried out in practice." We show by a com- 
 
REPLY OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS 15 
 
 parison of the duties as legally defined with the duties 
 as actually performed, that there is no failure at all. 
 
 21. Prof. Elliott did not study the situation thor- 
 oughly enough to comprehend the theory of the district 
 superintendency. This is proved by the fact that he 
 nowhere includes membership in local school boards 
 when he is discussing the functions of the district super- 
 intendent. We show by an enumeration of duties per- 
 formed by the district superintendent that he is the 
 connecting link between the centre and the periphery of 
 the school system. We quote Prof. McMurry's complaint 
 that the district superintendent's influence is too great 
 rather than too small. 
 
 22. We admit Dr. Elliott's statement that the super- 
 visory districts are too large. 
 
 23. We deny Dr. Elliott's statement that "only a 
 moderate supervisory skill on the part of principals, as- 
 sistants to principals, and heads of departments can be 
 granted"; and we deny his competence to express any 
 reliable judgment on this point on the ground that he 
 did not make a thorough examination of a single school 
 or even of a single class. 
 
 24. We agree with Dr. Elliott that certain functions 
 now performed by the district superintendent might 
 properly be transferred to principals. 
 
 25. Dr. Elliott's statement that "all of the district 
 superintendents, except two or three, are products of 
 New York education, New York training, and New York 
 experience," is false. Eighty per cent, of us have had out- 
 side training, and fifty per cent, of us have had outside 
 experience. There is no excuse for such a deliberate 
 
16 NEW FORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 misstatement of fact for the purpose of bolstering up an 
 argument on "inbreeding." 
 
 26. It is claimed by Dr. Elliott that the board of 
 superintendents has no "well-established standards of 
 qualification for the nomination of district superinten- 
 dent." "We show by quotations from the charter and the 
 by-laws that the legal qualifications are very high and 
 would effectually exclude an incompetent person from 
 appointment to the office of district superintendent. 
 
 27. Dr. Elliott is not competent to express a reliable 
 judgment on the merits of district superintendents be- 
 cause: 
 
 (1) He interviewed only about half a dozen.* 
 
 (2) He made no thorough examination of the methods 
 and results of their work. 
 
 (3) The questionnaire he sent out was so ambiguous 
 that the answers to it were necessarily worthless. 
 
 28. Dr. Elliott presents an interesting exhibit com- 
 paring the ratings of principals and district superin- 
 tendents of certain groups of teachers. There is some 
 truth in his claim that the differences between the rat- 
 ings of principals and district superintendents suggest 
 the propriety of examining the methods of rating now 
 in use. But his assertion that the ratings of principals 
 are discounted by a mere whim of the district superin- 
 tendent is shown to be unfounded. The very fact that 
 the charter provides for two ratings implies the existence 
 of a double standard. We have shown that the ratings 
 
 •He did call a meeting of district superintendents one after- 
 noon, but the information he obtained on that occasion could 
 hardly be made the basis of a report. 
 
REPLY OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS 17 
 
 of the two supervising officials may be different, and 
 yet both correct ; because the two judgments are founded 
 Upon different sets of data. 
 
 29. The final conclusion of this review is that the 
 whole inquiry with reference to the teaching and super- 
 vision of elementary schools is a set of opinions backed 
 by guesses and assumptions. 
 
18 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 CHAPTER II 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 1. Unrest a Sign of Progress. — There is a supersti- 
 tion familiar to us all which maintains that the human 
 body is renewed once in seven years. Science has not 
 verified this belief, but it has shown that renewal is es- 
 sential to health. Life means the using up of energy 
 stored up in cells. When a cell is destroyed, a new one 
 is born. The dead cell is waste and must be immediately 
 removed, else it will act as a poison. Hence the necessity 
 for breathing and the circulation of the blood. Both of 
 these functions are concerned in the process of remov- 
 ing waste material and building up new tissue. This is 
 what Herbert Spencer has called "continuous adjust- 
 ment." If for any reason the adjustment is interrupted, 
 even for a moment, death ensues. When breathing stops 
 or the heart ceases to pump blood to the brain, life ends. 
 
 Institutions, like individuals, are all the time under- 
 going changes. They maintain their life only by con- 
 tinuous adjustment. They also produce dead cells and 
 find it necessary to rebuild worn-out tissue. A merchant 
 who should undertake to conduct a business to-day after 
 the manner of his father's could not possibly succeed. 
 Firms and corporations are constantly being forced to 
 
REPLY OP THE SUPERINTENDENTS 19 
 
 the wall because they fail to readjust themselves to match 
 the changing order. The school is an institution. It 
 lives by continuous adjustment. The life of a people 
 determines its educational ideals. As the mode or stand- 
 ard of life changes, the school must change also. Every 
 generation must formulate its own educational creed. 
 The Puritan came to the wild New England shore to 
 enjoy freedom of worship. The school he founded was 
 an expression of himself. Its ideal was religious. The 
 school of any age is an expression of the dominant ideals 
 of the time. This explains why there is constant unrest 
 in all human affairs. Discussions, agitations, reforms, 
 elections, revolutions are evidences of adjustment. 
 "Nothing is secure," says Emerson, "but life, transition, 
 the energizing spirit. . . . People wish to be settled: 
 only as far as they are unsettled is there any hope for 
 them." The cemetery is the only place for rest, and 
 peace, and permanence. The criticism of the existing 
 order and the clamor for change are to be looked upon 
 not as evils, but as symptoms of life, and health, and 
 progress. 
 
 2. A Change Due. — From these considerations it is 
 plain that any course of study, however excellent, must 
 become obsolete in time, like last year's hat or gown. 
 Likewise the fashion of teaching changes. As new ex- 
 periments and discoveries add to the sum of knowledge 
 and to human insight, the schoolmaster avails himself of 
 fresh materials of instruction and better methods of ap- 
 proach to the mind and heart of the child. 
 
 The present course of study in New York is ten years 
 old, and in any case a change is due. The strong trend 
 
20 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY R EPORT 
 
 toward vocational education alone is sufficient to justify 
 a complete overhauling of school studies and practice. 
 Every subject in the curriculum should be met from time 
 to time with a peremptory challenge to show why it occu- 
 pies the time given to it. In this way, through the fires 
 of discussion and periodical evaluation, the dross will 
 be eliminated and the pure gold will be retained. The 
 school inquiry was undertaken by people outside of our 
 system. We now have the gift to see ourselves as others 
 see us. But we must solve our own problems. The Asso- 
 ciation of District Superintendents takes the position 
 of Socrates in the Gorgias: "I am an inquirer like your- 
 selves, therefore if my opponent says anything which is 
 of force, I shall be the first to agree with him." 
 
 3. Our Method of Procedure. — The investigators 
 proceeded by the method of induction. The Committee 
 on School Inquiry of the Board of Estimate had no pre- 
 conceived theories as to what was wrong with the schools. 
 It merely desired to find out whether the City of New 
 York is getting the maximum efficiency out of a depart- 
 ment which spends more than one-fifth of the city's reve- 
 nues. The experts employed were told again and again 
 that they must have facts to support every conclusion 
 announced and justify every recommendation made. 
 One report was flatly repudiated because the writer of 
 it refused to supply the supporting data demanded by 
 the committee. The inquiry, so far as the committee 
 could control it, was to be strictly scientific. Unsup- 
 ported opinions are not science. Unverifiable conclusions 
 are not science. "We are justified in assuming that the 
 reports now under review are offered as specimens of the 
 
REPLY OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS 21 
 
 scientific method. We shall therefore reverse the pro- 
 cedure of the investigators; start with the formulated 
 conclusions, and work hack to the facts on which they 
 are hased. 
 
22 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 CHAPTER III 
 
 PROF. McMURRY'S REPORT 
 
 "We shall limit our inquiry to those parts of the in- 
 vestigation which are related to the activities of the dis- 
 trict superintendent. The board of superintendents and 
 the board of education are responsible for the course of 
 study. Therefore Prof. McMurry's remarks on that 
 subject are not within the purview of this report. The 
 district superintendent, however, is largely responsible 
 for the efficiency of teachers and the quality of the su- 
 pervision by principals. Therefore these two subjects 
 claim our attention here. 
 
 1. The Quality of Instruction. — One of the preg- 
 nant findings of Prof. McMurry's report is that our 
 teachers are inefficient. Let us, therefore, examine the 
 evidence on which this conclusion is based. "We are in- 
 formed by a foot-note that "twelve persons" shared ac- 
 tively in the collection of data on which this report is 
 based, that sixty schools in four boroughs were visited, 
 and that not less than three hundred recitations were 
 seen; also that not less than a hundred teachers and 
 principals have been consulted. It would be interesting 
 to know who the "twelve persons" were, whether they 
 are by experience and training competent to sit in judg- 
 
EEPLY OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS 23 
 
 ment on the work of New York teachers, principals, and 
 superintendents. It would likewise be profitable to have 
 the names of the schools visited, and the number of 
 classes in each that were tested. Another important 
 matter concerning which we need facts is what kind of 
 teachers were observed, whether men or women, whether 
 trained in New York or elsewhere, whether with much 
 or little experience. One cannot justly expect of an 
 apprentice the skill of a master workman. The enumer- 
 ation of investigators and schools and classes, however, 
 in itself would be no sufficient basis for the drawing of 
 important conclusions. A scientific method would pre- 
 sent the body of facts collected by the "twelve persons" 
 in sixty schools. Any intelligent reader would then be 
 competent to draw his own conclusions. If any one 
 doubted the facts he could go and verify them. Conclu- 
 sions formulated as a result of such a plan would com- 
 mand respect because the supporting data are submitted 
 in full. 
 
 (1) The Supporting Data. — The first striking char- 
 acteristic of Prof. McMurry's report is the absence of 
 the supporting data one would naturally look for in a 
 treatise purporting to be scientific. To test the efficiency 
 of teaching the following four standards were employed : 
 
 (a) "Purposes Inculcated in Pupils. — The 
 quality of a man's aims chiefly determines the qual- 
 ity of his character. Purpose bears the same rela- 
 tion to efficiency among young people as among 
 men. One of the primary responsibilities of instruc- 
 tion, therefore, should be to lead pupils to want to 
 know, to do, and to be. Its quality is to be meas- 
 ured, partly, by its provision for growth in motive." 
 
24 NEW YORK SCHOOIi INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 (b) "Consideration op Values.— Worth is one 
 of the most common and necessary ideas in adult 
 life. It is important to keep in mind that good 
 judgment mainly signifies proper appreciation of 
 relative values." 
 
 (c) "Attention to Organization. — A third factor 
 in daily life is organization of ideas—or system — 
 reasoning. No subject is mastered until the relation 
 of its parts to one another is determined, until the 
 facts bearing on each phase are separately grouped, 
 and until enough such facts are collected to give 
 fair support to each controlling thought." 
 
 (d) "Exercise op Initiative by Pupils. — Every 
 intelligent parent desires to see a good degree of 
 independence developed in his child. Good teach- 
 ing never lacks relation to initiative. Almost every 
 recitation will reveal her attitude in this matter, 
 and the procedure that she adopts with regard to it 
 will be one of the best single tests of the worth of 
 her instruction." 
 
 The investigator did not in any case inquire what the 
 children know. "It is customary," he says, "to judge 
 the quality of instruction by direct examination of chil- 
 dren in subject matter. We agree, of course, that the 
 acquisition of knowledge is one of the prominent aims of 
 the school, and that it should be considered in any care- 
 ful investigation of instruction." Then he gives four 
 reasons why knowledge is a poor test, and does not at 
 any time refer to it in his criticism of class instruction. 
 The test was entirely on method in terms of the pupil's 
 activities with reference to the four standards set up. 
 "The leading purposes of instruction, therefore, must 
 form the basis for judging quality ; instruction that ac- 
 complishes these aims fairly well is of a high order ; that 
 
REPLY OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS 25 
 
 which does not accomplish them at all, or very poorly, is 
 of a low order." 
 
 These four tests were applied in the observation of 
 twenty-nine lessons, criticisms of which are furnished. 
 Two of these lessons are approved. The rest are con- 
 demned. Ten of the lessons were given by a special su- 
 pervisor of music. Therefore only nineteen were given 
 by regular teachers. Of these, seventeen are declared 
 poor; and two, excellent. 
 
 Doubt as to the adequacy of this evidence is expressed 
 by the investigator as follows : "But it was realized that 
 the quantity of data secured in this way would neces- 
 sarily form an unsufficient basis for the conclusions in 
 regard to the work of 15,000 teachers." So further tests 
 were applied to verify the above conclusion. The fur- 
 ther tests consisted of the application of the same four 
 standards to the course of study to determine whether 
 subject matter favors the qualities demanded; and the 
 application of the same four standards to supervision, 
 to ascertain whether the teachers develop the qualities 
 demanded of children. The additional statement is 
 made that "Kindergartens and schools taken at random 
 have been extensively visited, and teachers have been 
 personally interviewed." But no scientist or court of 
 justice would admit such a statement as evidence. There- 
 fore we have the analyzed performances of seventeen 
 teachers as the sole basis for the sweeping conclusion an- 
 nounced as a result of his investigation, to wit: "That, 
 in general, the instruction in the elementary school is 
 poor." 
 
26 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 (2) The Standard of the Committee on School In- 
 quiry.— In view of the meagre basis thus disclosed for 
 so large a generalization, the following statement of the 
 Committee on School Inquiry of the Board of Estimate* 
 in the matter of the Moore report, which was rejected, 
 is interesting in this connection : 
 
 "It should be clearly understood that at no time did 
 the committee request any one of the specialists to change 
 any conclusion or recommendation contained in his re- 
 port. Facts, where lacking, were requested. These, of 
 course, the city is entitled to as the specialists were em- 
 ployed primarily to collect facts. 
 
 "In a great administrative and constructive inquiry 
 such as that which this board has inaugurated and con- 
 ducted under the direction of your committee, nothing 
 could be more harmful than the acceptance of an inac- 
 curate or unfounded report. Fairness to all concerned 
 and complete candor are the prime essentials of such an 
 investigation. Nothing could hurt the constructive work 
 of this board more grievously, or could militate more 
 strongly against the constructive results of similar in- 
 quiries throughout the country, than for this board to 
 permit one of those in its employ to render to it a false 
 and unfounded report without stigmatizing it as such." 
 
 (3) Prof. McMurry's Measuring Scale. — There are 
 two kinds of judgment — qualitative and quantitative. 
 The qualitative judgment is a matter of taste. I call a 
 certain woman or picture beautiful; you do not agree 
 with me : de gustibus non est disputandum! The quan- 
 titative judgment is a matter of measurement. Given the 
 same unit of measure and a certain quantity to be meas- 
 
 * Special Report to the Board of Estimate, Oct. 31, 1912, pp. 
 1 and 36. 
 
REPLY OP THE SUPERINTENDENTS 27 
 
 ured, there can be only one correct result, no matter who 
 does the measuring. In matters of art we exercise taste. 
 In science we measure. Teaching is both an art and a 
 science. Therefore in judging the merits of a given 
 teacher, there are bound to be differences of opinion so 
 far as her art is concerned, but there ought to be unan- 
 imity of judgment so far as her work is subject to scien- 
 tific appraisal. The first question which arises, there- 
 fore, is, which of these standards Prof. McMurry applied 
 in evaluating the work of New York teachers. Did he 
 employ the qualitative judgment or the quantitative? 
 If he used the qualitative judgment only, then the case 
 is a mere matter of taste. His opinion may be no better 
 than yours. One man prefers the Sistine Madonna, an- 
 other the Transfiguration, and a third the Last Judg- 
 ment. Each is right from his point of view. Who but 
 myself is competent to say which work of art gives me 
 most pleasure ? 
 
 (a) Analysis of the Standard. — The best way to de- 
 cide the question raised is to examine the measuring 
 scale used. Prof. McMurry adopted, with the approval 
 of Dr. II anus, the four tests quoted above (p. 23) to as- 
 certain efficiency of teaching. The definitions are given 
 in the language of the investigators. Are these scientific 
 units of measure? If so, they must be accurately de- 
 fined, like the inch, the quart, the dollar; so that they 
 mean exactly the same thing to every one. If they are 
 vague and indefinite, the quantity or quality measured 
 cannot be so definitely evaluated that one teacher or 
 school or system can be compared with another of the 
 
28 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 same kind. Neither can another investigator repeat the 
 test and get the same result. 
 
 It is plain that these are not quantitative units. It is 
 impossible to say that teacher A inculcated so many pur- 
 poses in half an hour; or that B secured the considera- 
 tion of a definite number of values; or that C secured 
 the organization of fifty facts; or that D exercised ini- 
 tiative of pupils ten times. It is true we may count the 
 responses and tabulate them. But what children do and 
 say is not always a safe index of their real inner life. 
 The qualities measured are elusive and spiritual and not 
 subject to mathematical treatment. They are exceed- 
 ingly important, but they do not constitute a scientific 
 scale of measurement. The report admits that "there 
 are aims of the school not fully included in the aims of 
 its teaching, and there are important means for their 
 accomplishment besides instruction, such, for example, 
 as the personal influence of the teacher" (p. 5) . In other 
 words, important elements of teaching like personality, 
 effort, scholarship, administrative ability, control of class, 
 and results, are confessedly ignored in this survey, al- 
 though a serious defect under any one of these heads 
 would render a teacher unfit to hold a position in a 
 public school. 
 
 The scale is inadequate as a measuring unit, however, 
 not merely because it omits essential features of the 
 teaching process, but also because it does not apply to 
 all kinds of learning. The principles assumed do not 
 possess universal validity. Prof. McMurry frankly ad- 
 mits this when he discusses discipline, for here he sub- 
 stitutes corporal punishment for motivation. He insists 
 
REPLY OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS 29 
 
 that the teacher "should lead pupils to want to know, to 
 do, and to be." But he recommends the establishment of 
 parental schools in which corporal punishment is allowed, 
 and the repeal of the by-law prohibiting corporal pun- 
 ishment in ordinary schools, so that "the principal and 
 the few persons to whom he may delegate the right, shall 
 have authority to use physical force." Thus the whole 
 scheme of motivation, consideration of values, organiza- 
 tion, and initiative gives way to brute force. 
 
