The Washington Tribune

PAGE TWELVE

What's the Matter With the Public School System?

RECENT EDUCATIONAL PROCEDURES AT THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
(Continued from page 1)

stenographer to take down question and answer, but the latter from the accused not being to his liking, dictating the answer himself, the while soothing the victim by telling him that he will make up and present a digest of the proceedings to the full Court, when it convenes.

While the momentum of several years' professional regard is hardly as strong as it was, I am not yet so bereft in this respect as not to be able to admonish that the average time of the Wilson, Powell, Stuart, Chancellor, Davidson, and Thurston regimes approximated 6 years, and that Dr. Ballou has now served 5 years and a few months, and that some recent activities are disadvantageous to his continuance beyond June 30 next.

The Wormley and the Cardozo "hearings" do school officials no credit!

Who next?

A review of certain aspects of my connection with the local public school system will make this record more intelligible. I was appointed thereto July 1, 1890, and, with the exception of one year and a few months, have served continuously since, as teacher, principal or official, in regular and special branches, frequently in both.

My rating has been invariably high; the latest, in kind, given to me last June and lying before me now, the only one of which I have been officially advised—with "Desire for Self-Improvement" and "Breadth of Educational Outlook" checked as being especially noteworthy.

Chancellor—
Harding Assailed
The Mussey Affidavit

It has been stated that I was demoted at one time from a supervising-principalship because of the same charge as now alleged, Inefficiency.

The specific charge, made during the superintendency of Dr. William E. Chancellor, October 16, 1906, was Disloyalty, based upon the alleged writing of an anonymous letter, criticizing the then assistant superintendent, Dr. W. S. Montgomery, for "soft pedagogy" and continued employment or promotion of incompetent teachers and officers.

Both Capt. Oyster and Mr. Cox, president and vice-president of the board of education of that day and time, stated publicly, after my dismissal, "If there had been no Chancellor, there would have been no Cardozo case." The fact that Chancellor had been, in effect, my sole prosecutor, and that it developed immediately afterwards that he himself had been guilty of criticizing the president, congress, the supreme court of the United States, the commissioners of the District of Columbia; and of commenting irreverently upon the planetary system and various other matters, over which, until the above-mentioned, and one of his successors, allegedly, recently interfered. Jehovah had been allowed to preside.

All of this points to the fact that, occasionally, retributive justice prevails.

Mrs. Ellen Spencer Mussey is honored for an ideal personal and public life. Let her tell about Chancellor, by affidavit, in the Washington Post of November 1, 1920. As will be recalled, Chancellor, with that fatal anonymous-letter-writing habit, had assailed the lamented Harding for unforgivable racial identification.

He was adjudged guilty of all charges which had been preferred against him November 18, 1907, after a fair and impartial trial in which he was represented by counsel. [To the present board of education: How about this procedure?]

These charges included incompetency, inefficiency, insubordination and acting deceitfully toward the board of education. He was removed from his office on these charges all of which were sustained.

Whenever he desired to remove any of the teachers or officers of the public schools he never hesitated as to methods [odd how frequently this sort of thing persists], and in one case without any proof declared that a certain anonymous letter which he produced before the board of education was written by a supervisor. On this letter he based his effort to remove this man.

Chancellor had his way at the time, but after his own removal as Superintendent this supervisor was reappointed and is now doing good service in the public schools, in another position. [The underscoring is my own, for perfectly obvious reasons.]

The Deanwood "Case."

As to my transfer from the principalship and 8th grade teachership at the Deanwood School to a similar status at the Montgomery School, the following is self-explanatory—

At a meeting held by the Board of Education of the District of Columbia on January 2, 1918, a special committee consisting of Messrs. Peyton, Learned and Johnson, submitted a report which was unanimously approved by the Board of Education. This report is as follows:

Ladies and Gentlemen: Your special committee appointed on the second instant, and directed to investigate and report upon charges preferred against F. L. Cardozo, principal of the Deanwood School, respectfully states that, pursuant to said authority, a session for the taking of any and all testimony bearing upon said charges, which had not already been submitted to the Superintendent of Schools, was held in the Board Room at the Franklin Building on Saturday the 5th instant, at 2 o'clock, p.m., after due notice to the accused and all persons known to be interested in the prosecution of said charges.

