Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The development of school principalship in Vancouver, 1886-1928 Chiang, Po-Yu Emmy 1990

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1990_A8 C43.pdf [ 5.15MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055841.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055841-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055841-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055841-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055841-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055841-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055841-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055841-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055841.ris

Full Text

THE DEVELOPMENT OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALSHIP IN VANCOVER, 1886-1928 By PO-YU EMMY CHIANG B.A., The University of British Columbia, 1984 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Administrative, Adult and Higher Education We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 1990 ©Po-Yu Emmy Chiang, 1990 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Administrative, Adult and Higher Education The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Y3 September, 1990 ABSTRACT The traditional role of the school principal as head teacher, school secretary, janitor and nurse became transformed during the last century in the United States, as growth of the size of city schools required principals to provide supervisory and instructional leadership. By the turn of the century, principals of large urban centres were granted much administrative control over their schools and were relieved of teaching, clerical, janitorial and medical duties so that they could devote their time to inspect classes and manage their staff. As this was the state of the profession in the United States, the purpose of this thesis is to investigate whether or not the same kind of change occurred in Canadian schools, and whether this American trend had any impact on the pace or pattern of change for Canadian school principals. Early school principalship in Vancouver, as it developed from 1886 to 1928, is selected as a case for inquiry. The study profiles the personal and professional background of Vancouver's first principals and describes the nature of their work during this time period. ii - iii -As the various available sources, such as the annual provincial superintendent's reports and school board meeting minutes show, while the profession did undergo similar type of reform, as principals evolved from head teachers to supervisors and managers, the process was hampered by local elements and concerns, as well as decisions made by city and provincial authorities. One can conclude from these findings that, for one Canadian city at least, new models and ideas in school administration from the United States were not quickly or easily transferred and adopted. For Vancouver, the decision to redefine the role of school principals happened only when local needs justified such a move. - iv -T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S A B S T R A C T i i T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S iv L I S T O F T A B L E S vi L I S T O F F I G U R E S vii C H A P T E R P A G E 1 I N T R O D U C T I O N 1 Purpose 1 Method of Study and Source Materials 3 Definition of Terms 6 Limitations 7 Organization 7 2 B A C K G R O U N D 8 City Population 8 Vancouver Schools 10 The City's School Bureaucracy 15 3 P R O F I L E O F V A N C O U V E R S C H O O L P R I N C I P A L S 21 Place of Birth 23 Education 27 Career Path 35 Principals and New Education 43 4 T H E W O R K O F S C H O O L P R I N C I P A L S 50 The Role of the Principal-Teacher 50 The Roles of Other Officials 54 New Responsibilities 59 Professionalization 67 Supervision 74 5 S U M M A R Y A N D C O N C L U S I O N S 85 - V -T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S (Cont'd) B I B L I O G R A P H Y 89 A P P E N D I C E S 1 Enrollment, Staff and Number of Schools 93 2 "What is Progressive Education?" 94 3 Duty of Principals 96 4 List of A l l Principals, 1886-1928 98 - v i -LIST OF TABLES T A B L E P A G E 2.1 Population of Vancouver City 1886-1931 9 2.2 Population of School -Age Children 10 2.3 Comparison of Ci ty Population and School 13 Enrollment 2.4 Summary of Enrollment, Size of Staff and 14 Number of Schools 3.1 Principals - Selected Group 1 22 3.2 Principals - Selected Group 2 2 2 A 3.3 Place of Bir th, A l l Brit ish Columbia 23 Teachers 1924 3.4 Place o f Bir th, Elementary School Teachers 24 1924 3.5 Place of Birth, H igh School Teachers 1924 25 3.6 Place of Bir th, Vancouver Principals, 26 Selected Group of 39 3.7 Institution Attended by Principals 27 (At the T ime of B.C. Certification) 3.8 Principals Trained at Normal School 31 3.9 Career Principals 38 3.10 Educational Bureaucrats 39A/B 3.11 Women Act ing Principals 42 4.1 Principals Enrolled at the University of 7 3 A Washington 1922-1927 - vii -L IST O F F IGURES F IGURE P A G E 2.5 Vancouver School Board, Organization and 15A Chain of Responsibilities 2.6 Vancouver School Board, Organizational 16A Chart, 1886/87 2.7 Vancouver School Board, Organizational Chart, 1925 16B CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Purpose In recent years, the public school principal has become