 In a similar way these standards have to be abandoned 
 in many kinds of learning done in schools. It is entirely 
 proper to set them up as an ideal to be reached where 
 practicable. But a teacher who is held responsible for 
 the progress of fifty children in such subjects as pen- 
 manship, tables, significant dates in history, spelling, 
 memory gems, etc., cannot always wait for the pupil's 
 motive. The three R's are of little use to a child until 
 they have been made automatic. They can be made auto- 
 matic only by drill. "Even when a rational motive has 
 been made the point of departure," says Dr. Strayer, one 
 of Prof. McMurry's colleagues in the faculty of Colum- 
 bia University, "we shall have to use many devices to 
 keep alive the child's original intention. ... If such 
 a standard of motive were applied throughout our work, 
 we should probably find it necessary to postpone certain 
 activities which we insist upon for no reason which a 
 child can understand, until there was some real use for 
 the habit to be formed. We might even find ourselves 
 compelled to eliminate much which finds no application 
 in real life. The occasion for drill is found in the de- 
 mand for automatic control of thought or action and 
 
30 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 much of the later success of the children in thinking 
 and doing will be conditioned by the quality of the work 
 done in these drill exercises."* 
 
 (b) Analysis of the Teaching Process. — 
 "Teaching is a combination of mechanical and artis- 
 tic processes. Certain portions of the work are so 
 simple that a child may perform them. Such are 
 the regulation of the temperature, the opening and 
 closing of windows, the rolling of shades and maps, 
 the cleaning of the blackboard, the filling of ink- 
 wells, the giving out and storing of supplies and 
 lesson papers, the covering of books, the orderly 
 assembling and dismissal of children, the care of 
 wraps, and the keeping of attendance records. The 
 sum of these trifles is no small part of success or 
 failure. The neglect of any of them will impair the 
 usefulness of the teacher and may seriously affect 
 the value of the mgre vital elements of the teaching 
 process. Poor ventilation unfits children for learn- 
 ing. Carelessness in the matter of school property 
 soon results in children having no supplies or carry- 
 ing books defaced with indecent writing and pic- 
 tures. Through the neglect of window shades chil- 
 dren are often obliged to work in direct sunlight on 
 bright days and without sufficient light on dark 
 days. A neglected blackboard is untidy and in- 
 effective, and troughs filled with chalk-dust are un- 
 hygienic as well as offensive to taste. 
 
 "Now all these mechanical processes may be sta- 
 tistically treated and placed to the debit or credit of 
 the teacher. Measurement may be certainly applied 
 to this phase of the schoolmaster's art. And it is 
 possible by a summation of such items to compare 
 
 * A Brief Cowrse in the Teaching Process, by George D. Strayer, 
 The Macmillan Co., 1911, p. 43. 
 
REPLY OP THE SUPERINTENDENTS 31 
 
 class with class and school with school. To the lay 
 visitor these things are almost conclusive, as they 
 constitute the principal data on which he estimates 
 school efficiency. Good housekeeping every one can 
 understand. And, as personal cleanliness is the be- 
 ginning of moral regeneration in many children, so 
 the mechanical elements of class and school man- 
 agement, which relate to the cleanliness, tidiness, 
 safety, and good order of the class-room, are part 
 of the very web and woof of good teaching. 
 
 "Even work of actual instruction has a mechan- 
 ical side. Spelling efficiency and mathematical 
 ability are capable of exact measurement by a per- 
 centage. By a combination of qualitative and quan- 
 titative judgment the success of teaching in any 
 subject may be approximately determined. It is 
 true that we have had eloquent protests from Col. 
 Parker and others against the marking system; but 
 as yet teachers seem to have found no satisfactory 
 substitute. It is impossible to maintain a high 
 standard of scholarship without marks, because the 
 very idea of standard implies measurement. To 
 deny that the success of teaching and learning may 
 be measured is to deny the possibility of an educa- 
 tional science."* 
 
 (4) The Elliott Measuring Scale. — We shall next 
 present a scale for the measurement of teaching efficiency 
 devised by Prof. Edward C. Elliott, of the University 
 of Wisconsin, one of the experts employed by Dr. Hanus 
 in the school inquiry now under consideration: 
 
 * From the Editor's article on "Measurement of Educational 
 Efficiency," in Educational Beview, Nov., 1912, p. 352. 
 
32 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 A Tentative Scheme for the Measurement of 
 Teaching Bfficency.* 
 
 By Edward C. Elliott. 
 
 points 
 
 Total Teaching Efficiency 100 
 
 I. Physical Efficiency — 12 points (12) 
 
 1. Impressions — general 2 
 
 2. Health — general 2 
 
 3. Voice 2 
 
 4. Habits — personal '. 2 
 
 5. Energy 2 
 
 6. Endurance 2 
 
 II. Moral-Native Efficiency — 14 points (14) 
 
 1. Self-control 2 
 
 2. Optimism-enthusiasm 2 
 
 3. Sympathy-tact . 2 
 
 4. Industry-earnestness 2 
 
 5. Adaptability 2 
 
 6. Sense of humor 2 
 
 7. Judicial mindedness 2 
 
 III. Administrative Efficiency — 10 points (10) 
 
 1. Initiative 2 
 
 2. Promptness and accuracy 2 
 
 3. Executive capacity 2 
 
 4. Economy (time, property) 2 
 
 5. Co-operation (associates and superiors) . . 2 
 
 IV. Dynamic Efficiency — 24 points. (24) 
 
 * Prom the Twelfth Yearbook of the National Society for the 
 
 , Study of Education, Part I., University of Chicago Press, 1913, 
 p. 68. 
 
REPLY OP THE SUPERINTENDENTS 33 
 
 1. Preparation 4 
 
 Including : 
 
 (a) Intellectual capacity. 
 
 (b) Academic education. 
 
 (c) Professional training. 
 
 2. Professional attitudes and interest 2 
 
 3. Human nature attitudes and interest (ap- 
 preciation of values — intellectual, social, 
 
 and moral, in child life) 2 
 
 4. Instructional skill 12 
 
 Including : 
 
 (a) Attention and interest of pupils. 
 
 (b) Formality v. vitality of instruction. 
 
 (c) Motor v. verbal methods. 
 
 (d) Application of the technique of 
 teaching; organization and presenta- 
 tion of subject-matter ; the recitation as 
 artistic product. 
 
 (e) Application of the technique of liv- 
 ing; participation and contribution of 
 pupils; the recitation as a democratic 
 activity. 
 
 (f) The tools and machinery of instruc- 
 tion; effective adaptation. 
 
 (g) Assignment of work. 
 
 5. Governmental and directive skill (dis- 
 cipline) 4 
 
 V. Projected Efficiency — 6 points (6) 
 
 1. Continuing preparation 2 
 
 (a) Daily; (b) Weekly; (c) Annual. 
 
 2. The school program 2 
 
34 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIR Y BEPOBT 
 
 3. Increase of professional equipment (pro- 
 fessional reading and study ; travel) .... 2 
 
 VI. Achieved Efficiency — 24 points (24) 
 
 1. Achievement. 
 
 (a) Illustrative results 8 
 
 (b) Examinations; success and attainments 
 
 of pupils 12 
 
 2. Stimulation of individuals and community 4 
 
 VII. Social Efficiency — 10 points (10) 
 
 1. Intra-mural interests 2 
 
 2. Extra-mural interests. 
 
 (a) Cultural and ethical 2 
 
 (b) Civic 2 
 
 (c) School-patrons 4 
 
 A comparison of this scale with the McMurry scale 
 exhibits a remarkable contrast. The Elliott measure 
 contains a hundred units. Only three of the McMurry 
 units are contained in it; namely, motive or interest, 
 organization, and initiative, marked (a), (d), and (e) 
 under instructional skill. Dr. Elliott allows twelve 
 points for the seven items under instruction or method 
 Assuming that the items are of equal value, each one 
 is worth 1.7 points, and three of them are worth 5.1 
 points. Hence we have the remarkable conclusion that 
 the four elements which Prof. McMurry employed as 
 the exclusive test of teaching efficiency constitute, ac- 
 cording to Dr. Elliott, only 5% of the equipment of a 
 good teacher ! 
 
 (5) Important Items Neglected by Prof McMurry. 
 
 (a) Personality. — What makes Prof. McMurry an 
 
REPLY OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS 35 
 
 inspiring teacher ? His personality — all there is of him, 
 his hackground of experience, his skill in exposition, his 
 challenge of thought and friendly opposition on the part 
 of the pupil, his power of apt illustration and forceful 
 expression, his sense of humor, his judicial-mindedness, 
 his enthusiasm, his charming manners, his evident sin- 
 cerity. It is not any formal method that he can com- 
 municate to others. It is not his four standards or char- 
 acteristics of good teaching, which he only recently in- 
 vented for the purpose of testing our schools.* Prof. 
 McMurry is his method, just as Socrates was his method, 
 as every artist teacher is his method. The very stand- 
 ards which he has set up as the goal of education should 
 warn him not to expect all teachers to be alike or to 
 proceed in the same way. Infinite stress is laid upon 
 initiative. How can a teacher be herself, or exercise her 
 own initiative, if she be compelled to cast her instruc- 
 tion in the mold invented by Prof. McMurry ? "Will she 
 not be just as hopelessly servile as if she were following 
 some direction of the principal or district superinten- 
 dent ? But yesterday the McMurrys taught us the formal 
 steps of Herbart. All teaching was to be tested by the 
 touch-stone of apperception and interest. Now we have 
 a new set of formal steps. These are no better and no 
 worse than the old. Any formal steps become odious 
 and harmful if they are arbitrarily forced upon a teacher 
 by another, as stocks are clapped around the neck of a 
 felon. No personal, individual method of teaching is 
 so good that it may with impunity be required of all 
 
 * The Editor heard this confession as to the recency of the in- 
 vention from the lips of Prof. McMurry in a public meeting. 
 
36 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 teachers. Any teacher who gets results in the form of 
 knowledge honestly, and makes her children happy and 
 strong in the getting, is entitled to the liberty for which 
 Prof. McMurry pleads. She should not be hampered by 
 the imposition of an arbitrary mode of procedure. 
 
 (b) The Method-Whole. — In each of the lessons an- 
 alyzed by Prof. McMurry it is tacitly assumed by the 
 investigator that the teacher was dealing with a method- 
 whole. "We learned long ago from the McMurrys that 
 a method-whole may extend over a considerable period. 
 Any given lesson may be occupied exclusively with one 
 of the formal steps, like preparation. Half a dozen les- 
 sons may be given to the single step of application or 
 drill. "The systematic presentation," says Herbart, 
 "must in many cases be postponed until long after the 
 first lessons in the elements have begun, and conversely, 
 the rudiments of a subject frequently have to be at least 
 touched upon long before connected instruction can be 
 thought of. Many a principle needs to be approached 
 from a great distance."* Because the investigator 
 failed to find in each of the lessons all the steps or stand- 
 ards set up as the test, he concluded that the teacher 
 paid no attention to such things. Where there was a 
 positive violation of a sound principle, e. g., poor organ- 
 ization of facts, the severest criticism is justified. But 
 it would be unfair to criticise a teacher adversely be- 
 cause some of the steps of a method-whole are missing 
 in a particular recitation, unless we first find out what 
 she is trying to do. Perhaps it is test day, and she 
 
 * Outlines of Educational Doctrine, John Frederich Herbart, 
 Macmillan, 1901, p. 57. 
 
REPLY OP THE SUPERINTENDENTS 37 
 
 deliberately abstains from teaching. If she makes no 
 conscious provision for motive in presenting the subject- 
 matter of a particular lesson, but somehow, by enthu- 
 siasm, fulness of knowledge, picture, story, excursion, 
 museum, etc., has succeeded in arousing a tremendous 
 interest in the subject, what difference does it make? 
 Whether interest be the end of education, as some Her- 
 bartians say, or the means of education, as others say, 
 the source of it does not matter so much, if we but get it. 
 Any successful teacher develops interest. Why should 
 I quarrel with her because she secures it in her own way 
 rather than in mine? A geography method-whole, like 
 Brazil, may occupy several weeks. During this time all 
 the standards set up by Prof. McMurry may be met 
 while the material is being gathered, sifted, and organ- 
 ized by the pupils under the guidance of the teacher. 
 Then, finally, the time has arrived for testing. The 
 pupil is called upon to recall the facts, organize them 
 afresh, and express them in the form of a topical reci- 
 tation. The investigator happens to meet the class while 
 this is going on. He finds some of the steps of the reci- 
 tation missing and condemns the teacher. It may be 
 that she is the only artist in the school. 
 
 (c) Control op Class. — There are teachers who know 
 all about teaching ; but they are not able to teach. They 
 have taken Prof. McMurry's courses and can talk and 
 write learnedly of standards and methods ; but they can- 
 not control the class. There is some defect of character 
 or attitude which calls out every vicious instinct of the 
 pupils. She tries to teach, but it is rowing up a stream 
 all the time. The formal steps are there. She endeavors 
 
38 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUI RY REPORT 
 
 to motivate, to secure the consideration of values, to 
 organize facts. She does not have to stimulate initia- 
 tive. There is more than enough of that. But it finds 
 expression in listless, silly, or smart questions and an- 
 swers, in the throwing of spitballs, in general conversa- 
 tion, in gross disorder. The children are having fun 
 with the teacher. She is "soft," and therefore fair game 
 for a sportsman. She could teach if somebody would 
 only keep order for her. The McMurry scale entirely 
 ignores power of control, as exhibited in the order, obe- 
 dience, and appearance of children, the regularity and 
 punctuality of their attendance, and the care of school 
 property. Surely no principal or superintendent could 
 pass over such vital matters as these in estimating the 
 value of a teacher's services. The Elliott scale assigns 
 four points to class government or discipline, which 
 shows the folly of this scheme ; because, while in a given 
 case mere control of class may be only four per cent, of 
 the efficiency of a teacher, where the power of control is 
 lacking, it constitutes one hundred per cent, of failure, 
 (d) Effort. — Another very important factor of effi- 
 ciency which the McMurry scale fails to mention is effort. 
 A teacher may have natural ability, scholarship, pro- 
 fessional skill, attractive personality, and all other attri- 
 butes of a first-rate teacher, except the virtue of earnest 
 striving for success. Her room is as bare as a barn ; her 
 program is no indication of what is actually going on in 
 the room; the ventilation is forgotten; the setting-up 
 drills are neglected; the reports and records are inac- 
 curate and never on time. She goes to Europe in July 
 and forgets to come back until after the schools have 
 
BEPLY OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS 39 
 
 been in session a month or two in the fall. She is habit- 
 ually late, and frequently absent for trifling causes or 
 on personal business. Such a teacher may meet the four 
 standards of the McMurry test, but she is not a merito- 
 rious member of the profession. She is a nuisance in any 
 school. A scientific measuring scale should surely meas- 
 ure effort. 
 
 (e) Results. — What is to be the outcome of educa- 
 tion? The McMurry scale answers: motive, considera- 
 tion of values, power of organization, initiative. Is that 
 pjl? Is that enough? What about knowledge? What 
 bfjbut skill? This is what J. Howard Renshaw, principal 
 of the Continuation School of Cincinnati, has to say on 
 the subject:* 
 
 "The first thing an apprentice is taught is the 
 difference between knowledge and skill. The aver- 
 age school lad has been led along the paths of 
 knowledge until he has begun to believe that knowl- 
 edge is money. He must be taught that few, if 
 any, persons are able to derive an income from the 
 sale of their knowledge and that knowledge is only 
 saleable when it has been worked into skill. Knowl- 
 edge is knowing how to do a thing. Skill is ability 
 to do it with such a quality and in such a quantity 
 that it is marketable. . . . The apprentice is 
 usually offended at this commercialism and it takes 
 him some time to enter into the spirit of modern 
 production. He wishes to learn how to do a mul- 
 titude of things, but he scorns the drudgery of re- 
 peating any one thing until he has mastered it. 
 The most vital part of apprenticeship is lost to the 
 
 • Bulletin No. IS, National Society for the Promotion of Indus- 
 trial Education, 1911, p. 82. 
 
40 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 boy if he finishes his time with barrels of knowl- 
 edge but without the skill to produce a day's work." 
 
 Prof. McMurry wants to make the school responsive 
 to the demands of life. Here is the voice of Industry; 
 and what does it say to the boy? It says, "Get knowl- 
 edge ; get accurate knowledge ; get skill. Keep at a thing 
 until you have mastered it. Practise, drill, labor. 
 Whether you like it or not, work, work, work !" Life has 
 duties as well as pleasures. People in real life have to 
 do many disagreeable things. If the task be spelling, 
 make it as easy as you can by employing the best 
 method ; but learn to spell. Effort, and good intenti$4s, 
 and motivation without downright hard work won't 
 make you an automatic speller. If the task be penman- 
 ship, here again there is a considerable amount of dreary 
 practice. The writing habit must be established in the 
 nerve centers; and the only recipe is drill. The multi- 
 plication table is a useful tool. The sooner its use is 
 handed over to muscular memory the better. As Prof. 
 Dewey has well said : "The fact that two and two make 
 four is a naked fact ; and the child gets no greater hold 
 on the fact by having attached to it amusing stories of 
 birds and dandelions." The three E's are of no use as 
 tools until the knowledge of them has been worked up 
 into skill. The abuse of examinations is no sufficient ex- 
 cuse for neglecting knowledge altogether. Let us re- 
 form our examination system; but let us not give the 
 teacher and the child the mistaken idea that knowledge 
 doesn't count in this world. 
 
 Says Prof. Strayer: 
 
 "Examinations have another function which we 
 
REPLY OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS 41 
 
 as teachers should not overlook. Any adequate test 
 of children's abilities is also a test of our teaching. 
 . If children do not write as well as they 
 should, if they misspell words they commonly use 
 in their written work, if they cannot tell the story, 
 recite the poem, solve the problem, describe the 
 geographical area, or relate the event of the historic 
 period, we had better inquire whether we have 
 helped them to work to best advantage. . 
 There may be mistakes made, but, all things else 
 being equal, the teacher who gets results is the best 
 teacher."* 
 
 (A) Different Kinds of Knowledge. — It is admitted 
 by Prof. McMurry. "that knowledge is one of the promi- 
 nent aims of the school, and that it should be considered 
 in any careful investigation of instruction." Why then 
 was knowledge omitted from the measuring scale ? This 
 part of the teaching process happens to yield most easily 
 to a kind of measurement that is reasonably accurate. 
 New York teachers have always understood that getting 
 children promoted meant among other things teaching 
 them the subject-matter in the grade. Some knowledge 
 is in the form of facts, some in the form of principles 
 or rules, and some in the form of skill. The four stan- 
 dards of Prof. McMurry, together with numerous other 
 mental and moral qualities, have been assumed as by- 
 products of teaching. Prof. McMurry himself says, in 
 one of his books, that "mental development should be 
 expected as a very valuable by-product brought about 
 
 * A Brief Course m the leaching Process, by Dr. George D. 
 Strayer, Professor of School Administration, Teachers' College, 
 The Macmfflan Co., 1911, p. 105. 
 
