plan was prepared, contemplating a permanent tenure with a pension after a given length of service. The teachers, by a very large majority, rejected the plan, preferring the present arrangement, wherein promotion depends upon ability rather than length of service.

In the autumn of 1903, when an agitation began for the extension of the Cleveland plan over the entire state, the teachers of Cleveland were asked to give in writing their opinion of the present plan. The superintendent addressed a letter to every teacher, requesting a perfectly frank expression of opinion and stating that the individual replies would in no case be made public. Over ninety-five per cent of the teachers expressed, in strongest terms, their preference for the present plan of professional control. This feeling of confidence and security is no small factor in the success of the teacher's work.

The present superintendent adds his own testimony:

Under this law and with this organization, the schools have prospered beyond the most sanguine expectations of their friends. The supervisors, principals and teachers at once felt a security in their positions never before realized. They had a sense of freedom in their work that inspired them to high endeavor. Their best efforts were toward self-improvement, a broader culture, and a larger knowledge of the things pertaining to their profession. The results of these efforts have placed the schools upon a higher plane and given the pupils a wider view educationally. All connected with the educational department believe thoroughly in the federal plan and that it is an advanced step in school organization. The law has proved so good a thing for the Cleveland schools that we would like to have it extended to the public schools of all the cities of the state.1

Thirdly, has the public interest in the schools been maintained? Advocates of the large board assert that public interest in the schools increases in proportion to the size of the board. Cleveland's experience does not verify this conclusion. At no time has public interest been more keen and wholesome than at present. Every change in the policy of the director or superintendent is followed with intelligent interest. The members of the council

1 Sixty-seventh Annual Report, Cleveland Board of Education, p. 26.

are elected at large, and are thus the representatives of no one section or class, but of the entire city. On the only occasion when political animosity threatened the well-being of the schools, the voters came magnificently to the rescue, casting aside all party affiliations and rebuking the narrow and baneful policy of an unwise official. The wonderful uprising of the citizens during the past winter, when it was reported that the governor had given his sanction to a measure that would foist a large board upon the city, in obedience to the commands of a political boss from another city, gave striking evidence of the interest which the public takes in the welfare of its schools.

I do not think that the size of the board has anything to do with the degree of public interest in the schools. Even under an appointed board such interest is maintained in San Francisco and in some other cities. The schools touch intimately the home life of the community, and it is through this living contact that universal interest in the conduct of the schools is created and maintained.

Finally, does the Cleveland plan keep politics out of the schools? Of course the director and council are elected, usually, through the regular party machinery. Each party has its candidates; they seek votes, they make promises, they labor for the welfare of the ticket. This competition of the parties is in itself a considerable safeguard against the nominating of an unfit man when the parties are of about equal strength. The only avenue open to the politician, by way of which he can molest the teacher, is through the director's power to dismiss the superintendent of instruction. This power is well guarded against abuse. Only once in the twelve years during which the plan has been in operation, has any one been audacious enough to attempt to abuse it. The details of this attempt illustrate the safety of the plan and the outcome reveals the sensitiveness of the public conscience.

As I mentioned above, the first director held office for eight years. His administration was able and above suspicion. His party failed to give him another nomination, and in his stead it designated a candidate who, as soon as his name was placed upon the ticket, waged his campaign with the understanding that, if elected, he would remove the superintendent of instruction. This

called forth such universal condemnation that he was compelled to deny that such was his intention. This he did in a very equivocal statement, which however proved sufficient, for he was elected. In spite of his ante-election statement, the new director removed the superintendent, on the surprising ground of "incompetency, inefficiency, neglect of duty and misconduct." Charges were sent to the president of the council, but not to the superintendent. On the same day that this news was given to the public, the director appointed a new superintendent. This appointment was to be reported to the board for ratification on the very evening of that day. This hasty action startled the people, and public indignation was intense. A number of members of the board were persuaded to remain away from the meeting, thus preventing a quorum, and making it impossible to ratify the action of the director in appointing a new superintendent. Meanwhile a temporary restraining order was secured, enjoining the director from removing the superintendent, and ordering him to send the superintendent a copy of the charges and grant him a hearing. The director now sought legal advice from the corporation counsel, who was also the legal adviser of the school board. The advice was adverse to the action of the director, and was based on a decision of the state supreme court, which held that “sufficient cause" means a hearing, and that the power to remove under the given legal restrictions "cannot be exercised arbitrarily, but only upon complaint and after a hearing had, in which the officer is afforded opportunity to refute the case made against him." The corporation counsel at the same time refused to act for the director in the injunction proceedings. The director's private counsel helped him out by finding a technical flaw in the petition.