to his or her school what the business executive or director is to his company. In fact, it is not uncommon for principals, who are ultimately responsible for the outcome and success of their schools, to be referred to as chief administrative or executive officers of schools.1 And as this new designation suggests, principals have also become career professionals, schooled in both the theory and practice of school management and administration. By contrast, at the turn of the century, most principals were little more than head teachers who also acted as the school secretary, nurse, truant officer, and caretaker. A significant number of changes have occurred over time to bring the profession of principalship to its present status, and it is the purpose of this study to examine the early period of development which fundamentally altered the nature of school administration. Paul R. Pierce in The Origin and Development of Public School Principalship2 found that school principalship in the United States had already taken on a new character at the close of the last century. No longer the so-called head-teachers or principal-teachers, principals became, in 'In British Columbia, for example, the 1988 Amendment to the Public School Act which prohibited school principals and vice-principals from belonging to teacher organizations, referred to them as "School Administrative Officers." 2Paul R. Pierce, The Origin and Development of Public School Principalship (University of Chicago, 1935). 2 many ways, educational directors and managers who had gained much control over the daily operations of their schools. At the same time, school principalship became recognized as a profession that was distinct from that of teachers. Some of the key factors which Pierce identified as important to the early development of the profession included the rapid growth in the number and size of schools, which made it necessary for city superintendents to delegate their supervisory tasks to principals. Related to this was the freeing of principals from teaching duties to enable them to carry out supervisory responsibilities, such as visiting classrooms and inspecting the work of their teachers. Another important step was the decision by school authorities to grant principals powers to graduate pupils and the right to some input over the transfer and appointment of teachers connected with their schools. By networking, forming associations, and obtaining graduate degrees and professional training to meet rising standards, principals helped to make their occupation as school administrators a recognized profession. In terms of women principals, Pierce reported that while men outnumbered women principals by a large number prior to 1870, by 1917 there were as many women principals as men in major American cities.3 In light of Pierce's findings, one wonders whether school principalship in Canada had experienced similar kinds of transformation, and whether this trend, set in urban American school systems, quickened the rate of progress for Canadian principals through the transfer of ideas, or had any impact on how changes were implemented. 3Pierce, pp. 210-221. 3 Since Vancouver's school system, which was formed in the 1880s, was still a relatively young institution at the turn of the century, compared with the eastern Canadian and American educational establishments, its situation provides for an ideal case study. By looking into the city's principals' personal and professional background, the nature of their work during the initial years, and the changes which modified their role, one could make some comparisons with Pierce's findings to determine how school principalship developed in one Canadian city. I have chosen to focus the study on a 42-year period, from 1886, when the city was incorporated, to 1928, the year just prior to the amalgamation of the Vancouver School District with those of Point Grey and South Vancouver. Method of Study and Source Materials A list of all men and women who had been designated as elementary or secondary school principals, or acting principals between 1886 and 1928 in the provincial Superintendent of Education's Annual Reports4, was compiled to make a personal and professional profile of the city's principals. This list was then used to locate newspaper articles or obituaries, from which information such as place of origin, colleges and universities attended, and personal views about educational reform could be extracted. Having established who some of the city's principals were, I attempted to determine what they did on the job by looking first at the early descriptions of their work in documents such as 4British Columbia, Legislative Assembly, Annual Reports of the Public Schools of the Province  of British Columbia (Victoria: King's Printer, 1886-1928). 