42 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 in the course of the accomplishment of pieces of work 
 that for other reasons deserve to be done." He has now 
 apparently reversed his position. Motive, values, or- 
 ganization, initiative are hereafter to be the principal 
 output of education, and knowledge is to be the by- 
 product. 
 
 Those who sneer at knowledge as a test of teaching 
 seem to be thinking only of fact knowledge and utility. 
 There are at least five different kinds of educational 
 value, — utilitarian value, conventional value, discipli- 
 nary value, subjective or interpretive value, and ethical 
 value. 
 
 If you test the subjects in the elementary curriculum 
 under these five heads, you will find that some have 
 more of one than of the others. Taking history, for in- 
 stance, it has conventional value. A certain amount of 
 historical knowledge is assumed in the case of any one 
 who aspires to polite society. To be ignorant of the his- 
 tory of one's country would be a discredit. Not to have 
 heard of Julius Caesar, or Socrates, or Napoleon, or the 
 Duke of Wellington would be a serious slur upon one's 
 intelligence. Such facts in themselves may have little 
 or no practical value, but they have conventional value. 
 Then history has also utilitarian value, for it enables 
 the citizen to vote intelligently and to reason correctly 
 upon social and historical themes. Again, history has 
 subjective or interpretive value, for it enables one to 
 understand what he reads in the newspapers and books, 
 when historical persons or events are alluded to. Lastly, 
 history has ethical value. Heroic and noble personages 
 
REPLY OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS 43 
 
 serve as ideals of character, and incite the students to 
 emulate unselfish and valiant deeds. 
 
 There is a vast body of knowledge representing the 
 accumulated scientific, literary, esthetic, institutional, 
 and religious treasures of humanity. This is the child's 
 heritage. With this he interprets the world into which 
 he is born. With this he apperceives himself as a mem- 
 ber of the human race. Such knowledge may not be 
 "practical" in the vulgar sense, but it is surely not to 
 be despised on this account. 
 
 (B) The Public Demands Knowledge. — The following 
 letter, written by the late Mayor of New York, may be 
 taken to express the common sense of the average citizen : 
 
 The City of New York, 
 Office of the Mayor. 
 
 Feb. 14, 1913. 
 Dear Mr. Sommers: 
 
 I have read the report of your committee on the 
 course of study in the elementary schools, and thank 
 you for sending it to me. The subject is a difficult 
 one. I think you express the correct view, namely, 
 in favor of a course which "covers less ground, but 
 covers it more thoroughly." The great need is thor- 
 oughness. 
 
 It spoils children forever not to make them thor- 
 ough in what they study. They thereby get the 
 habit of lack of thoroughness, and it sticks to them 
 all through their lives as a rule. To give children 
 so many studies that they are only able to skim 
 them over, and are constantly with their heads un- 
 der water in respect to them, now and then bobbing 
 up for a breath, does them infinite harm. What 
 they are taught they should be taught thoroughly. 
 
44 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 To give them the habit of thoroughness alone is an 
 education. 
 
 Par be it from me, however, to criticize the work 
 of your board, or of the superintendent. You know 
 that I always approach this subjecl with hesitation, 
 and subject to the better judgment of others. 
 Sincerely yours, 
 
 W. J. Gaynor, Mayor. 
 Arthur S. Somers, Esq., Chairman of Committee 
 on Studies and Text-books, Board of Educa- 
 tion. 
 
 It is difficult to persuade parents that the schools are 
 efficient when their children are not learning anything. 
 Knowledge is universally assumed by the layman to be 
 the outcome of instruction. Every educational writer 
 known to us, except the one employed to evaluate ele- 
 mentary teaching in New York, expects children to 
 learn something, and considers the children's progress 
 in knowledge as a test of good teaching. Even Dr. El- 
 liott assigns twenty-four points to the knowledge test, 
 or what he calls "achieved efficiency." 
 
 Mayor Gaynor in his letter expresses a conviction 
 which seems to be general among citizens ; namely, that, 
 if our American schools have a serious fault, it is lack 
 of thoroughness. In the report to which he refers the 
 committee on studies says: 
 
 "Elementary schools should yield that common 
 knowledge and mastery of facts, processes, mean- 
 ings, and ideals which we regard as fundamental to 
 whatever may follow either in education or voca- 
 tional participation. . . . It is recommended 
 that . . . work be planned ... of such 
 a character as to be within the mental reach of all 
 
EEPLY OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS 45 
 
 normal children, . . . and that ample time be 
 provided for drill in all subjects taught." 
 
 In other words, the Mayor of New York and the board 
 of education, both representing the people of New York, 
 find fault with the schools because they are not thorough 
 enough in imparting knowledge to children. Prof. Mc- 
 Murry, representing no one but himself and Prof. 
 Hanus, ignores entirely the knowledge test of education, 
 and on four criteria arbitrarily set up as the sole 
 standard of efficiency, publishes to the world, with the 
 weight of his position and the influence of a well adver- 
 tised and expensive committee of experts, his opinion 
 that the teaching of our elementary schools is poor. But 
 he does more than merely ignore knowledge. He takes 
 the schools severely to task for being too much concerned 
 with thoroughness. Speaking of the working theory of 
 the elementary school as he finds it in New York, he 
 
 "The third conviction pertains to the factor in 
 scholarship that is most worthy of emphasis. Many 
 things are necessary to proper study, but the most 
 desirable element is accuracy in details (p. 43). 
 . . . It is very important to bear in mind, how- 
 ever, that this instruction is no worse than that 
 found in many other places. If different standards 
 had been adopted — in fact, such as have usually 
 been applied in judging schools — very different con- 
 clusions might have been reached" (p. 47). 
 
 It is thus admitted that the test is unusual. It is for 
 the citizens of New York to decide what is the value of 
 an investigation which ignores the knowledge test and 
 
46 NEW TOBK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 the standards which "have usually been applied in judg- 
 ing schools." 
 
 (6) The Conclusion. — We have thus shown that the 
 broad generalization reached by Prof. McMurry — "that, 
 in general, the instruction in the elementary school is 
 poor" — is not justified by the very meagre basis of fact 
 actually submitted ; namely, the analysis of the work of 
 twenty teachers (nineteen regular and one special) . We 
 have shown that even if the facts given were sufficient 
 in range and quantity, the measuring scale used is so 
 inadequate that the result is necessarily inaccurate. For 
 these reasons we are justified in the statement that Prof. 
 McMurry has not proved his conclusion. He has merely 
 expressed an opinion. In a system employing nearly 
 eighteen thousand teachers there are doubtless some who 
 are not as efficient as we should like them to be, espe- 
 cially if they be measured by the units which are em- 
 ployed by Prof. McMurry as the sole test of merit. But 
 we know from daily observation that, in preparation and 
 professional enthusiasm, in skill and fidelity, the great 
 majority of our teachers are efficient; and we believe 
 that upon the whole they are more efficient to-day than 
 they have ever been before. 
 
 2. Unification of Kindergarten and Primary 
 School. — This is the first recommendation of Prof. Mc- 
 Murry. It is our opinion that a somewhat closer corre- 
 lation is possible between the kindergarten and the first 
 grade. This unification may be effected in two ways; 
 namely: (1) By carrying the work and spirit of the 
 kindergarten up into the grades; (2) or by bringing the 
 work and spirit of the grades down into the kindergar- 
 
REPLY OP THE SUPERINTENDENTS 47 
 
 ten. The kindergarten is by profession and design a 
 play-school. The spirit of play is already largely rife in 
 many of our first-year classes. Nearly all the physical 
 culture is in the form of organized games, given in the 
 classroom, in covered playgrounds, and in the open air. 
 The play instinct should be exercised as fully as possible 
 in the primary school, since it is nature's way of educat- 
 ing the child. But we can not subscribe to the doctrine 
 that learning in the grades is to be merely an incident 
 of play. "We prefer the procedure which makes learning 
 a conscious aim, but reduces the drudgery of drill by 
 employing the play-idea and subject-matter so closely 
 fitted to the mind and heart of the child as to arouse his 
 spontaneous interest. 
 
 3. Limiting the Tendency Toward Uniformity. — 
 Prof. McMurry deplores the uniformity of matter and 
 method found in the schools and proposes the following 
 remedy (p. 119) : 
 
 "The principal and teachers of a school in one 
 of the crowded sections of the east side, assisted 
 by the best talent among the superintendents, shall 
 plan a curriculum for that particular school. In 
 this way, all the inhabitants of the city might be 
 shown what one good curriculum is. Since the 
 upper west side contains a very different kind of 
 population, a curriculum for a particular school 
 there might be planned in a similar manner. Thus, 
 a second curriculum might be secured, adapted to a 
 particular situation. For a certain school in the 
 Bronx, representing a third type of environment, 
 and of pupils, a curriculum might be prepared un- 
 der like conditions; and a fourth, fifth, and others 
 
48 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 might follow, according to the number of somewhat 
 distinctive types of schools in the entire city. 
 
 With the help of these curricula principals and 
 teachers of other schools might take the initiative 
 in preparing curricula for then* own schools. If 
 they lacked ability, or energy, or power to co- 
 operate with one another, or all these together, they 
 could, at least, adopt outright one of the several 
 types already developed, that most nearly fitted 
 their own condition. In that case, they would at 
 least get a much better fit than any they now 
 have." 
 
 A similar protest is made against uniformity of 
 method in teaching (p. 129), and the following proposi- 
 tion is laid down as to the relation which should exist 
 between the principal and his teachers: 
 
 "His general relation to his teachers, therefore, is 
 that of an adviser, basing his advice on reason, and 
 granting their right to reject it. This relationship 
 is especially worthy of emphasis in a great system 
 of schools where uniformity in matters not pertain- 
 ing to instruction is of the highest importance." 
 
 (1) A Plurality of Curricula. — The suggestion that 
 each neighborhood and school should have its own curri- 
 culum assumes that people never move, that the charac- 
 ter of a neighborhood is fixed, and that the children 
 enter the first grade of a given school and remain there 
 until they graduate or go to work. A few facts will 
 show the absurdity of this assumption. Recently a prin- 
 cipal exhibited the record card of a child who had been 
 in seven schools in one year. A school supervised by a 
 member of this committee admitted, within the space of 
 six months during the present school year, over 2,000 
 
REPLY OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS 49 
 
 children, and discharged about 1,300. These new-comers 
 represented several hundred different schools. Let us 
 suppose Prof. McMurry's plan in effect. Then we have 
 the problem of adjusting 2,000 children, taught under 
 200 different courses of study, to a school having also 
 its own local curriculum. The last sentence of the quo- 
 tation from Prof. McMurry says that if each school had 
 its own curriculum the teachers and principals "would 
 at least get a much better fit than they now have." 
 
 Nothing is more certain than that they would have a 
 "fit"; but it would not be the kind Prof. McMurry is 
 thinking of ! Any one who is at all familiar with social 
 conditions in New York will see at once that the proposal 
 of the investigator is impracticable. 
 
 The curriculum may, however, be adapted to local con- 
 ditions by means of (a) a minimum syllabus, and (b) 
 a liberal amount of unassigned time. In this way all 
 the children of a given grade will be mastering the same 
 body of material, and their transfer from one school to 
 another will not interfere with their progress. At the 
 same time the principal, by shifting the emphasis, may 
 adapt the curriculum to the particular needs of his com- 
 munity. 
 
 (2) A Plurality of Methods. — The idea that teachers 
 should have liberty to use any method they like and that 
 they should be free to adopt or reject the advice of the 
 principal, was rather strongly opposed by Prof. Mc- 
 Murry ten years ago,* when he published a book, the 
 first chapter of which discusses "Variety Vs. Uniformity 
 
 * The Method of the Recitation, Charles A. and Frank M. Mc- 
 Murry, The Macmillan Co., N. Y., 1903. 
 
50 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 in Methods of Instruction." The title of the hook as- 
 sumes one method rather than many. We quote : 
 
 "This tendency to discredit a science of education 
 is indicated by our use of the term method. There 
 is scarcely a more common word in the teaching pro- 
 fession, and it is frequently employed in the plural 
 form, a practical admission not of one and only one 
 right method, but that their number is legion. Also 
 some of the most common watch words of our pro- 
 fession point in the same direction, 'Freedom and 
 originality,' 'The teacher is born, not made,' 'Make 
 your own method'" (p. 2). 
 
 We do not assert that a man is bound to be consistent. 
 The only obligation that is laid upon an honest man is 
 that he shall follow the truth no matter where it leads. 
 But if he takes two opposite positions at different times 
 of his career, he must have been wrong at least once. If 
 Prof. McMurry was right in 1903 he is wrong in 1913. 
 It is our opinion that he was partly wrong at both dates. 
 There are at least two general methods of procedure in 
 thinking and teaching, the inductive and the deductive. 
 It is therefore not wrong to speak of method in the 
 plural. There are several varieties of induction, e. g., 
 the Socratic method and the heuristic method ; also sev- 
 eral methods of deduction, e. g., the anticipatory method 
 and the explanatory method. We agree with the Mc- 
 Murry of 1913 that a teacher, so long as she is not vio- 
 lating a sound principle of teaching, should be permitted 
 to use the particular method or device which seems most 
 efficacious to her. If one hires a laborer to dig a ditch, 
 one need not care whether the shovel used has a longer 
 or a shorter handle, so long as the quality and the quan- 
 
REPLY OF THE /SUPERINTENDENTS 51 
 
 tity of the digging are satisfactory. But we should like 
 to ask Prof. McMurry how he is going to impose his four 
 standards upon the profession if the teacher is to be ab- 
 solutely free to accept or reject the advice of her superior 
 officers? According to the theory promulgated in these 
 reports, it is tyrannous to impose any method upon a 
 teacher. If she prefers to teach grammar in a sixth 
 grade by the method of definition, the principal may give 
 her advice about it, but she must be free to continue her 
 wrong ways on the principle, no doubt, once stated by 
 Henry Ward Beecher, that "this is a free country, and a 
 man has as much right to make a fool of himself as he 
 has to be sick !" 
 
 Is it not plain that there is a wrong perspective here ? 
 The principal has duties toward the child as well as 
 toward the teacher. If she were practicing her art on 
 clay or wood or stone, she might, if she paid for the ma- 
 terial and worked for herself, waste as much time and 
 property as she pleased, though it were foolish to do so. 
 But she is working with human beings, and she must not 
 be allowed to waste one of these little ones if we can by 
 any means avoid it. Ways of doing which have been 
 shown a thousand times to be wrong and ineffective and 
 harmful must be excluded from the classroom by some- 
 thing more effective than "advice." The children have 
 rights as well as the teachers. They are entitled to be 
 taught by the methods that have the approval of the 
 most enlightened members of the teaching profession, 
 and if an inexperienced or obstinate teacher employs a 
 method universally condemned as bad, she must be com- 
 pelled to stop it. 
 
52 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 4. The Status of the Classroom Teacher. — The 
 third recommendation of Prof. McMurry is as follows: 
 
 "The authority of the classroom should be more 
 definitely fixed. If obedience is to be one of her 
 (his) principal virtues, then everyone concerned 
 should understand that fact. On the other hand, if 
 a good degree of freedom on her (his) part is recog- 
 nized to be necessary, as a condition of developing 
 self-expression among pupils, and of securing the 
 teacher's own growth, then a well-developed plan 
 by which freedom is guaranteed should be put into 
 print." 
 
 Prof. McMurry should know that obedience is one of 
 the virtues of a teacher. Section 1093 of the Charter 
 and section 41 of the by-laws of the board of education 
 provide penalties, the severest of which is dismissal, for 
 four offences; namely, "gross misconduct, general ineffi- 
 ciency, neglect of duty, and insubordination." Disobe- 
 dience is insubordination. Therefore obedience is one 
 of the prescribed duties of a teacher. And we ask Prof. 
 McMurry whether he really believes that the vast and 
 complicated enterprise of public education can be car- 
 ried on successfully without requiring obedience on the 
 part of subordinates ? If he really believes this we would 
 recommend that he put his theory to the test by qualify- 
 ing for a New York principalship, and then undertaking 
 to manage a school of three or four thousand children 
 on the voluntary plan. He would soon discover that 
 neither the teachers nor the pupils lack initiative, which 
 is defined by the Standard Dictionary as ability to 
 "start" something ! All foreign observers are astonished 
 at the remarkable initiative shown by American chil- 
 
REPLY OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS 53 
 
 dren. Mr. Michael E. Sadler* was much impressed by 
 the liberty which our teachers grant to their pupils. 
 Says he : 
 
 "Prom the teacher's standpoint, the art of allow- 
 ing liberty which leads on to self-government is 
 quite as high an art as that of repressing liberty, 
 t which is teacher government. This is evidenced by 
 the almost universal testimony that old world edu- 
 cators generally fail in the handling of American 
 children." 
 
 At the same time, all observers, foreign as well as 
 native, are saddened by the spirit of lawlessness which 
 is rife among the younger generation, by the lack of 
 parental control, and by the want of reverence for elders 
 and persons in authority. 
 
 (1) Obedience as a Virtue. — In other words, it is 
 evident that our children are long in initiative and short 
 in obedience. When a teacher selects a pupil to act as 
 monitor he always takes a "good" boy or girl. The as- 
 sumption underlying this fact is that a pupil who is not 
 himself obedient is unfit to govern others. The same 
 principle applies to a teacher. If he expects to be 
 obeyed he must himself be a model of the obedience 
 which he exacts of others. The first step for a teacher 
 in learning to govern a class consists in obeying his prin- 
 cipal and other official superiors. If he is not willing 
 cheerfully and uncomplainingly to receive orders he is 
 unfit to give orders to others. That there is no such 
 thing as command without obedience is well illustrated 
 by the disciplining of Captain Chadwick of the United 
 
 * Beport on American Education, London, 1902. 
 