The prosecution then and there, by W. C. Chase, its counsel, announced that no additional testimony would be offered, therefore your committee, after careful consideration of the testimony that had been previously submitted, and after a rather thorough examination of Mr. F. L. Cardozo, is of the opinion that the charges have not been sustained by evidence. Your committee accordingly concurs in the report of the special committee appointed by the Superintendent of Schools, made on the 19th day of December, 1917. [In transmitting the aforesaid information from a minute of the Sixth Meeting of the board of education, 11-12-17, former Assistant Superintendent Bruce adds, "From the report of the special committee above indicated I would make the following excerpt:

In a word, the judgment of the committee is the judgment of the Citizens' Association of Deanwood, that there is no good reason to hold Cardozo or any of his teachers under suspicion of wrongdoing. Accordingly I advise that no further attention be paid to the charges here in question." This report is submitted by the Assistant Superintendent of Schools, his findings being concurred in by Miss Marion P. Shadd, Supervising-Principal of the Eleventh Division, Mrs. I. G. Richardson, Chief Attendance Officer, who, with me, constituted the Superintendent's Special Committee.]

A copy of the Minutes and of Asst. Supt. Bruce's letter are before me.

Neither of these rather important documents, strange to say, is to be found on file in Mr. Wilkinson's office, altho much other matter has been collected and placed there. Everybody realized shortly afterwards, none more so, however, than I had done from the beginning, that, had I satisfied the "sign-and-symbol" element, later publicly exposed, there would never have been a Deanwood "case."

I have been advised that Inefficiency covers Insubordination, and that one of the chief complaints against me, under that heading, is a lack of Cooperation with the present administration. When given a "leg to stand on," I have yielded myself second to no one else in the school system regarding devoted and loyal service.

Let others speak of the quality and the quantity of the service rendered.

The following excerpts from publications and the publications themselves are prima facie evidence of that fact.

Having in mind the serviceability to the school system at Washington of plans, outlines, and statistical data, furnished students by professors, as well as carefully-prepared notes of lectures, I went to some pains in this regard, as recited hereinafter, while attending summer school at Harvard.

Promptly upon returning here, August 29, 1925, I sent the foregoing data, with the following letter, to Mr. Wilkinson who claims, however, that these have never been received. 'Odd how some mail goes astray.

If such data do not indicate "teacher leadership" as well as interest in the public school system, of which I was then a part, what will?

During attendance at the Harvard University Graduate School of Education this summer I secured the books listed below, and found them of such help in the junior high school and administration of elementary school courses, that I am commending them to you for use here.

Having in mind an observation of the Superintendent last spring, during one of the conferences with administrative officials of the local public school system at the Thompson School, I am taking the liberty of placing the Educational Problem Series in the Conference Room at the Franklin School building confident that but a brief review will convince you of the very great service teachers and officers will render themselves and the public school system by the purchase and perusal of these books.

I feel assured that the Public School Publishing Company, Bloomington, Illinois, from whom I secured the books, will give immediate and favorable attention to a suggestion from you that appropriate copies be sent, on approval, to teachers, principals, directors and other officials, so that the same may be found on their desks at vacation's end, if not before.

In this connection, regarding the suitability of the Series for all branches of the school system, I should attract your attention to the Contemplated Additions to Series, inside cover of No. 4. You will probably agree with me, however, that Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are more appropriate for grade-school men.

The Educational Problem Series, Nos. 1-8 (Whipple.)

No. 1. Problems in Educational Psychology $0.75
No. 2. Problems in Secondary Education 0.75
No. 3. Problems in Elementary School Instruction ......$0.75
No. 4. Problems in Administration of School System $0.90
No. 5. Problems of the High School Teacher ........$0.75
No. 6. Problems of the High School Staff ...$0.90
No. 7. Problems of the Rural Teacher .......$0.75
No. 8. Problems in Mental Testing