4 the British Columbia School Act 5 , and the rules and regulations set out by both the Department of Education and the Vancouver School Board.6 A brief investigation into the roles of other school board members and officials was also undertaken. The second step involved searching through meeting minutes of the school board, including those meetings between the principals and the Municipal Inspector, for indications of change in the principals' work and their professional activities. Source materials such as The B.C. Teacher7, published by the British Columbia Teachers' Federation, and the Annual Reports were also used, for details on the principals' activism in teachers' unions, and provincial policy amendments. Of significant value were two commissioned reports which probed the state of the provincial and city school systems. The report on the efficiency of the Vancouver school system (hereafter referred to as the "Report") by W.H. Vance and J. MacKay 8 in 1917, as well as the provincial Survey of the School System (the "Survey") by J.H. Putman and G .M. Weir, offer not only facts and figures but also some revealing insights into how the school systems functioned at the time. As far as secondary sources were concerned, studies on the history of school administration in British Columbia are scarce. Although very little research directly related to the early development of school principalship has been done, Thomas Fleming's work on provincial 'British Columbia, Legislative Assembly, Statutes, The Public School Act, revised statutes: 1885, 1891, 1911, 1924,1936. 'Education Department of the Province of British Columbia, "Rules and Regulations for the Government of the Public Schools in the Province of British Columbia," 1887,1919,1926,1929; and, Vancouver School Board, "Rules and Regulations of the Vancouver School Board," 1914. 'British Columbia Teachers' Federation, The B.C. Teacher (Vancouver: Wrigley Printing Company, Limited, December 1922). 'Report of Principals Vance and MacKay on the School System of Vancouver, December 1917. school inspectors and superintendents in "'Our Boys in the Field'" 9 , and more recently in "In the Imperial Age and After," 1 0 were useful for their content on provincial school administrators. Considerably more research exists on the provincial and city school systems. Particulars on the provincial educational bureaucracy and its organization was largely taken from F. Henry Johnson's A History of Public Education in British Columbia1 1, and Donald MacLaurin's thesis.12 George Hindle's The Education System of British Columbia1 3, was also of some use. Sources on the history of the Vancouver school system and its schools included James Sandison edited, Schools  of Old Vancouver1 4. Vancouver School Board's First Fifty Years1 5, and Glancing Back 1 6. Also referred to were a couple of studies dealing with specific aspects of Vancouver's schools, which 'Thomas Fleming, '"Our Boys in the Field': School Inspectors, Superintendents, and the Changing Character of School Leadership in British Columbia," in N. Sheehan, J.D. Wilson and D.C. Jones eds., Schools in the West: Essays in Canadian Educational History (Calgary: Detselig Enterprises Limited, 1986), pp.285-303. i aThomas Fleming, "In the Imperial Age and After: Patterns of British Columbia School Leadership and the Institution of Superintendency, 1849-1988," B.C. Studies, no. 81, Spring 1989, pp. 50-76. 1'Henry F. Johnson, A History of Public Education in British Columbia (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1964). "Donald Leslie MacLaurin, "The History of Education in the Crown Colonies of Vancouver Island and British Columbia and in the Province of British Columbia," (Ph.D. thesis, Department of Education, University of Washington, 1936). "George Hindle, The Education System of British Columbia (Trail: Trail Printing & Publishing Co., Ltd., 1918). 14James M . Sandison ed., Schools of Old Vancouver (Vancouver: the Vancouver Historical Society, 1971). "Vancouver School Board, First Fifty Years: Vancouver High Schools. 1890-1940 (Vancouver, Wrigley Printing Co., 1941). 16Vancouver School Board, Glancing Back: Reflections and Anecdotes on the History of  Vancouver Public Schools (Vancouver, 1988). 6 include Neil Sutherland's '"Triumph of Formalism'" 1 7, particularly his description of schooling in the 1920s, and John Wormsbecker's "The Development of Secondary Education in Vancouver."18 Definition of Terms The following terms are used in the thesis with their meanings shown: Acting Principals: City Superintendent/: Inspector 1st Division Classes: Free-Principals: Management Committee: Municipal Inspector: New Education: Teacher administrators who took charge of schools with fewer than eight divisions and were paid a lower salary than principals. Name for the Municipal Inspector before 1912. In high school, meaning grade 12 or graduating classes, and in elementary, grade 8 or entrance classes. Principals who were freed from teaching duties in order to supervise their schools. A standing committee of the Board which directed all educational matters such as staffing, enrollment, instruction, etc. A position created for large city school boards. He oversaw the educational operations on behalf of the Board in conjunction with its standing committees such as the Management Committee. Term given to the education reform movement in Canada, which lasted from 1880s and '90s to the 1910s and '20s. Principals: Principal-Teachers: Administrative heads of schools with eight divisions or more. Early principals who, in addition to their administrative duties, was also expected to teach 1st Division classes. "Nei l Sutherland, "Triumph of Formalism': Elementary Schooling in Vancouver from the 1920's to the 1960's" in R.A.J. McDonald and J. Barman eds., Vancouver's Past: Essays in Social History (University of British Columbia Press, 1986), pp. 175-210. , 8John Wormsbecker, Jr., "The Development of Secondary Education in Vancouver," (Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto, 1961). 