54 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 States Navy. The New York Times, in commenting up- 
 on this case, said : 
 
 "We are in the habit of thinking of the officers 
 of our army and navy chiefly with reference to the 
 power they represent, the command they exercise, 
 the obedience they can exact. We do not realize, 
 until some such incident as that of Capt. Ghadwick 
 presents itself, that it is obedience and not command 
 that really is the controlling element in their lives. 
 And this is true throughout all ranks. There is 
 not a soldier or sailor from the recruit enlisted last 
 week to the general commanding or the admiral of 
 the navy who is not bound in honor and in fact to 
 the most complete obedience to his superiors, and 
 the lowest is not more bound than the highest. At 
 the summit stands the president of the United 
 States, the commander-in-chief of the army and 
 navy, and he in turn is bound by the constitution 
 and the laws, and is subject to trial before a tribu- 
 nal duly provided." 
 
 (2) The Liberty of the Teacher. — We have seen 
 that only ten years ago Prof. McMurry seemed to re- 
 gard with suspicion such phrases as "freedom and origi- 
 nality" and "make your own method," because then his 
 thesis was that method is singular and not plural. Now 
 these watchwords have become the chief article in his 
 confession of faith. In order to draw a just conclusion 
 in this important matter it is necessary to discriminate 
 between legitimate and illegitimate forms and degrees 
 of freedom and to consider the peculiar circumstances 
 of the teacher's employment. The teacher is sometimes 
 compared with the lawyer and the doctor, and the ques- 
 tion is asked, "Why should teachers be supervised and 
 
REPLY OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS 55 
 
 rated by official superiors, while lawyers and doctors do 
 as they please?" The reason is found in the fact that 
 teachers are civil-service employes, whereas members of 
 the other professions named are in business for them- 
 selves. The State has a monopoly of education and thus 
 eliminates competition. In other professions the practi- 
 tioner is in competition with the rest of his class. His 
 daily bread depends upon the approval which he re- 
 ceives from his clients. The fittest survive ; the rest fail. 
 In teaching, which is salaried and often enjoys perma- 
 nent tenure of position, the unfit tend to survive as well 
 aSjthe fit. Hence, because the natural supervision which 
 a jjipetition provides is withdrawn in our profession, the 
 state employs the supervisor to keep the rank and file 
 faithful and alert and to eliminate the unfit. So we have 
 the board of education, the board of superintendents, 
 the city superintendent, the district superintendent, the 
 principal, the assistant to principal, the director, the 
 supervisor, the special teacher, the school doctor, the 
 school nurse, all employed in giving directions to the one 
 who does the teaching. When lawyers and doctors be- 
 come civil-service employes they too have to submit to 
 supervision. The intern in the hospital takes orders 
 from the superintendent. The assistant in the offices of 
 the district attorney and the corporation counsel must 
 obey their superiors. They may become independent by 
 resigning and seeking clients for themselves. 
 
 (a) Danger of Too Much Supervision. — When all 
 this elaborate machinery of supervision is in operation, 
 what chance is there for a teacher to have a single origi- 
 nal thought or to do anything in her own way 1 Some- 
 
56 NEW YORK SCHOOL, INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 times in our efforts to improve the schools we do more 
 harm than good by squeezing all the spontaneity out of 
 the teachers and reducing them to mere automatons op- 
 erated by supervising officials. "What self-respect can a 
 teacher have who is compelled every morning to lay up- 
 on her principal's desk a daily plan decorated with red 
 ink, just as she in turn requires her children to bring to 
 her desk their written home lessons? After all, the 
 power of invention, the ability to be different from other 
 people, is the most important quality of a human being. 
 That form of supervision which produces the largest 
 amount of originality in teachers and pupils is the most 
 desirable. n 
 
 The dictum has been often laid down that the govern- 
 ment is best which governs least. The chief end of school 
 government is to teach the pupil self-control and self- 
 direction. In the words of the Lacedemonian peda- 
 gogue, "the business of the teacher is to make himself 
 useless." This is only another way of saying that all 
 education should stimulate the self -activity of the pupil. 
 He will not always have a teacher. School days are 
 bound to come to an end ; and the child who has learned 
 most successfully how to help himself has the best educa- 
 tion, other things being equal. 
 
 In the training and supervision of teachers the same 
 principle holds. They also must learn the lesson of self- 
 help. This they can do only if they are thrown upon 
 their own resources. Nearly all beginners in teaching 
 depend at first upon the principal for control of the 
 class. It is proper that they should do so for a while. 
 But they should clearly understand from the outset that 
 
REPLY OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS 57 
 
 the ideal of discipline is to be able to control without the 
 assistance of the principal. 
 
 In the matter of teaching, also, we must let the novice 
 try his 'prentice hands. We give him definite term 
 plans, showing in some detail what is to be taught. Then 
 we let him try. He will make many mistakes; but we 
 must let him learn to do things in his own way. If he 
 violates correct principles of teaching, he must change 
 his method; but we must remember that a lesson may 
 be well taught in many different ways. For instance, if 
 he tries to teach the meaning of words in a fifth-year 
 class by the method of memorized definitions, we show 
 him why this procedure is ineffective ; but there are sev- 
 eral good ways of doing the thing inductively, and we 
 need not care which of these he employs so long as the 
 result is satisfactory. 
 
 (b) The Martinet Principal. — We would in all 
 cases hold a teacher to correct principles and to the 
 school plans. Within these limits we would let him work 
 out his own individuality. In this connection Superin- 
 tendent Maxwell has expressed himself in the following 
 words : 
 
 "If there is one thing worse than a martinet 
 superintendent it is a martinet principal, and you 
 should respect the rights of your teachers in the 
 exercise of their legitimate freedom. Think of a 
 young woman who comes to you with next to no 
 experience, having learned a great deal, or imagin- 
 ing that she knows, about methods and principles 
 of teaching; full of enthusiasm, desirous of doing 
 her best for the children, for the honor of the school, 
 for you, the principal ; and whose life is taken out 
 
58 NEW YORK SCHOOL. INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 on her first day of school by the stern orders of an 
 unsympathetic principal, or worse yet, of an un- 
 sympathetic head of department. Wise and kindly 
 counsel, suggestion, praise where possible, should 
 take the place of remorseless criticism." 
 
 A common form of tyranny is the daily plan con- 
 structed in a prescribed way and demanded of all 
 teachers. Some preparation is necessary, certainly, if 
 we are to have anything but random effort; and begin- 
 ners need definite instruction as to the method of laying 
 out a day's work. An apprentice must expect friendly 
 guidance of this sort. But the artist teacher, who, 
 though rare, is found in almost any school, should not 
 be hampered by hateful and unnecessary surveillance. 
 He should follow some schedule, but not so rigidly as to 
 sacrifice the real interests of the class. There are often 
 vital but unforeseen difficulties or moments of pupil curi- 
 osity and enthusiasm. These will quite justifiably de- 
 tain a teacher long enough to smooth the way or turn 
 the interest to profit. The mechanical teacher who keeps 
 one eye on the clock and the other on the time schedule 
 is not a high-class artist. His work may be scientific 
 management, but it is still that of a somewhat inferior 
 order of intellect. "The goodly mind, loving to impart 
 high things, has goal, orderliness, accuracy, judgment, 
 but its intelligence is plastic and alive, master and not 
 slave of routine."* A wise principal will let all of his 
 teachers alone some of the time, and many of them much 
 of the time. 
 
 * Prof. Win. Ellery Leonard, of the University of Wisconsin, in 
 New TorTc Times, Sept. 29, 1912. 
 
REPLY OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS 59 
 
 (c) Freedom Necessary to Personal Development. 
 — In one of his annual reports Dr. Maxwell called atten- 
 tion to the excessive number of supervising officers that 
 were employed in Brooklyn, and recommended the re- 
 duction of the supervising force on the ground that ex- 
 cessive supervision "tends to impair the class teacher's 
 individuality and liberty." 
 
 Mrs. Ella Plagg Young, in 1901, issued a little bookt 
 in which she discusses the evils of over-supervision, us- 
 ing Superintendent Maxwell's criticism of the Brooklyn 
 schools as her text. She says : 
 
 "Daily one sees teachers trying to hold a class to 
 some statement in a text-book that is without con- 
 tent for the pupils, and then, after creating condi- 
 tions foreign to those under which thought plays 
 freely, say with much fervor : 'Think ! Think ! You 
 must think! Why don't you think!' How much 
 difference is there between this method of the teach- 
 ers and that of the principals and superintendents 
 who announce their conclusions in theory and their 
 ideals in practice, and then say to the teachers, 
 'Take these thoughts of mine and be original in us- 
 ing them'? To predicate freedom for teachers in 
 the superintendent's position, or for teachers in the 
 principal's or supervisor's position is not sufficient 
 to establish freedom as an essential; it must be 
 predicated of all teachers." 
 
 On the same subject Prof. Dewey writes with conclu- 
 sive logic* He is answering Prof. Miinsterberg's con- 
 tention that psychology is of no use to the teacher, but 
 
 t Isolation m the School, University of Chicago Press, p. 32. 
 • Psychology and Social Practice, by John Dewey, University of 
 Chicago Press, 1901, p. 16. 
 
60 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 that it belongs to the general educational theorist, the 
 middleman between the psychologist and the educational 
 practitioner. Miinsterberg says : "Do we not lay a spe- 
 cial linking science everywhere between the theory and 
 the practical work? -We have engineering between phy- 
 sics and the practical workingman in the mills ; we have 
 a scientific medicine between the natural science and the 
 physician." Then he reasons from analogy that there 
 should be a linking science between psychology and 
 teaching. That is, such men as McMurry, Thorndike, 
 Home, and DeGarmo are to take the psychology from 
 Miinsterberg and dilute it into babe's milk for the teach- 
 er in the classroom! 
 
 Prof. Dewey takes up the teacher's case from the point 
 of view of individual freedom. He asks : 
 
 "Can the teacher ever receive obligatory prescrip- 
 tions? Can he receive from another a statement of 
 the means by which he is to reach his ends, and not 
 become hopelessly servile in his attitude? "Would 
 not such a result be even worse than the existing 
 mixture of empiricism and inspiration, just because 
 it would forever fossilize the empirical element and 
 dispel the inspiration which now quickens routine? 
 Can a passive, receptive attitude on the part of the 
 instructor be avoided, unless the teacher as a stu- 
 dent of psychology, himself sees the reasons and 
 import of the suggestions and rules that are prof- 
 fered him ? It is the participation by the practical 
 man in the theory, through the agency of the link- 
 ing science, that determines at once the effectiveness 
 of the work done, and the moral freedom and per- 
 sonal development of the one engaged in it. It is 
 because the physician no longer follows rules, which, 
 however rational in themselves, are yet arbitrary to 
 
REPLY OP THE SUPERINTENDENTS 61 
 
 him (because grounded in principles that he does 
 not understand) that his work is becoming liberal, 
 attaining the dignity of a profession, instead of re- 
 maining a mixture of empiricism and quackery." 
 
 (d) Liberty Within the Law. — It is evident that 
 the freedom of the teacher, like the freedom of the citi- 
 zen, has metes and bounds which may not be overstepped 
 with impunity. The citizen has the right to life, liberty, 
 and the pursuit of happiness ; but he must obey the laws 
 of his country, and must not pursue his own happiness 
 to the extent of destroying the happiness of his neigh- 
 bor. So the teacher's liberty is not absolute. 
 
 Says Franklin Bobbitt:* 
 
 "Teachers cannot be permitted to follow caprice 
 in method. When a method which is clearly su- 
 perior to all other methods has been discovered, it 
 alone can be employed. To neglect this function 
 and to excuse one's negligence by proclaiming the 
 value of the freedom of the teacher was perhaps 
 justifiable under our earlier empiricism, when the 
 supervisors were merely promoted teachers and on 
 the scientific side at least knew little more about 
 standards and methods than the rank and file. To- 
 day it is an excuse that appears fair but is in part 
 but a respectable cover for ignorance and indolence. 
 Nothing less than this is fair to the teacher. The 
 amount of knowledge required at the present time 
 in even elementary education is so extensive that 
 no one individual can be expected to cover it all. 
 The principal must specialize in one way and the 
 teacher in another so that their efforts may supple- 
 
 * The Twelfth Yearbook, National Society for the Study of Edu- 
 cation, by Franklin Bobbitt, Instructor in Educational Adminis- 
 tration, University of Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1913. 
 
62 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 ment each other. A supervisor's primary function 
 is specialization in the science of the subject, where- 
 as the teacher's specialization is in the practice of 
 the subject." 
 
 Twenty years ago New York still had concert recita- 
 tions, which could be heard a block away from the school 
 house.* Suppose this abomination should reappear at 
 this date in some school. Prof. McMurry's remedy is 
 "advice," which the teacher may accept or reject. Our 
 remedy is a peremptory "Stop !" What is the sense of 
 calling a principal the head of a school if teachers under 
 his "advice" are nevertheless free to do as they please? 
 A real school is not a mere assembly of class units. It is 
 a compact organism with a responsible head that con- 
 trols and coordinates all the several parts. Otherwise 
 it is a mob. 
 
 (3) Unlimited Uniformity. — Prof. McMurry im- 
 putes to us this theory : "On account of the size of the 
 system there is scarcely a ljmit in the extent to which 
 uniformity is necessary" (p. 43). 
 
 It is easy to prove that no such theory is either held 
 or practiced in New York. "We shall have to admit a 
 certain rigidity of the curriculum, for which, however, 
 the district superintendent is not responsible. We have 
 already pointed out a remedy for this condition ; namely, 
 a minimum syllabus and a liberal amount of unassigned 
 time (p. 49). In administration there is unity, but not 
 uniformity. In the matter of text-books, for instance, 
 
 • «. i 
 
 "Jug: j-u-g, jug, a vessel with a gibbous belly; jug: j-u-g, 
 jug, a vessel with a gibbous belly" — shouted in a second grade 
 class and overheard by the Editor. 
 
REPLY OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS 63 
 
 principals enjoy almost unlimited liberty. There are 
 American communities where every child in a given 
 grade uses the same book ; and in some states a penalty 
 is provided for using any other book than the one pre- 
 scribed. Frequently the course of study prescribes a 
 certain number of pages of a particular book. This is 
 the case even in Horace Mann School, t a part of Prof. 
 McMurry's own institution. In the public schools of 
 New York no such restriction is placed upon principals. 
 Here we have an open book list. The board of educa- 
 tion, on the recommendation of the board of superinten- 
 dents, puts upon the list all the books and general sup- 
 plies deemed worthy; and upon each principal, subject 
 to the approval of the district superintendent, devolves 
 the duty of selecting from the official list the supplies 
 used in his school. A certain per capita allowance of 
 money is apportioned to each school, and the board of 
 education puts no restriction upon principals save that 
 they must order from the list and keep within their 
 allowance. 
 
 The result of this system is, in our judgment, very 
 satisfactory. The principal has thus a chance to assert 
 his individuality in the choice of the materials of in- 
 struction. Eesponsibility goes with power. If he shows 
 poor judgment, he must bear the consequences. If he 
 wastes his substance early in the year on expensive books 
 and later lacks funds for paper and pencils — the bread 
 and butter of a school — he alone is to blame. The knowl- 
 edge of such responsibility sobers him into reflection, and 
 
 t See Teacher? College Eecord, Vol. 14, p. 65. 
 
64 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 makes him a far more valuable executive than he would 
 be if some one benevolently undertook to do all his think- 
 ing for him. 
 
 In the matter of teaching, supervision, and general 
 management, with exceptions already noted, similar 
 freedom is enjoyed. District superintendents are at lib- 
 erty to administer the schools locally, subject to the by- 
 laws, as they see fit ; and they in turn leave to principals 
 the choice of means for the accomplishment of the ends 
 set up. The principals, also, as a rule, accord wide lib- 
 erty to capable teachers. You seldom hear from an "A" 
 teacher a complaint about the want of freedom. The 
 teacher usually has all the liberty that is good for her 
 and the pupils. If she uses a little freedom well, she is 
 apt to get more; if she proves, by her fidelity and suc- 
 cess, that she may safely be trusted, she is likely to have 
 liberty in abundance. This is in accordance with that 
 pregnant saying of George Herbert Palmer, that the test 
 of character is how much liberty it is able to absorb with- 
 out going to pieces. 
 
REPLY OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS 65 
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 
 1. Opinions of Outside Superintendents. — A ques- 
 tionnaire was sent by the secretary of our committee to 
 some seventy-five superintendents of cities in the "United 
 States, to one principal of a normal school, and to the 
 director of the school of education of Chicago Univer- 
 sity. The questionnaire contained the definition of Dr. 
 McMurry's standard in his own words and a statement 
 concerning his mode of procedure, as found on p. 23 
 of this report. It contained also these three questions : 
 
 (a) Do you consider the four standards named above 
 adequate as the sole test of teaching efficiency? 
 
 (b) What would be the probable verdict if your own 
 school system were measured by this test exclusively? 
 
 (c) Would the people of your community tolerate a 
 school system which paid no attention to what the chil- 
 dren know? 
 
 Twenty-seven replies were received. The first ques- 
 tion is answered in the negative by twenty-six superin- 
 tendents and in the affirmative by one. 
 
 The second question produced a variety of answers: 
 Twelve say the verdict would be "poor" or "guilty"; 
 four say, "I don't know" ; one says, "It would depend on 
 the school" ; two say the measure would be "inadequate" ; 
 
66 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIBT BBPOBT 
 
 one says, "Satisfactory, if I had the right kind of teach- 
 ers" ; and the rest have answers variously qualified. 
 
 To the third question sixteen of the twenty-six super- 
 intendents return an unqualified NO. One says, "I don't 
 know"; two say, "I think not"; one says, "The people 
 would laugh and kick us all out" ; one thinks "Knowl- 
 edge would result from the method" ; and the remainder 
 have qualified answers. 
 
 Extracts from Answers Received 
 
 (1) William A. Gieeson, Superintendent, Grand 
 Rapids, Mich.: 
 
 1. I do not think that the four standards named 
 in your circular of inquiry are the sole tests of 
 teaching efficiency, although I do think that they are 
 tests which have not been given their full value 
 heretofore in the public schools. 
 
 2. My answer to No. 1 would indicate that I 
 think these four tests have been neglected in the 
 Grand Rapids schools, and therefore if the school 
 system of Grand Rapids were measured by these 
 tests exclusively they would not make a very good 
 showing. 
 
 3. Certainly not. The trouble is that our com- 
 munity, as all other communities, have not a sound 
 ideal as to the efficiency of the school system because 
 they are inclined to measure the efficiency of a 
 school system by the single test of information. 
 