The whole city was aroused by this unwarranted interference with the teaching force. The Republican press, which had advocated the director's election, was as determined in its denunciation as the Democratic press. All thinking citizens protested. All manner of professional and business organizations protested. The avalanche of condemnation frightened the offending director, and he wrote to the superintendent “revoking, cancelling and

State ex rel. Meader et al. v. Sullivan, 58 Ohio St. 504.

annulling" his order of removal, and withdrew the charges which he had presented to the council. The following year the superintendent was elected president of one of our best state normal colleges, and the humiliated director went down to inglorious defeat.

Some political favoritism is perhaps shown in the appointment of janitors and other minor employees, but the range of political influence is not extensive. I find the universal opinion to be that the responsibility centered in the director has practically eliminated party politics from the business management of the schools. And the teacher is completely shielded against political influence. In no way has his security been invaded by party politics. It is the unanimous testimony of the superintendent, the director and the teachers themselves, that not in the remotest degree has the teaching force been subject to political manipulation. Merit is the basis of appointment and tenure.

In order to meet the situation created by the judicial decisions above noticed (p. 405), the Cleveland chamber of commerce caused a bill to be drafted, establishing the Cleveland plan in such general terms as to avoid the constitutional prohibition against special legislation. This bill was introduced into the state legislature at the last session. Few measures of general interest ever went to a legislature with more universal and intelligent backing. The state teachers' association, the schoolmasters' club, the state chamber of commerce, local business and professional bodies of all kinds and from all over the state endorsed the plan, after a careful examination of its working in Cleveland.

Two general objections were urged against the measure. One was purely political; it was brought forward by politicians who desired to use the large board as a feeder to the party maw. They denounced a small board as "un-American." Sundry schoolbook concerns were loud in echoing this sentiment. Their attitude reminds one of Dr. Johnson's hard saying: "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

The other objection came from the rural districts and small towns. They were unwilling to have directors imposed upon them, because the school business in their districts was not sufficiently extensive to warrant maintaining such officers.

The former objection deserves only contempt. The latter might easily be met by allowing the local councils to determine the salary of the director.

The struggle for the enactment of the Cleveland plan began with the first week of the session, and ended only an hour before final adjournment, after several conference reports had been rejected, and after the criminating and recriminating speeches customary on such occasions had been delivered.

The new code is an unsatisfactory compromise. It provides a board of five members for all school districts of less than 50,000 inhabitants. In the larger districts, embracing the five large cities of the state, the size of the board may vary from seven to thirty-five; three to be elected at large and the rest from districts, which may vary in number from two to thirty. The present school board of each of these cities is to determine the size of the new board. This is a concession to both Cleveland and Cincinnati. The new board has supreme power over school administration. It may, at its option, appoint a director and grant him such powers as it sees fit. The superintendent is shorn of his authority; all his acts are subject to the approval of the board. He can be elected for no longer a term than five years, and his teachers can be appointed only with the approval of the board, and for a term of four years only. The financial powers of the board remain as at present.

Perhaps the enthusiasts for the centralized plan ought to feel satisfied with this compromise. It certainly is an advanced step for the rural and village districts. It is probable, however, that the new law will be declared unconstitutional, on the ground that it is not of "uniform operation throughout the state." In that case the legislature will again have an opportunity to develop a simple, efficient, centralized system of school administration, insuring definite responsibility as well as popular control, bringing the teaching force under purely professional direction, and placing the schools beyond the reach of the politicians.

CLEVELAND, OHIO.

S. P. ORTH.