 (2) Richard E. Clement, Superintendent, Elizabeth, 
 N.J.: 
 
 1. Under existing conditions, No. 
 
 2. Similar to that rendered in New York City. 
 
REPLY OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS 67 
 
 3. They would not. 
 
 The people as a whole demand that the schools 
 teach the children in such a way as to ensure con- 
 crete knowledge of facts, of things, of processes, 
 rather than to train the children so as to develop 
 pure initiative and ability to do. A test which ig- 
 nores existing conditions and possible ideals is not 
 fair. Theories and high ideals have small place in 
 the mind of the public. 
 
 No leader can accomplish much in a life-time if 
 he gets too far ahead or too high above the people 
 he would serve. 
 
 The schools can never be ideally perfect anywhere. 
 The most that can be expected of them is that they 
 shall always be progressive, always be a little ahead 
 of local public sentiment, shall always lead to a bet- 
 ter, a nobler, and a saner citizenship, shall develop 
 each individual to the limit of his capacity and 
 power, while at the same time so conform to the pop- 
 ular demand as to receive the sympathy, the sup- 
 port, and enjoy in a high degree the confidence of 
 the people they seek to serve. 
 
 (3) Herbert S. Weet, Superintendent, Eochester, 
 
 N. Y.: 
 
 As presented in your circular, the test on the 
 efficiency of teaching in your school impresses me 
 as being unfair and inadequate. No one of the four 
 qualities mentioned as entering into efficient teach- 
 ing could be dispensed with. On the other hand, I 
 doubt if there is a public school system in this coun- 
 try that is using as an efficiency test in instruction 
 solely the four qualities mentioned either in form 
 or in substance. This means that the proposed test 
 is by no means an established test. For this reason 
 I should like to know then in the first place how ex- 
 tensive and intelligent an authority there is back 
 
68 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 of the test applied. The efficiency of the instruction 
 in the New York schools is, of course, purely a rela- 
 tive matter. This efficiency I should suppose would 
 be measured by such efficiency tests as are estab- 
 lished. This is the least that can be done. If after 
 this is done a committee declares to pronounce judg- 
 ment as to what they personally think should char- 
 acterize efficiency instruction, all well and good. In 
 so far, therefore, as this committee of inquiry has 
 failed to pass judgment on the relative efficiency of 
 the New York schools as compared with other schools 
 as judged by commonly established tests the com- 
 mittee has in my judgment been unfair. 
 
 In the second place, the test is inadequate. I fail 
 to see on what grounds present knowledge of pupils 
 is ignored in passing judgment on the efficiency of 
 teaching. Certainly our community would not 
 tolerate a school system which ignored present 
 knowledge. 
 
 (4) Thomas S. Weaver, Superintendent, Hartford, 
 Conn.: 
 
 Your questionnaire is at hand. I have followed 
 the school inquiry in your city with some interest 
 and more curiosity. I hope some time it will be pos- 
 sible for you school people to do some teaching, and 
 not have quite so much defensive work on hand. I 
 answer your questionnaire with pleasure: 
 
 To the First question — No, sir. 
 
 To the Second question — The verdict would be 
 that we did not know what we are doing. 
 
 To the Third question — Our community would 
 laugh, and kick us all out. 
 
 (5) Isaac O. Winslow, Superintendent, Providence, 
 B. I. : 
 
 I regard the application of these standards as the 
 
EEPLT OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS 69 
 
 exploitation of an extreme hobby, that is visionary 
 and impracticable. My prayer is that the schools 
 may be saved from some of their friends. 
 
 (6) A. R. Brubacher, Superintendent, Schenectady, 
 N. Y.: 
 
 1st. The four standards named, purpose, judg- 
 ment, reasoning, and initiative, are not all the tests 
 that should be applied in testing teaching efficiency. 
 I should certainly want to add habit-ot-work, of at- 
 tention, of obedience; and knowledge-oi -things, of 
 processes, ideas, etc. Nevertheless, it is not a matter 
 of chief importance what tests are used, provided 
 there be a considerable number and variety. It is 
 of supreme importance that there be a wide appli- 
 cation. It is impossible to generalize from a few 
 isolated or peculiar facts. Nineteen teachers out of 
 fifteen thousand are a wholly inadequate basis of 
 judgment. Music is not a fair test of efficiency un- 
 der any circumstances, I should therefore say that 
 any conclusions applied to fifteen thousand on the 
 basis of what nineteen of them do or any judgment 
 based upon work in music, but applied to arith- 
 metic, English, history or geography, one or all, is 
 unscientific and, of course, unfair. 
 
 2nd. I should not care to judge my school sys- 
 tem on a similar paucity of facts. My objection 
 would not be to the standards used, but to the ex- 
 tremely limited application of the standards. On 
 the same basis described by you, similar investiga- 
 tion in this city would mean that our three hundred 
 sixty classroom teachers would be judged on the 
 observation of four-tenths of a teacher. Merely to 
 state this fact is to bring ridicule upon the propo- 
 sition. 
 
 3rd. I cannot help feel that this is begging the 
 question. If the application of the four standards 
 
70 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 named were adequate, it would be comparatively 
 easy to pass judgment upon what the children know, 
 or perhaps my meaning would be clearer to say that 
 efficient teaching as determined by the four stand- 
 ards named would guarantee satisfactory knowledge 
 on the part of the children. Furthermore, an in- 
 vestigation would not be vitiated because it left out 
 a test on what the children know, because that can 
 readily be ascertained from examinations in subject 
 matter given by the teacher. 
 
 My reply is given on the assumption that your 
 statements under the paragraphs headed "The Test" 
 and "Conclusion" are in all respects correct. 
 
 (7) Ella Flagg Young, Superintendent, Chicago, 
 111.: 
 
 1. No. 
 
 2. It would depend upon the selection of the 
 school to be examined. Chicago has many prin- 
 cipals, teachers, and schools of a high order ; it has 
 a few old fogies. 
 
 3. No. 
 
 (8) Martin G. Brumbaugh, Superintendent, Phila- 
 delphia, Pa.: 
 
 1. No. 
 
 2. Just how the system could be "measured" by 
 this test exclusively, except by exhaustive quanti- 
 tative studies, I do not know, unless the judgments 
 rendered were merely personal. The verdict I 
 would not predict. 
 
 3. Certainly not. 
 
 (9) Asher J. Jacoby, Superintendent, Elmira, N. Y.: 
 
 1. No. 
 
 2. Unfavorable to quite an extent, I am sure. 
 
 3. They would not. 
 
REPLY OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS 71 
 
 (10) Henry P. Emerson, Superintendent, Buffalo, 
 N. Y.: 
 
 1. No. 
 
 2. Unfavorable. 
 
 3. I think not. 
 
 (11) John R. Wilson, Superintendent, Paterson, 
 N. J.: 
 
 1. I do not consider the four standards named 
 as the sole test of teaching efficiency. 
 
 2. The probable verdict would be very unsatis- 
 factory to anyone who really understands school 
 work; but there is an element in every community 
 that welcomes unfavorable criticism of any subject, 
 at any time. 
 
 3. No. "You cannot fool all people all of the 
 time." 
 
 Theje are so many other influences that have a 
 part in developing purpose, judgment, reasoning, 
 and initiative (or the want of them), influences 
 outside of school and over which teachers have no 
 control. 
 
 Knowledge is the material from which we develop 
 purpose, judgment, reasoning, and initiative. 
 
 (12) Charles E. Gorton, Superintendent, Yonkers, 
 N. Y.: 
 
 1. No. 
 
 2. I do not know. 
 
 3. I do not know. I would not. 
 
 (13) P. M. Hughes, Superintendent, Syracuse, N. Y. : 
 
 In the first place, the basis of judgment, 29 cases, 
 is wholly inadequate. 
 
 Beyond that fact the points on which the judg- 
 ment is to be founded all seem to me to be good. 
 
72 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 They are all points which could be aimed at in good 
 teaching. The only question, I think, is how they 
 are to be interpreted. If the interpretation is a lib- 
 eral, sympathetic one, the judgment ought to be 
 fair; if narrow it will be unfair. 
 
 I do not see how you can eliminate a knowledge 
 of facts, either in organizing one's ideas, or in cul- 
 tivating good judgment, two of the points involved. 
 
 (14) /. M. H. Frederick, Superintendent, Cleveland, 
 Ohio: 
 
 I do not think that the four standards given are 
 adequate as a sole test of teaching efficiency. I may 
 not have studied these standards as carefully as I 
 should, and possibly for this reason I have not dis- 
 covered that they take sufficiently into account such 
 definite knowledge as is necessary for a comprehen- 
 sion of subjects studied, as, for example, Arithmetic 
 and Grammar. Moreover, the development of habits 
 of conduct by whch at least 95% of our acts are de- 
 termined, seem to be rather overlooked. Besides, 
 the power to determine values and to organize, as 
 well as the power of initiative, vary with individuals 
 and in all stages of life. Some do not develop these 
 powers to great degree until well along in school, or 
 even until after they have quit school altogether. 
 Without a large measure of knowledge, it is impos- 
 sible for pupils to determine values, to organize 
 facts, or to take any important initiative in thought. 
 
 I recognize the importance of the principles in- 
 volved in these tests, but I do not consider that they 
 alone are adequate. 
 
 (15) Henry Snyder, Superintendent, Jersey City, 
 N. J.: 
 
 1. It must be admitted that the standards at 
 which school work should aim, as stated by the in- 
 
REPLY OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS 73 
 
 vestigation of the Committee on School Inquiry, and 
 as quoted by you, are very important and should 
 constantly be kept in mind by teachers. At no 
 time heretofore, however, have these standards been 
 used as the sole test of efficiency. It would, there- 
 fore, not seem fair or adequate to use them as the 
 sole test unless all teachers should understand that 
 they were to be so used and that other standards 
 were to be ignored. 
 
 2. As my answer to this question must naturally 
 be an estimate, before answering it I should like to 
 study the reports carefully. I must say, however, 
 that I should like to have a similar test applied here, 
 although I should also like it to be more comprehen- 
 sive than that which you describe. 
 
 3. I do not like the way in which this question 
 is put, because in answering it and thus speaking 
 for the community I would be required to appear 
 presumptuous. Speaking for myself, however, I 
 would say that I believe the acquisition of necessary 
 knowledge to be an important aim of instruction, 
 although it is easy to overestimate the comparative 
 value of this element. 
 
 I have answered the question on the basis largely 
 of such information as you have given and after 
 glancing rather hurriedly at the reports or abstracts 
 from them. As I have intimated, I should like to 
 study all the reports very carefully. After I have 
 done so I should probably elaborate the answers 
 given above. 
 
 (16) Charles H. Judd, Director, School of Educa- 
 tion, The University of Chicago : 
 
 My dear Mr. Taylor: 
 
 I have read over your printed circular of Febru- 
 ary 25th and your letter of March 30th with a good 
 deal of interest. I have personally much greater 
 
74 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 confidence in the subject matter test as a suitable 
 test of school efficiency than does Dr. McMurry. I 
 have sometimes thought that a compromise between 
 the two extreme positions could be reached by some 
 such statement as this. The subject matter of in- 
 struction is an instrument used by the teacher for 
 the accomplishment of certain educational results. 
 The results are not primarily those of acquaintance 
 with a certain body of knowledge, but the results 
 are never satisfactory unless the educational mate- 
 rial has been effectively used. 
 
 Second, I think that it is altogether impossible to 
 determine just how valuable personal observation 
 is in ascertaining the efficiency of the school. There 
 are some people whose observation is worth a good 
 deal, even though they have seen only a small per- 
 centage of the teachers, while other people could on 
 the basis of an absolutely complete personal con- 
 tact with every school overlook very essential mat- 
 ters. For this reason I have much greater confi- 
 dence in the larger, more objective facts with regard 
 to the school system. For example, I should per- 
 sonally be a good deal interested in such matter as 
 the retention of students and other items of that 
 type. 
 
 Finally, I am a good deal interested in your third 
 question. I have no doubt at all that the answer to 
 this question is that the community would not tol- 
 erate such a school system and I doubt whether Mr. 
 McMurry means to ask them to. I think that there 
 is some danger in our educational discussions of 
 emphasizing our professional controveries in such 
 a way and in such terms that the layman can hardly 
 be invited with safety to participate in our discus- 
 sions. Some of us undoubtedly pay too great at- 
 tention to certain formal conditions of the course of 
 study and its content. I take it that Mr. McMurry's 
 
REPLY OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS 75 
 
 quarrel is with people who overdo the content side 
 of the course. To attempt to put him into the po- 
 sition of neglecting this altogether would, I believe, 
 he to exaggerate the opposite position. 
 
 I shall be very much interested to have a copy of 
 any reports which you and your committee may 
 issue later. 
 
 (17) /. M. Greenwood, Superintendent, Kansas City, 
 Mo.: 
 
 At your request I submit the following replies to 
 the three questions you ask, based on the tests em- 
 ployed by the committee: 
 
 1. To the first — No. The tests are too narrow. 
 The pupils ought to have been tested on what they 
 had studied, and not on what they had not studied. 
 These tests should have involved ready information 
 the pupils possessed and could command instantly, 
 and also on matters lying within the domain of their 
 experience or related experiences. 
 
 It would have been an excellent thing had the 
 examiners submitted to the pupils some examples 
 that had little or no value, along with those having 
 universal values, and have kept a record of the 
 pupils' judgments on these inquiries. Such exer- 
 cises would not only have tested ability to pick out 
 values, but would, if broadened, have an index to 
 their power of retaining facts, of receiving new 
 ideas, and of reasoning upon them. 
 
 As to the Initiative spoken of, I would not expect 
 a city-bred child to know with any degree of cer- 
 tainty what the country child knows, or vice versa. 
 Yet each might have a full supply of initiative in his 
 own sphere of activity. A sudden change would 
 render each helpless for a time in his new location. 
 Initiative may be viewed in two ways: quick and 
 
76 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 sensible responses to new situations, and a patient, 
 thoughful planning out and doing things in one's 
 own way. 
 
 Lying back of what I have said, is this funda- 
 mental fact, the examiners ought to have found out 
 from each teacher what he was trying to do with his 
 pupils and how near he came to realizing his ideal. 
 If I get on a boat, I want to know where the vessel 
 is going, and does "the pilot know how to get to port. 
 This is what I mean by questioning the teacher. 
 
 The personality of the teacher counts for a great 
 deal in a schoolroom, and his common sense for as 
 much. His social adaptability to his pupils is a 
 factor that cannot be omitted in the success of a 
 school. No school progr amm e is so rigid as to elim- 
 inate or suppress these qualities. 
 
 I believe that it would have been more in keeping 
 with scientific investigation and measurement to 
 collect the facts, to classify them, and then to de- 
 termine what they proved, if anything. 
 
 2. To this inquiry I would give notice of an ap- 
 peal, because of the omission of material and im- 
 portant evidence. 
 
 3. Out this way, our children prefer to be ex- 
 amined on what they know, and not on what they 
 do not know. They are willing for their teachers to 
 be examined on subjects they do not know. 
 
 There are many suggestions on teaching in this 
 report that make it a valuable contribution to peda- 
 gogical literature, notwithstanding its one-sidedness. 
 
REPLY OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS 77 
 
 CHAPTER V 
 
 DR. ELLIOTT'S REPORT 
 
 We shall adopt, in this case, the same procedure that 
 was followed in discussing the McMurry report ; namely, 
 start with the findings and work back to the facts upon 
 which the conclusions are based. 
 
 The first of these findings is as follows : 
 
 "While the general theory of the plan of the dis- 
 trict superintendent in the supervisory organization 
 is a sound one, this theory is not, as to its essential 
 elements, carried out in practice" (p. 41). 
 
 What this general theory is the investigator sum- 
 marizes in a single paragraph, of which this is a copy : 
 
 "The district superintendency, according to the 
 general theory of the plan of organization, was to 
 be, as it properly should be, a position of great su- 
 pervisory importance. These officers were to con- 
 stitute the direct connecting links between the City 
 Superintendent and the board of superintendents, 
 and the principals, teachers, pupils, and people of 
 the community. Through them was to come a uni- 
 fication and elevation of educational standards. The 
 evidence which has been collected and considered 
 during the inquiry has led to the general conclusion 
 that, in practice, the soundness of the theory for the 
 
78 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 city as a whole has not been fully demonstrated. 
 The more important of the bases for this conclusion 
 will be briefly presented" (p. 35). 
 
 The facts alleged then follow. They are presented un- 
 der three general heads — (a) the size of the districts, 
 (b) the selection and qualification of district superin- 
 tendents, (c) and the supervisory activities of district 
 superintendents. The data offered in support of the im- 
 portant conclusion occupy less than six pages. 
 
 1. The Functions of the District Superintendent. 
 — The functions of the district superintendent, as de- 
 fined by the charter and the by-laws, are thus sum- 
 marized in the Twelfth Annual Report of the City 
 Superintendent : 
 
 (1) Appointment: Twenty-six, appointed by 
 the Board of Education on nomination by Board of 
 Superintendents, for term of six years. 
 
 (2) Powers and Duties: 
 
 (a) Visit and examine schools under direction of 
 City Superintendent. 
 
 (b) Report to City Superintendent on the condi- 
 tion and needs of the schools. 
 
 (c) Advise, assist, and encourage pupils, teach- 
 ers, and principals. 
 
 (d) Conduct conferences with principals and 
 teachers. 
 
 (e) Rate principals and teachers at least once a 
 year. 
 
 (f) Investigate all complaints within their dis- 
 tricts. 
 
 (g) Report gross misconduct of principals and 
 teachers, and suspend for the same. 
 
 (h) Assign teachers of special branches to schools. 
 
REPLY OP THE SUPERINTENDENTS 79 
 
 (i) Approve, disapprove, or modify all requisi- 
 tions of principals for supplies. 
 
 (j) Attend meetings of Local School Boards. 
 
 (k) Are to be in their offices on specified days. 
 
 (1) Keep records of the district. 
 
 (m) Make recommendations to City Superintend- 
 ent as to proper accommodation for all children of 
 school age. 
 
 (n) Enforce compulsory education law, under 
 the direction of the City Superintendent of Schools. 
 
 As to this list of duties, the first thing to be remarked 
 is that no evidence is furnished to prove that a single 
 one of the twenty-six district superintendents has failed 
 to discharge any of the duties specifically laid upon him. 
 We all visit schools ; make reports as required ; advise, 
 assist, and encourage pupils, teachers, and principals; 
 conduct conferences; rate teachers; investigate com- 
 plaints; report delinquencies of teachers; assign special 
 teachers; approve or disapprove requisitions; attend 
 local boards ; keep office hours three days a week ; keep 
 records; make recommendations as to school accommo- 
 dations; and enforce the compulsory education law. It 
 is not alleged by Dr. Elliott that any district superin- 
 tendent has failed in a single instance to discharge the 
 functions here catalogued. If it is true that the "essen- 
 tion elements" of the theory of the district superintend- 
 ency are not "carried out in practice," the defect cannot 
 be due to sins of omission, but must be due to sins of 
 commission. There is actual compliance, in the case of 
 every district superintendent, so far as the facts of the 
 inquiry show, with the literal demands of the charter 
 and the by-laws. Since, then, the quantity of service is 
 
80 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 admitted to be adequate and even beyond human 
 strength (p« 36), it follows that the quality of the service 
 must be responsible for the failure to realize the theo- 
 retical benefits of the district superintendency. 
 
 (1) The Theory of the District Superintendency. 
 — In all social organizations two forces are perpetually 
 contending for the mastery. One is represented in gov- 
 ernment by the monarchical idea, the other by the demo- 
 cratic idea. One tends to promote uniformity, the other 
 to produce difference. The unifying energy has been 
 called integration, the isolating power differentiation. 
 Integration is a centripetal force tending to concentrate 
 power in the centre of the social organ ; differentiation 
 is a centrifugal force tending to distribute power to the 
 social units. The American and French Revolutions 
 which the world witnessed at the end of the eighteenth 
 century were social cataclysms resulting from excessive 
 integration. King Louis said, "I am the State" ; and he 
 was. King George was not willing to share his authority 
 with his children across the seas. The result of these 
 revolutionary reactions was excessive differentiation, 
 shown in France by the speedy restoration of the Mon- 
 archy and in the American Colonies by the failure of the 
 Articles of Confederation. The two forces have con- 
 tended in our own country from that day until now. 
 Integration demands a strong central government; dif- 
 ferentiation is in favor of States Rights, the doctrine 
 which, as Garfield said, was shot to death at Appomat- 
 tox. Gradually the centripetal power is gaining. Con- 
 gress is exercising functions to-day which were unknown 
 to it a century ago. Under the guise of regulating inter- 
 
REPLY OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS 81 
 
 state commerce, and under the general welfare clause, 
 the government at "Washington is gradually extending 
 the centripetal forces at the expense of the centrifugal 
 forces. 
 
 What is thus true of the national government is 
 equally true of smaller political units. Concentration is 
 the order of the day. Municipal reform invariably con- 
 sists in the concentration of power in the hands of a 
 mayor, who is responsible to the people. School reform 
 is an incident of municipal reform ; and here again the 
 process is a case of more complete integration. The ad- 
 ministration of schools is put into the hands of a central 
 board of education, which prepares eligible lists, ap- 
 points and promotes teachers, makes courses of study, 
 builds school houses, and is responsible for the expendi- 
 ture of school moneys. The advantages of such a 
 method, from a business standpoint, are manifest. For 
 one thing, it is more economical ; and again, if things go 
 wrong it is easy to fix responsibility. It is also more 
 efficient, since it is possible to secure uniformity and to 
 enforce a common standard of excellence. 
 
 But the invariable effect of centralized government is 
 to alienate the sympathy of the governed. The tyranny 
 of the Russian Czar is an illustration. Our constitution 
 endeavors to maintain a balance between the centripetal 
 and the centrifugal forces by giving certain powers to 
 the national government and reserving the rest to the 
 states. The local school board bears the same relation 
 to the board of education that our states bear to the gov- 
 ernment at Washington. It represents differentiation, 
 or the centrifugal force. The board of education is a 
 
82 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 corporation; and a corporation is accused of having no 
 soul. It administers the school system in a sort of ab- 
 stract or mechanical way. It does not know concrete in- 
 dividuals. It is apt to look at the schools through sta- 
 tistics and sometimes forgets that teachers and children 
 are made of flesh and blood. 
 
 (2) The District Superintendent and the Local 
 Board. — The district superintedent and the local school 
 board camp out in the district. With them everything is 
 concrete. They know the teachers and the children per- 
 sonally. They know some of the parents and find out 
 what people think and feel concerning the schools. They 
 are thus in a position to gather a fund of experience 
 which is impossible to the board of education, but which 
 is indispensable to a successful administration of the 
 schools. Through a system of reports this experience be- 
 comes available to the central authority; and through 
 the contact of the local officers with the schools and 
 parents of the district the purposes and plans of the 
 board of education are made plain to the people. Such, 
 we take it, is the theory of the local school board and 
 the district superintendency. 
 
 Dr. Elliott notes the fact (p. 34) that the district su- 
 perintendent attends meetings of the local boards, but 
 does not anywhere include membership in such boards in 
 discussing the theory and function of the superintendent. 
 From what has been said in the preceding section it is 
 plain that any evalution of the district superintendent's 
 services which ignores his relation to the local boards is 
 inadequate. It is a fact that the district superintendent 
 and the two local boards of which he is a member admin- 
 
REPLT OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS 83 
 
 ister the schools locally. Hardly an important step is 
 taken by the central authorities in relation to school 
 property which is not initiated by a local school board, 
 or referred to it, or reported to it. Very seldom is any 
 action taken in regard to a principal, teacher, or pupil 
 in any school without reference to the district superin- 
 tendent. Not a desk is added to or taken from a class- 
 room without a report from the district superintendent. 
 Not a class is organized or discontinued in any school 
 without the recommendation of the district superintend- 
 ent. When a new school is to be organized or the or- 
 ganization of any school is to be changed, the district 
 trict superintendent is ordinarily consulted as to all the 
 details, including the appointment of principal and 
 teachers. Not a license of any principal or teacher is 
 renewed without a report from the district superintend- 
 ent. For the purpose of approving the services of teach- 
 ers for increase of pay every third year, the detailed 
 report of the district superintendent is taken as a basis 
 for the action of the board of superintendents. Not a 
 site is selected, not a building is erected, not even a store 
 is rented as an annex to a school, without a report from 
 the district superintendent as to the necessity and desir- 
 ability of such action. 
 
 District superintendents visit and inspect or examine 
 every class in the district' at least once a year. They are 
 personally known by the children attending the public 
 schools of the district. They attend graduation exer- 
 cises and parents' meetings and other civic functions, 
 and thus become acquainted with hundreds of parents. 
 In conducting hearings for truancy and incorrigibility 
 
84 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 they learn much of the poverty, neglect, and other hard- 
 ships suffered by parents or children, and thus acquire 
 knowledge and insight as to social conditions. "When a 
 teacher is in difficulty with her principal, she confides 
 in the district superintendent. When a principal has a 
 teacher who is incompetent or delinquent, he confers 
 with the district superintendent. The district superin- 
 tendent is the adviser of the local board. All his rec- 
 ords, experience, and professional knowledge are at the 
 disposal of the board. He is actually the "connecting 
 link" between City Superintendent and the board of su- 
 perintendents at the center of the system, and the prin- 
 cipals, teachers, pupils, and people at the periphery. It 
 is therefore difficult to see in what respect the theory of 
 organization has failed in practice so far as this phase 
 of the district superintendent's work is concerned. In 
 fact, Prof. McMurry finds the influence of the district 
 superintendent too great rather than too small, for he 
 says (p. 148) : 
 
 "The principal is further hampered by the fact 
 that there is a decided tendency to regard the dis- 
 trict superintendent, rather than the principal, as 
 the really active head of each school." 
 
 How shall we know what is the real outcome of this 
 inquiry when one expert complains that the district su- 
 perintendent has too much influence and another com- 
 plains that he has too little? 
 
 2. The Size of Supervisory Districts: — On this 
 point the conclusion of the inquiry is as follows : 
 
 "The supervisory districts are too large to permit 
 the district superintendents properly to fulfill their 
 
REPLY OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS 85 
 
 responsibilities as supervisors. Many of these 
 should be transferred to principals of school" (p. 
 41).* F 
 
 The statement as to the size of districts is correct. 
 Many of them are too large. The inequalities should 
 have been corrected before now. The number of teach- 
 ers per district superintendent in 1911, according to 
 Dr. Elliott's table (p. 37), ranges from 403 to 1,120. 
 The average is 684. Between 1902 and 1912 the school 
 population increased thirty-three per cent. The number 
 of schools, principals, and teachers increased in similar 
 ratio. But the number of district superintendents re- 
 mained stationary. 
 
 (1) The Quality of Supervision by Principals. — 
 The last sentence of the paragraph quoted above recom- 
 mends the transfer of some of the supervisory functions 
 now exercised by the district superintendent to the prin- 
 cipals. It would have been well to specify in detail the 
 functions that should be transferred. Dr. Elliott seems 
 to have some misgivings about this proposal on account 
 of the assumed incompetence of principals. He says that 
 "more than a moderate supervisory skill on the part of 
 principals, assistants to principals, and heads of depart- 
 ments . . . cannot be granted" (p. 36) ; . . . "this pro- 
 posal assumes . . . the competency and reliability of the 
 principal. In any event, the need is not so much more 
 supervision of teachers and schools by district superin- 
 tendents, but better supervision by principals" (p. 36). 
 
 Why he entertains so mean an opinion of the abilities 
 
 * We assume that "these" refers to responsibilities, although 
 grammatically it refers to supervisory districts. 
 
86 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 of principals we are not informed. He offers no facts. 
 He did not investigate principals. That was the prov- 
 ince assigned to Prof. McMurry. He says he visited 
 twenty-one elementary schools (p. 6), or four per cent, 
 of the whole number ; but he did not in any case make 
 a thorough examination of even a single class. He 
 states further that the evidence gathered by his "per- 
 sonal inspections and visitation of schools was supple- 
 mented by the testimony of Prof. McMurry" (p. 29). 
 But neither Dr. Elliott nor Prof. McMurry permits us 
 to see one scrap of first-hand and concrete evidence such 
 as a district superintendent would have to furnish to 
 sustain a poor rating of a principal. Here is a partial 
 list of items on which the district superintendent reports 
 each year with reference to every school in his district : 
 
 1. Sanitary conditions. 
 
 2. Principal's personality and power of discipline. 
 
 3. Records. 
 
 4. Conferences with teachers. 
 
 5. Eapid dismissals. 
 
 6. Assistance to inexperienced teachers. 
 
 7. Use of libraries. 
 
 8. Patriotic exercises. 
 
 9. Promotions. 
 
 10. Beading. 
 
 11. Phonetics. 
 
 12. Memory. 
 
 13. Spelling. 
 
 14. Free writing. 
 
 15. Grammar. 
 
 16. Composition. 
 
 17. Mathematics. 
 
 18. Geography. 
 
 19. Nature study. 
 
REPLY OP THE SUPERINTENDENTS 87 
 
 20. 
 
 Elementary science. 
 
 21. 
 
 History. 
 
 22. 
 
 Civics. 
 
 23. 
 
 Ethical training. 
 
 24. 
 
 Physical training. 
 
 25. 
 
 Hygiene. 
 
 26. 
 
 Music. 
 
 27. 
 
 Kindergarten. 
 
 28. 
 
 Construction. 
 
 29. 
 
 Shop. 
 
 30. 
 
 Drawing. 
 
 31. 
 
 Sewing. 
 
 32. 
 
 Cooking. 
 
 33. 
 
 German. 
 
 34. 
 
 Progress books. 
 
 35. 
 
 Programs. 
 
 36. 
 
 Decoration. 
 
 37. 
 
 Text books. 
 
 38. 
 
 Unifying work. 
 
 39, 
 
 Grading. 
 
 40. 
 
 Care of pupils. 
 
 41. 
 
 Compulsory education. 
 
 If the investigators had made an adequate examina- 
 tion of even one school and given us the facts, we should 
 know the truth about that school and should be able to 
 decide whether the conclusion was justified by the evi- 
 dence. If they had made a thorough examination of, 
 say, fifty schools taken at random, and presented the 
 facts in detail, the formulated conclusions would com- 
 mand respect. But nothing of the kind was done. The 
 Borough of The Bronx has a population equal to that of 
 Pittsburgh, much larger than that of Buffalo, and about 
 one-fourth as large as that of the entire State of Wis- 
 consin, where Prof. Elliott lives. Yet he did not inspect 
 
88 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 a single school or class in The Bronx, and Prof. McMurry 
 visited only five classes in that borough. Not one school 
 or class in the Borough of Richmond was visited by 
 either of the gentlemen. Yet the superintendents, prin- 
 cipals, and teachers of these boroughs are included in 
 the wholesale condemnation of these reports. Can any 
 fair-minded reader wonder why we question the validity 
 of opinions thus expressed about hundreds of schools 
 that were never even seen by the experts who condemn 
 them? Are we not justified in denouncing such an in- 
 vestigation as a burlesque of the scientific method? The 
 Committee on School Inquiry asks for facts and gets 
 opinions. It pays for a real investigation and gets a 
 parody. 
 
 (a) Where the Inquisitors Failed to Inquire. — We 
 have collected from district superintendents statements 
 as to the manner in which and the extent to which Prof. 
 McMurry and Dr. Elliott examined the schools in the 
 several supervisory districts. The following question- 
 naire was submitted to each district superintendent: 
 
 1. How many and what schools under your super- 
 vision did Prof. McMurry visit! 
 
 2. How many classes did he inspect in each school T 
 
 3. How much time did he spend in each school! 
 
 4. How many and what schools under your super- 
 vision did Dr. Elliott visit! 
 
 5. How many classes did he inspect or examine in 
 each school to determine the quality of the su- 
 pervision ! 
 
 6. What inquiry did he make of principals as to 
 the methods of supervision! 
 
 7. Did he examine the written work of any classes, 
 
REPLY OP THE SUPERINTENDENTS 89 
 
 such as composition, dictation, drawing, results 
 of tests given by teachers and principals? 
 8. How much time did Prof. McMurry spend with 
 you? Dr. Hanus? Dr. Elliott? 
 
 Three of our number have died since the School In- 
 quiry began, and several of the superintendents have 
 failed to answer our questions. The answers in hand 
 may be summarized thus : 
 
 Superintendent A. — The investigators made no 
 inquiry of me and saw none of my schools. 
 
 Superintendent B. — Questions 1-7 I cannot an- 
 swer ; none of these gentlemen visited me. 
 
 Superintendent C. — None of them came to me or 
 to any of my schools. 
 
 Superintendent D. — Mr. McMurry visited one 
 school and one class. Dr. Elliott visited none. None 
 of the gentlemen visited me. 
 
 Superintendent E. — Dr. McMurry visited none of 
 my schools. Dr. Elliott visited four schools and 
 three classes. He made no inquiry of principals ; he 
 inspected the penmanship in one class. Dr. Hanus 
 met me at luncheon for an hour and a half and Dr. 
 Elliott spent nearly all of one school day with me. 
 
 Superintendent F. — Dr. McMurry visited two 
 schools and five classes. All the other questions are 
 answered by the word none. 
 
 Superintendent G. — Dr. Elliott spent one hour in 
 my office and visited one school for a few minutes. 
 All the other questions are answered by none. 
 
 Superintendent H.— None of the gentlemen visit- 
 ed me or my district. 
 
 Superintendent /.—Dr. Elliott spent an evening 
 with me visiting recreation centres. 
 
90 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 Superintendent J. — The three inquisitors inquired 
 neither of me nor of mine. 
 
 Superintendent K. — Prof . McMurry visited three 
 schools and six classes, spending about four hours. 
 Dr. Elliott visited two schools and six classes. No 
 written work was examined. Dr. Hanus was present 
 in three schools. 
 
 Superintendent L. — Dr. McMurry visited two 
 schools and thirteen classes, spending the greater 
 part of two school days. Dr. Elliott visited no 
 schools. Dr. Hanus called at one school and re- 
 mained two and a half hours. 
 
 Superintendent M. — None of the inquirers deemed 
 it needful to see me or any of my schools. 
 
 Superintendent N. — None of the gentlemen visited 
 me or my district. 
 
 Superintendent 0. — The inquisitors did not think 
 it necessary to see me or any of my schools. 
 
 Superintendent P. — Prof. McMurry visited one 
 school and four classes. He spent about forty-five 
 minutes in 8B and five minutes in each of the other 
 classes. He was accompanied by Dr. Elliott. They 
 spent the greater part of a school day in the prin- 
 cipal's office. The principal has since been retired. 
 
 Superintendent Q. — Prof. McMurry visited one 
 school and ten classes. Dr. Elliott visited no school. 
 None of the gentlemen interviewed me. 
 
 Superintendent B. — The answer to questions 1-8 
 is none. 
 
 Superintendent S. — Prof . McMurry inspected six 
 classes in one school. He spent one and a half hours 
 in the classrooms and two and a half hours with the 
 principal. Dr. Elliott and Dr. Hanus did not honor 
 us with a visit. 
 It is one of the singular aspects of this investigation 
 
REPLY OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS 91 
 
 that practically no attempt has been made by the inves- 
 tigators to learn from the district superintendents by 
 personal interview and observation, or to utilize the 
 knowledge of school conditions possessed by these offi- 
 cers. Eliminating the superintendent in charge of play- 
 grounds, we have in the above summary the testimony of 
 eighteen out of the twenty-three district superintendents 
 who were in office at the time of the Inquiry. These 
 eighteen superintendents were supervising, according to 
 Dr. Elliott's table (p. 37), 387 schools and 12,133 classes. 
 They report that Prof. McMurry visited 11 schools and 
 45 classes under their jurisdiction, and Dr. Elliott visited 
 8 schools and 13 classes. Dr. Hanus interviewed three 
 of these superintendents, and spent two and a half hours 
 in one school. Prof. McMurry did not see any of the 
 eighteen superintendents. Dr. Elliott interviewed four. 
 In not one case is it reported that Dr. Elliott examined 
 classes to determine the quality of the supervision or 
 that he inquired of principals as to their methods of 
 work. 
 
 It would seem that a real investigation would endeavor 
 to secure information from all sources, and certainly 
 from those whose work has been disapproved. But in 
 most instances the district superintendent and his schools 
 received "absent treatment." 
 
 (2) Transferring Supervisory Functions to Prin- 
 cipals. — Dr. Elliott finds that it would be desirable "to 
 transfer to the principal many of the items of adminis- 
 tration and supervision now belonging exclusively to the 
 district superintendent or divided between the principal 
 and the district superintendent" (p. 36). The legal 
 
92 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY EEPOET 
 
 duties of the district superintendent are summarized on 
 page 78 above. We have carefully considered the sugges- 
 tion made, and are of opinion that the following duties 
 now performed by the district superintendent might 
 safely be transferred to the principal : 
 
 (a) The Approval op Requisitions fob Supplies, 
 Bills, Etc. — A definite sum for supplies is appropriated 
 for each school annually by the Board of Education. A 
 list of books and other teaching material is provided 
 from which principals must order. Each month hun- 
 dreds of requisitions are submitted to the district super- 
 intendent for his approval. On each requisition an auto- 
 graph signature is required. In the case of library books 
 four copies are made of every requisition, and each copy 
 must have the district superintendent's signature. Bills 
 for stages are made out in triplicate and each copy calls 
 for an autograph signature of the superintendent. Gro- 
 cery bills presented by cooking teachers month by month 
 compel the district superintendent to write his name 
 three times on each, even though the amount collected be 
 only a dime. In all these cases the principal's signature 
 is sufficient. The superintendents of large districts find 
 the physical labor of signing these requisitions so great 
 that a careful scrutiny of the details of the orders is im- 
 possible. Therefore no useful purpose is served by the 
 present system. 
 
 (b) Changes op Furniture. — There is no good rea- 
 son why the district superintendent should be required 
 to report upon changes of furniture. The department 
 of buildings has responsible inspectors, who are quite 
 
REPLY OP THE SUPERINTENDENTS 93 
 
 capable of dealing with such problems in direct co- 
 operation with principals. 
 
 (c) Visiting Blanks for Teachers. — Let the prin- 
 cipal sign visiting blanks, and file in his own office for 
 supervisory notation reports which the teachers make. 
 The district superintendent will run across them in the 
 course of his inspection of the school. 
 
 (d) Teachers in Charge op Schools. — A by-law now 
 requires the district superintendent to nominate at the 
 beginning of the term persons in each school to take 
 charge of the school in the absence of the principal. 
 These nominations must be approved by the board of 
 superintendents before they become effective. "We sug- 
 gest that the by-laws be amended so as to require the 
 nominations to be made by the principal and approved 
 by the district superintendent. 
 
 3. The Method of Selecting District Superinten- 
 dents. — The finding on this point reads as follows : "The 
 existing method of selecting district superintendents too 
 narrowly confines choice to those whose education, train- 
 ing and experience has [have] been entirely within the 
 city" (p. 41). No evidence to sustain this conclusion is 
 given except this statement : "As far as can be ascer- 
 tained from the official records, all of the district super- 
 intendents, except two or three, are products of New 
 York education, New York training, and New York ex- 
 perience." This is an excellent example of the reckless- 
 ness with which sweeping statements are made all 
 through the Elliott and McMurry reports without any 
 honest attempt to secure and publish the supporting 
 data. The facts as to the previous history of the super- 
 
94 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 intendents were easily accessible. They might have been 
 had for the asking. But it was apparently more con- 
 venient to assume the facts. 
 
 (1) The Facts in the Case. — Following, is a list of 
 the twenty-six district superintendents in office when the 
 Elliott report was written, with a brief summary of their 
 education and professional experience : 
 
 Darwin L. Bardwell. — Graduate of Amherst College. 
 Taught district schools, Champaign Co., 111. ; Greenwich 
 Academy (Conn.) ; was principal Union High School, 
 Greenport, N. Y., five years ; was head of science depart- 
 ment State Normal School, Cortland, N. Y., eight years; 
 high school inspector for University of the State of N. 
 Y. ; superintendent of schools, Binghamton, N. Y., four 
 years. 
 
 William A. Campbell. — Educated, Dickinson Semin- 
 ary, "Williamsport, Pa.; and State Normal School, Mil- 
 lersville, Pa. Taught in East Mauch Chunk, Pa., and in 
 Newark (N. J.) Academy; was principal of Hoboken 
 (N. J.) High School, teacher of psychology, and peda- 
 gogy in Hoboken Normal School ; was on the examining 
 board of teachers, Hoboken; and was principal of P. S. 
 44, Brooklyn, ten years. 
 
 John W. Davis.— Educated in public schools of New 
 York; the College of the City of New York; and the 
 School of Mines, Columbia University. All his teaching 
 experience was in New York. 
 
 John Dwyer. — Attended rural public schools and Lib- 
 erty Academy (N. Y.) ; graduate of Albany Normal 
 School and New York University (Pd.D.). Taught, 
 Liberty Academy, two years; High School, "Washington- 
 
REPLY OP THE SUPERINTENDENTS 95 
 
 ville (N. Y.), two years; district schools, four years; 
 New York public schools, twelve years; was principal 
 five years. 
 
 James H. Edsall. — Graduate of Albany Normal Col- 
 lege. Principal public school, Roxbury, N. Y., one and 
 a half years; principal graded school at High Falls, 
 N. Y., one year; principal public school, New Utrecht, 
 N. Y. ; principal public school 101, Brooklyn, N. Y. 
 
 Matthew J. Elgas (died, 1912). — Educated in pri- 
 vate schools of Buffalo, Fordham University (Ph.D.), 
 and Columbia University (graduate in medicine). All 
 his teaching experience was obtained in New York. 
 
 William L. Ettinger. — Attended New York public 
 schools, academic course St. James' Parochial School; 
 graduate of Manhattan College and University Medical 
 College (1891). Taught De La Salle Institute (second- 
 ary), two years ; public schools, ten years ; and was prin- 
 cipal of public schools fifteen years before his election to 
 the superintendency. 
 
 Cornelius E. Franklin. — Educated at Christian 
 Brothers' Academy (Albany), Albany High School, 
 Union College (graduate), Cornell University. Taught 
 in Private Academy, Middbury, N. Y., one year; prin- 
 cipal public schools, Albany, sixteen years; principal 
 Albany Training School for Teachers, two years; In- 
 structor on School Administration, New York Summer 
 School, Thousand Island Park, two years ; lecturer N. Y. 
 State Institutes, three years; associate editor of Ameri- 
 can Education (Albany), six years. 
 
 Ruth G. McGrat. — Educated private schools of Belle- 
 vue Falls, Vt. ; public schools of Framingham, Mass.; 
 
96 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQU1BT EEPOET 
 
 public schools of Brooklyn; Brooklyn Tra inin g School; 
 Harvard University (Summer School). All teaching ex- 
 perience in New York (Brooklyn) . 
 
 John Griffin, M.D. — Graduate of Queens College, 
 Galway, Ireland. All his teaching experience was had in 
 New York. 
 
 John L. N. Hunt. — Educated public schools and the 
 following institutions, all of Ohio: McNeely Normal 
 School; Bryant and Stratton Commercial College (Cleve- 
 land) ; Bethany College (A.M.). Also a graduate of 
 New York University (Law). Taught common schools 
 of Ohio two years ; Academy, Coshocton Co. 0., one term ; 
 McNeely Normal School, five years; Bethany College, 
 four years; Superintendent Packard's Commercial Col- 
 lege, New York, six years; Proprietor of Collegiate 
 Training School, New York, seven years. 
 
 Henby W. Jameson. — Educated public schools of 
 New York; Hart Academy, Farmington, Conn.; Yale 
 University (graduate 1872). Taught eight years in 
 High Schools of St. Louis, Mo. The rest of the experi- 
 ence was had in New York public schools. 
 
 Henry E. Jenkins. — Attended private and public 
 schools in New York and Massachusetts. Graduated Col- 
 lege of the City of New York (1875) and Columbia Uni- 
 versity (1879, LL.B) ; graduate work in New York 
 University. All teaching experience in New York. 
 
 James Lee. — Educated Cathedral School,' Newark, 
 N. J.; La Salle Institute, New York; La Salle College, 
 Philadelphia; St. Matthews Academy, "Washington, D. 
 C; Rock Hill College, Ellicott City, Md.; Bellevne 
 Medical College (M.D.), New York. Taught in La Salle 
 
REPLY OP THE SUPERINTENDENTS 97 
 
 College, St. Matthews Academy, and Eock Hill College ; 
 principal of public school, Troy, N. Y., one year ; teacher 
 in New York, sixteen years. 
 
 Charles W. Lyon. — Educated public schools of 
 Birmingham, Conn., and Preparatory School at Hack- 
 ettstown, N. J. Graduated Wesleyan University, Mid- 
 dletown, Conn.; has also done graduate work at Yale 
 and Columbia. Taught in Chamberlain Institute, Ran- 
 dolph, N. Y., one year; Boys' High School, Brooklyn, 
 nine years; and was principal four years. 
 
 James J. McCabe. — Educated in parochial and public 
 schools and Adelphi College, all in Brooklyn, N. Y. All 
 teaching experience was obtained in private and public 
 schools of New York. Was supervising teacher of music, 
 Brooklyn public schools, teacher of mathematics, Manual 
 Training High School, principal of public school 23, 
 Brooklyn. 
 
 William J. O'Shea. — Attended public schools of New 
 York; graduate of the College of the City of New York 
 and Manhattan College (M.S.) ; graduate work in St. 
 Francis Xavier, Catholic University (Washington), New 
 York University, Columbia University. Taught in New 
 York public schools and was principal of public schools 
 in the same city ten years. 
 
 Julia Richman (died, 1912). — Educated in public 
 schools of Huntingdon, L. I., and New York, and in New 
 York Normal College. All her teaching experience was 
 had in New York. 
 
 Alfred T. Schaupfler. — Graduate of Williams Col- 
 lege, Mass. Taught North Granville Female Seminary, 
 one year; was principal of North Granville Academy, 
 
98 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 one year ; taught two years in private school, New York ; 
 tutored two years in Summit, N. J. The rest of the 
 experience was had in New York public schools. 
 
 Albert Shiels. — Graduate of College of the City of 
 New York ; A.M. and Pd.M. from New York University. 
 Was Consul for Mexico and acting Vice-Consul for Great 
 Britain, 1887-9 ; appointed teacher in New York public 
 schools, 1890, where he has served since as teacher, prin- 
 cipal, and superintendent. 
 
 Edgar Dubs Shimer. — Born in Pennsylvania. Edu- 
 cated public schools of Bethlehem and Allentown, Pa., 
 and graduate of Muhlenberg College (1874) ; has from 
 the same institution A.M. (1877), Ph.D. (1887), and 
 LL.D. (1911). Teaching experience in public schools 
 of New York, and in New York University, where he was 
 lecturer and professor of pedagogy for ten years. 
 
 Seth T. Stewart (died, April, 1913). — Graduate of 
 St. Louis High School, Yale University (1873), and 
 Columbia University (LL.B., 1875). Taught, Friends' 
 Seminary (New York), was principal of school in 
 Jersey City (N. J.), and principal of public school in 
 Brooklyn. 
 
 Edward W. Stitt. — Attended public schools of New 
 York ; graduate of College of the City of New York, and 
 New York University (Pd.D.) ; graduate work in St. 
 Francis Xavier and Teachers' College. Taught in Mili- 
 tary Academy, Reading, Pa. ; also in private and public 
 schools of New York. 
 
 Grace C. Strachan. — Educated Buffalo Normal 
 School and New York University. Teacher in Buffalo, 
 
REPLY OP THE SUPERINTENDENTS 99 
 
 public schools of Brooklyn, and Brooklyn Training 
 School for Teachers. Principal public school 32, 
 Brooklyn. 
 
 Joseph S. Taylor. — Attended rural schools of Penn- 
 sylvania; graduate of Millersville State Normal School 
 (Pa.) and New York University (Pd.D.) ; summer 
 courses in Clark University. Taught public schools of 
 Pennsylvania, three years; Juniata College (Pa.), one 
 year; public schools of New York, thirteen years. Was 
 principal of public school 19 for five years. Lecturer on 
 education in New York University for ten years. 
 
 Joseph H. Wade. — Attended public schools of New 
 York; graduate of College of the City of New York; 
 New York University (Ph.M.) ; and St. Francis Xavier 
 (A.M. and Ph.D.). Taught in St. Francis Xavier one 
 year and was principal there two years. Principal pub- 
 lic schools, New York, ten years. 
 
 (a) Summary. — It is thus shown that of the twenty- 
 six district superintendents listed above, twenty obtained 
 some or all of their education in institutions outside of 
 New York and only six were educated in New York in- 
 stitutions exclusively. Thirteen had teaching experience 
 outside of New York, and thirteen had New York ex- 
 perience only. In other words, eighty per cent, of them 
 were educated outside of New York, and fifty per cent, 
 had outside teaching experience. Contrast these facts 
 with Dr. Elliott's statement that "all of the district 
 superintendents, except two or three, are products of 
 New York education, New York training, and New York 
 experience," and you have some idea of the value of the 
 evidence on which Dr. Elliott's report is based. 
 
100 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 4. The Supervisory Activities of District Super- 
 intendents. — A little more than two pages (pp. 39-41), 
 in a report containing 144 pages, are devoted to the sub- 
 ject covered by this title. The conclusion is expressed in 
 a single sentence, thus : "The absence of a definite and 
 high standard of qualification for selection and retention 
 of district superintendents has limited the supervisory 
 usefulness of these officers" (p. 41). 
 ' We regret the necessity for the constant complaint 
 that no supporting data accompany important general- 
 izations. How do the investigators know that the board 
 of superintendents has no high standard of qualification 
 for the selection of district superintendents? The report 
 is silent on this point. 
 
 (1) The Standard of Qualification. — We look in 
 vain for facts bearing on the case. We find merely the 
 following dogmatic statement : "The board of superin- 
 tendents itself does not appear to have any well-estab- 
 lished standards of qualification for nomination of dis- 
 trict superintendents, other than the formal standards 
 of education and experience prescribed by the charter 
 and the by-laws" (p. 38) . The author does not even take 
 the trouble to print the charter provisions. We shall 
 therefore supply the deficiency in the following quo- 
 tation : 
 
 "No person shall be eligible for election as city 
 superintendent, associate city superintendent, or 
 district superintendent who has not one of the fol- 
 lowing qualifications: (a) Graduation from a col- 
 lege or university recognized by the Universtiy of 
 the State of New York, together with at least five 
 
EEPLT OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS 101 
 
 years of successful experience in teaching or super- 
 vision since graduation ; (b) A principal's certificate 
 for any of the boroughs of the City of New York 
 obtained as a result of examination, together with 
 ten years' successful experience in supervision or 
 teaching."* 
 
 The same provision is embodied in section 40 of the 
 by-laws of the board of education. 
 
 It will be noticed that the district superintendent must 
 meet the same standard of qualification that is set for an 
 associate superintendent, and for the city superintendent. 
 If he is not employed in New York he must be a college 
 graduate with five years of teaching or supervisory ex- 
 perience. If he is employed in New York he must have 
 a principal's license obtained as a result of examination. 
 To obtain this principal's license he must possess the 
 following qualifications :t 
 
 "Sec. 78. To be eligible for license as principal 
 in elementary schools the applicant must have one 
 of the following qualifications : 
 
 (a) Graduation from a college or university 
 recognized by the Regents of the University of the 
 State of New York, together with at least eight 
 years' successful experience in teaching or super- 
 vision. The Master's degree in arts or sciences, 
 given as the result of a graduate work in a univer- 
 sity, may be accepted in lieu of one year of such 
 experience. The Doctor's degree in philosophy or 
 science, given as the result of graduate work in a 
 university, may be accepted in lieu of two years of 
 such experience. 
 
 • Charter, Section 1079. 
 
 t By-Laws of the Board of Education. 
 
102 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 (b) Successful experience in teaching or super- 
 vision in graded schools for at least ten years, at 
 least five of which must have been in public schools, 
 together with the successful completion of university 
 or college courses satisfactory to the Board of Ex- 
 aminers, such courses to be in pedagogical subjects, 
 and to amount to not less than 120 hours." 
 
 The examination is rigid, and includes such subjects 
 as the history and principles of education, methods of 
 teaching, school management, and English literature, 
 together with oral and classroom tests. A satisfactory 
 teaching record covering a period of years is also re- 
 quisite. A bare compliance with the "formal" standards 
 thus erected would seem to make it difficult for an in- 
 competent person living in New York to become a dis- 
 trict superintendent. It will be noticed that the outsider 
 has a decided advantage. He must be a college graduate, 
 it is true, but he needs only five years of experience, and 
 does not have to pass any examination. It would be 
 possible under this provision to elect an incompetent 
 teacher from a remote community to the office of district 
 superintendent. So far as the charter controls the situa- 
 tion it is relatively easy for an outsider to become a 
 superintendent, but very difficult for an insider. It is 
 evident that the charter-makers did all they could to 
 avoid "inbreeding." 
 
 (a) Direct Evidence in the Case. — Dr. Elliott ad- 
 mits that he visited only twenty-one schools (p. 6). He 
 fails to state what he observed during these visits, or 
 what inquiries he made of principals and teachers con- 
 cerning methods of supervision. This seems remarkable 
 
REPLY OP THE SUPERINTENDENTS 103 
 
 when we recall that the school inquiry was to he a scien- 
 tific investigation and that the Board of Estimate Com- 
 mittee declares "fairness to all concerned and complete 
 candor" to be the "prime essentials of such an investiga- 
 tion" (p. 9). The scientist is always at great pains to 
 set forth in lucid array the various steps and processes 
 by which he arrives at his result, so that any subsequent 
 investigator may be at liberty to verify or disprove the 
 conclusion by a re-examination of the evidence. But in 
 this case the evidence is suppressed, the method is a pro- 
 found secret, and the value of the result is entirely a 
 matter of faith in Dr. Elliott. From the reports of the 
 district superintendents (pp. 89-90) we learn what he 
 did not do. He did not examine classes to determine 
 either the methods or the results of instruction. He did 
 not make a thorough inquiry concerning the forty-one 
 items (p. 86) which determine the quality of supervision. 
 His total direct information in regard to the supervisory 
 efficiency of district superintendents was obtained by a 
 brief visit to twenty-one schools, a casual inspection of 
 a few classes in said schools, and an interview with five 
 or six district superintendents. In no case are we told 
 what was amiss in any school or what was wrong with 
 the methods of any superintendent. 
 
 Such is the basis of fact, as revealed by actual in- 
 vestigation of school conditions, on which the investigator 
 declares that "the absence of a definite and high stand- 
 ard of qualification for selection ... of district super- 
 intendents has limited the supervisory usefulness of 
 these officers." 
 
 (b) Indirect Evidence in the Case. — Prof. Elliott 
 
104 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 seems to have relied almost entirely for evidence as to 
 the efficiency of district superintendents upon what these 
 officers say of themselves. "We have seen how little he 
 found out by direct examination of schools and observa- 
 tion of methods of work. 
 
 On September 26, 1911, Dr. Hanus sent the following 
 questionnaire to each of the district superintendents :* 
 
 "1. a. "What studies or reports have you been 
 asked, officially, to submit to the Board of Superin- 
 tendents or to the Board of Education, during the 
 last five years, on the scope and method of your work 
 as a district superintendent 1 
 
 b. "What studies or reports of this kind have you 
 made voluntarily? 
 
 2. a. What use was made of such required or 
 voluntary studies or reports ? 
 
 b. Are any such studies or reports on file? 
 
 3. a. How often in a term, or in a year, do you 
 assemble your subordinates, collectively or in 
 groups, for conferences on the educational problems 
 involved in their work, as well as on routine details? 
 
 b. Are any programs of such conferences on file ? 
 
 4. a. What phase of your work consumed most 
 of your time — constructive educational activities, 
 including supervision, or administrative routine? 
 
 b. About what proportion of your time is de- 
 voted to the latter ? 
 
 c. "What proportion, if any, of routine details 
 could be delegated to subordinates? 
 
 5. a. Do your subordinates study the signifi- 
 cance of the reports which they make to their 
 superiors? 
 
 • This is the statement made by Dr. Elliott on page 39; but at 
 least one superintendent has informed our committee that he did 
 not receive the circular. 
 
REPLY OP THE SUPERINTENDENTS 105 
 
 b. Are these reports satisfactory as to accuracy 
 and completeness? 
 
 6. "What means do you employ to influence pub- 
 lic educational opinion in your community?" 
 
 By comparing this list of questions with the powers 
 and duties of the district superintendent enumerated on 
 page 78 of this report, the reader will notice that the six 
 points of the inquiry miss some of the most important 
 activities of the district superintendent. For instance, 
 no information is called for as to the number of visits 
 made to schools and the method and scope of the ex- 
 amination of classes. Nothing is said about the data on 
 which teachers and principals are rated. No reference 
 is made to meetings of local school boards. "What the 
 superintendent does on the three specified days when he 
 is obliged to be in his office did not interest the inquis- 
 itors. What records are kept and what use is made of 
 them are items neglected by the circular. The duties in 
 the matter of new sites and buildings, hired annexes, 
 transportation, etc., also escaped the notice of the in- 
 quiry. Finally, not a word is said about the very ardu- 
 ous work of enforcing the Compulsory Education Law. 
 
 In short, if the questionnaire is designed as a scale to 
 measure the efficiency of the district superintendent, it 
 is as conspicuously inadequate for that purpose as the 
 McMurry scale is in the case of the class teacher. 
 
 The measure is defective, in the second place, because 
 it is ambiguous. Take the first paragraph. Probably 
 no two men would understand it in exactly the same 
 way. "What is meant by making "studies or reports . . . 
 on the scope and method of your work?" It may mean: 
 
106 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 "Have you been asked to make a study or report as to 
 what you conceive to be the scope of your work?" It 
 may mean also : "Have you been asked to make studies 
 or reports on topics coming within the scope of your 
 work as superintendent?" No wonder Dr. Elliott 
 writes (p. 40) : 
 
 "The written replies submitted by twenty-one of 
 the district superintendents are illuminating, not 
 only as to the activities of these officers, but also as 
 to the conceptions held concerning the functions of 
 their office. 
 
 "Of the replies to question 1, not more than four 
 indicated an understanding of what was meant by 
 'the scope and method of your work' as a district 
 superintendent." 
 
 "We think it is quite remarkable that even four out of 
 twenty-one could guess the meaning of Dr. Elliott's am- 
 biguous language. We should be glad to know what the 
 lucky guess was. 
 
 The fourth question is also capable of various con- 
 structions; and unless the superintendent was more ac- 
 curate in his reply than the investigator in his inquiry, 
 the answer is worthless. This point may be illustrated 
 by the following answer sent to Dr. Hanus by one of 
 the superintendents: 
 
 "4b: — The answer depends on the definition of 
 'your time.' If time from 9 to 3 is meant, I should 
 estimate as follows : In September and February, 
 90% of my time is employed on administrative rou- 
 tine; from October 1 to January 15, 5% is so em- 
 ployed; from March 1 to June 1, 5%. 
 
 "If the entire day from 9 to 6 is meant, the pro- 
 
REPLY OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS 107 
 
 portion is very different. Office days are Monday, 
 Wednesday, and Saturday. On Monday and Wed- 
 nesday I never leave the office before five and fre- 
 quently not before six. While I am inspecting 
 classes, it is necessary every day to go to the office 
 after school to dispose of a heavy correspondence." 
 
 Again we are not surprised at the following complaint 
 of Dr. Elliott (p. 41) : 
 
 "The replies to question 4 emphasize the fact that 
 a very few of the district superintendents are able 
 to make any very clear distinction between admin- 
 istrative routine and supervision. While the great 
 majority of replies state that the most of the time 
 goes to constructive and supervisory activities, it is 
 to be noted that several of the district superinten- 
 dents, who are generally recognized as belonging to 
 the group of the most competent, say frankly that 
 their major energies are consumed by clerical labor 
 and office routine. It was generally admitted that 
 the present method of administering the compul- 
 sory education law involved the expenditure of too 
 much time and energy. The estimates of the amount 
 of time consumed by the non-supervisory duties 
 vary from ten to seventy-five per cent, of the time. 
 One-half of the superintendents fix the limit at one- 
 third." 
 
 The reader will thus understand why the estimates 
 vary so widely; but the investigator does not seem to 
 suspect that the variation is due to his own ambiguity. 
 
 Finally, what does question 5 mean? The subordi- 
 nates of the district superintendent are principals, class 
 teachers, and special teachers of languages, sewing, 
 cooking, drawing, physical training, music. Principals 
 
108 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 make reports to the City Superintendent, the hoard of 
 superintendents, the auditor, the superintendent of 
 buildings, the superintendent of supplies, various com- 
 mittees of the board of education, the local school boards, 
 and the district superintendents. Teachers make reports 
 to their principals and other authorities. Special teach- 
 ers report to their directors. Now how can the district 
 superintendent know whether all these subordinates of 
 his, numbering in some cases upwards of a thousand, 
 "study the significance of the reports which they make 
 to their superiors?" Yet this is what Dr. Elliott asks. 
 
 (c) Conclusion. — We are thus forced to the conclu- 
 sion that, neither by the direct method of examining 
 teachers and schools, nor by the indirect method of the 
 questionnaire, did Dr. Elliott secure data which entitle 
 him to pronounce judgment on the merits of district su- 
 perintendents. His statement that "the staff of district 
 superintendents is noticeably inert" (p. 38), is certainly 
 not proved by any evidence found in this report. It is 
 flatly contradicted by Prof. McMurry in the following 
 paragraph (p. 148) : "The principal is further ham- 
 pered by the fact that there is a decided tendency to re- 
 gard the district superintendent, rather than the prin- 
 cipal as the really active head of the school." 
 
 5. The Rating of Teachers. — The "general sum- 
 mary" (p. 84) on this subject contains this paragraph: 
 
 "The means and methods for the regular annual 
 and semi-annual ratings of teachers and principals 
 are not such as to produce results commensurate 
 with the labor involved or calculated to raise the 
 level of teaching performance within the schools." 
 
REPLY OP THE SUPERINTENDENTS 109 
 
 The table (p. 83) on which this conclusion is founded 
 is like an oasis in a desert. It is one of those rare occa- 
 sions when, in this report, the reader is permitted to ex- 
 amine the facts sustaining an inference. But even here 
 a part of the supposed oasis turns out to be a mirage; 
 for the facts given apply to only a part of the conclu- 
 sion. The evidence relates to the rating of teachers ; but 
 principals are also included in the summary. The con- 
 cluding phrase — that the ratings are not "calculated to 
 raise the level of teaching performance" — is mere asser- 
 tion, no evidence bearing on the case being offered. 
 
 The table prepared by Dr. Elliott compares the ratings 
 filed by principals and district superintendents on the 
 same schools, selected from five boroughs in a mechanical 
 way. Some interesting results are shown. Four-tenths 
 of one per cent, of the teachers (1,984) are rated C in 
 discipline by district superintendents, and six-tenths of 
 one per cent, are rated C in instruction. Eleven per 
 cent, are rated AA, i.e., A in instruction and A in dis- 
 cipline. There is, however, great variation in the dif- 
 ferent boroughs as to the proportion of teachers rated 
 AA. Thus: 
 
 Bronx 2.9% 
 
 Queens 5.8% 
 
 Kichmond 8.3% 
 
 Brooklyn 11.9% 
 
 Manhattan 16.2% 
 
 That is, the Manhattan superintendents find eight 
 times as many teachers entitled to AA as the Bronx 
 superintendents do. It must in candor be admitted that 
 
110 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 these variations point to the need of a more uniform 
 scale of measurement. 
 
 v The ratings hy principals show similar variations. 
 The teachers rated AA by them in the several boroughs 
 are in the following ratios : 
 
 Richmond 15.8% 
 
 Bronx 19.3% 
 
 Brooklyn 26.8% 
 
 Manhattan 31.0% 
 
 Queens 51.3% 
 
 From this it will be seen that a teacher in Queens has 
 an excellent chance of getting a double A from her prin- 
 cipal, but rather a poor chance of winning the same 
 mark of approval from the district superintendent. In 
 Manhattan she is in high favor with both her supervi- 
 sory officials. 
 
 The table contains a number of other interesting 
 facts, e.g.: 
 
 RATED IN INSTRUCTION. 
 
 By principals 
 
 By district superintendents. 
 
 21.9% 
 36.7% 
 
 B+ 
 
 41.4% 
 50 % 
 
 36.2% 
 12.3% 
 
 Dr. Elliott's comment on this showing is as follows: 
 
 "The wide variation between the ratings of prin- 
 cipals and the ratings of district superintendents 
 cannot be passed by without mention. The tend- 
 ency seems to be for the district superintendent, as 
 
REPLY OF THB SUPERINTENDENTS 111 
 
 a matter of form, to discount the ratings given 
 teachers by principals." 
 
 The explanation of the phenomenon involves more 
 than "a matter of form." It will be noticed that in every 
 borough the principal's ratings are discounted by the 
 superintendent. At the Philadelphia meeting of the 
 Department of Superintendence, held in February, 1913, 
 Superintendent William M. Davidson of Washington, in 
 a discussion on the measurement of teaching efficiency, 
 called attention to the discounting of principal's ratings 
 by the superintendent, and treated it as a matter of 
 common experience in all cities. There must be involved 
 in a phenomenon so universal a principal more funda- 
 mental than a whim. The very fact that the New York 
 Charter provides for a double rating implies the exist- 
 ence of a double standard. 
 
 The principal rates from one point of view; the su- 
 perintendent from another. It is therefore conceivable 
 that both ratings are correct, though different. The 
 principal lives with the teacher. He knows much more 
 of her fidelity, her character, her moral influence upon 
 children, than the superintendent, who judges largely 
 by what he sees in the classroom during an occasional 
 visit. One rating checks the other. The principal is 
 liable to be prejudiced in favor of a faithful teacher, 
 and to rate her instructional skill higher than it de- 
 serves. The superintendent's view is also partial, since 
 it puts undue emphasis upon mere instructional skill 
 and is liable to underrate personality. The average of 
 the two sets of ratings is probably a nearer approach to 
 accuracy than either one of the ratings taken singly. 
 
112 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY EEPOET 
 
 (1) Causes of Variation. — When we recall the fact 
 that teaching is both an art and a science, we shall cease 
 to wonder at the variations of these estimates. In so far 
 as teaching is art, the qualitative judgment prevails, and 
 accurate measurement is not possible. There is no meas- 
 uring scale known to man which can tell with certainty 
 that one artist should be rated B and another B+. So 
 much depends upon taste, which is purely personal and 
 subjective, that critics necessarily disagree. But even 
 the measurable elements in teaching have not been sub- 
 jected, either in New York or elsewhere, to scientific 
 evaluation. Nor can anybody give a definition of the 
 standard B or A which will be accepted by others. Since, 
 then, the work of the teacher is in part not subject to 
 measurement ; and since no generally accepted scale has 
 been devised for the part that is measurable ; and since 
 the terms in which we express the worth of teaching are 
 themselves undefined, how can we expect uniformity in 
 ratings? These considerations, however, are no excuse 
 for further delaying an earnest attempt to improve the 
 existing methods of rating teachers. 
 
 Dr. Elliott is of the opinion that the distinction be- 
 tween "instruction" and "discipline" is purely arbitrary, 
 and artificial, and that the survival of this "traditional 
 convention ... is ample evidence that the supervisory 
 authorities have not assumed a scientific attitude of 
 mind toward the complicated teaching process" (p. 83). 
 The blank on which teachers are rated in New York is 
 printed by Dr. Elliott (p. 139). It shows that the two 
 headings are summaries of six items. "Instruction" 
 comprises teaching ability, scholarship, and effort. "Dis- 
 
REPLY OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS 113 
 
 cipline" includes personality, control of class, and self- 
 control. It must be admitted that there are logical ob- 
 jections to this scheme, since personality includes self- 
 control. But it is at least a better measure of teaching 
 efficiency than the McMurry scale, which, according to 
 Dr. Elliott, covers only 5 per cent, of the vital elements 
 of teaching. 
 
 The Elliott scale gives at least sixty credits out of a 
 hundred to the items on which New York teachers are 
 rated. If the investigators had inquired a little further 
 they might have found in use among various district 
 superintendents half a dozen measuring scales which 
 analyze the teaching process. Several of these have been 
 published and were quoted with approval by Superin- 
 tendent Davidson in the Philadelphia convention. 
 
 "We are told (p. 82) that "of 1,984 elementary school 
 teachers rated by district superintendents but 11 (.6 of 
 1 per cent.) were rated non-meritorious in discipline; of 
 the 2235 elementary school teachers rated by principals 
 but 11 (.5 of 1 per cent.) were rated as non-meritorious 
 in instruction." These facts are apparently adduced to 
 sustain the charge that our method of rating teachers is 
 not "calculated to raise the level of teaching performance 
 within the schools." The fact that we have found so few 
 failures among teachers would seem to indicate that our 
 methods of supervision are effective. But Dr. Elliott's 
 logic is headed in another direction. It says, in effect, 
 that the more poor teachers you find in a school system, 
 the better are the schools ; or the better the supervision, 
 the larger the percentage of failures in the teaching 
 staff. If we had found large numbers of poor teachers 
 
114 NEW YORE SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 he would have been able to say that the schools are poor 
 on our own showing. As it is he is compelled to argue 
 that the schools are poor because they have too many 
 good teachers. 
 
 6. The Rating of Principals. — The finding on this 
 point reads as follows: "The system of rating the effi- 
 ciency of principals is not such as to distinguish the com- 
 petent from the incompetent" (p. 33). The data offered 
 in support of the conclusion are: (1) A copy of the 
 blank used by district superintendents in rating princi- 
 pals (p. 30), and (2) a table showing the various ratings 
 of principals filed by district superintendents in June, 
 1911. The items on the rating blank follow : 
 
 "(1) Effect of examinations and inspections. 
 
 (2) Character and effect of conferences with teach- 
 
 ers. 
 
 (3) Guidance and assistance of weak teachers. 
 
 (4) Judgment in assigning teachers to classes. 
 
 (5) Discrimination in ratings of teachers. 
 
 (6) Character of record kept (including statistics). 
 
 (7) Interpretation of course of study and selection 
 
 of text books. 
 
 (8) Grading and promotion of pupils. 
 
 (9) Influence on school discipline, and supervision 
 
 of truancy. 
 
 (10) Supervision of janitor's work. 
 
 (11) Supervision of recesses, games, athletics, etc. 
 
 (12) Co-operation with other principals using 
 
 school premises. 
 
 (13) Manners, conversation, conduct." 
 
 These are then summarized into a single rating repre- 
 sented by the letter H, G, F, E, or D, H denoting the 
 highest degree of merit, E and D being unsatisfactory. 
 
REPLY OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS 115 
 
 The blank was devised by the board of superintendents. 
 The district superintendents are in no way responsible 
 for it. They use it because it is officially required by 
 their superiors in office. It is proper to remark, how- 
 ever, that the thirteen points on this rating sheet are by 
 no means the only matters that enter into the judgment 
 of the district superintendent. In a discussion of the 
 size of supervisory districts (p. 86 above), we enumer- 
 ate forty-one items that help to determine the efficiency 
 of a school ; and the principal's rating depends upon the 
 character of his school. 
 
 The table of ratings compiled by Dr. Elliott (p. 31) 
 shows that 59.3% of all the principals were rated H; 
 31.7% were rated G; 8.7% were rated F; while only one 
 was rated E, or unsatisfactory. The investigator's com- 
 ment on this runs thus : "A school system that possesses 
 such a very large proportion of superior principals 
 should not lack means for the accomplishment of results 
 of the highest order. Either an inflated value has been 
 given to the performance of principals, or the school or- 
 ganization has been such as to prevent the largest utili- 
 zation of the capacity of these principals." The last 
 statement rests upon the conclusion elsewhere announced 
 by Prof. McMurry and Dr. Elliott that the schools are 
 poor. But we have seen that Prof. McMurry's opinion 
 of the schools was obtained by measuring (so far as facts 
 are submitted) twenty teachers, out of fifteen thousand, 
 by a scale that represents, according to Dr. Elliott, five 
 per cent, of the equipment of a teacher. And Dr. Elliott 
 did not in any instance make a thorough investigation 
 of a school which entitles him to express an opinion of 
 
116 NEW YORK SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 
 
 the efficiency of the principal. Therefore the net result 
 of the whole inquiry with reference io the teaching and 
 supervision of elementary schools is a set of opinions 
 backed by guesses and assumptions. 
 
ADVERTISEMENT 
 
 A limited number of copies of this report are for 
 sale at 50 cents each, and will be sent, postpaid, on 
 receipt of price. Address: 
 
 JOSEPH S. TAYLOR, 
 2275 Loring Place, The Bronx, New York.