7 Limitation The lack of primary sources, particularly of those written from the viewpoint of principals, and key documents, such as the meeting minutes of the Vancouver Principals' Association, placed constraints on the depth and scope of this study. Nevertheless, sufficient information was available from other sources, such as the Board's meeting minutes and commissioned reports, to provide a rough account of how the profession developed during the 42-year period. One needs to keep in mind, however, that since most of these source materials are official records, they only render a view of things from an organizational perspective, as opposed to that from the school level. What could not be determined from such sources were the actual day-to-day routines of principals, their management styles, and their personal views and observations on pedagogy and other educational issues in general. Organization This study is divided into five chapters. Chapter two, following the Introduction, describes the city, its school system and the growth of the city's educational bureaucracy. Chapter three profiles the principals' personal and educational background, career path, and views on New Education. Chapter four centres around the work of principals, and includes a description of their role and that of other school officials during the early years, an account of new responsibilities delegated to them, professionalization efforts, and their new function as school supervisors. The last chapter summarizes the findings and makes some concluding observations. 8 C H A P T E R 2 B A C K G R O U N D City Population When fire destroyed the two-month old city of Vancouver on 13 June 1886, the former milltown of about 2,000 made a quick recovery in anticipation of the economic boom the Canadian Pacific Railway promised to bring. By the end of that same year, much of the city, serving a population which had already reached 8,000, had been rebuilt, including the school, the hospital, cemetery, and bank, with additions of an opera house, a new city hall, 14 offices, 23 hotels, 51 stores, one church, two stables, a roller skating rink, a mil l and a wharf.1 The extension of the CPR rails and the arrival of the first transcontinental train from the East to Vancouver on 23 May 1887 signalled the beginning of a phenomenal growth the city was to experience in the coming decades.2 •Anne Kloppenborg et al., eds., Vancouver's First Century, a City Album, 1860-1960 (Vancouver: J.J. Douglas, 1977) p. 3. 2 On the early history of Vancouver and its geographical and political development see Norbert Macdonald, '"C.P.R. Town': The City-Building Process in Vancouver, 1860-1914," pp. 382-412 in Shaping the Urban Landscape: Aspects of the Canadian City-Building Process, ed. G.A. Stelter and A.F.J. Artibise (Ottawa: Carleton University Press, 1982); Deryck Holdsworth, "House and Home in Vancouver: The Emergence of a West Coast Urban Landscape, 1886-1929" (Ph.D. thesis, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, 1981); Jean Barman, "Neighbourhood and Community in Interwar Vancouver: Residential Differentiation and Civic Voting Behaviour," pp. 97-141 in Vancouver Past:  Essays in Social History, eds., R.A.J. McDonald and J. Barman (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1986), pp. 97-141; and Barman's '"Knowledge is Essential for University Progress...': Working People and the Schools in Vancouver During the 1920s," Labour/Le Travail, 22 (Fall, 1988), pp.9-66. 9 Population figures from 1886 to 1931 show that the number of people in the city grew at the fastest rate during its first 25 years, from 2,000 in 1886 to 100,401 in 1911 (see Table 2.1). This growth spurt catapulted the city into fourth place standing in 1911, from tenth in 1901, in terms of population size among Canadian cities, behind Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg. Between 1911 and 1928 the city continued to grow but at a much slower pace, with a gain of only 17% between 1911 and 1921, and then 27% between 1921 and 1928. Census figures for 1931 show a much larger increase, which reflects the city's population growth resulting from its amalgamation with South Vancouver and Point Grey in 1929. Table 2.1 POPULATION OF V A N C O U V E R CITY 1886-1931 Year Population (between Census years) % Increase 1886 1891 1901 1911 1921 1928 1931 2,000 13,709 27,090 100,401 117,217 149,262 246,593 + 585 + 98 + 270 + 17 + 27 + 117 Estimate only. Actual figure not available in Census. From Vancouver City Directory, 1928 Source: Census Canada 1891, 1901, 1911, 1921, 1931 In terms of school-age population, those between ages 5 and 19 accounted for roughly 20 to 25% of the total city population (see Table 2.2). The 1931 figure does not show any dramatic changes in this ratio. These numbers provide only a general idea of the number and proportion of 10 school age children to the overall number of people in the city. Exactly how many actually enrolled in school will be discussed in more detail in the following subsection. Table 2.2 POPULATION OF SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN (District School-Age % of Year Citv POD. Pop.) POD. (5-19) Total POD. 1886 2,000* ( 42,226) N/A 1891 13,709 ( 42,060) 9,311 " (22%) 1901 27,090 8,089 *** (19%) 1911 100,401 N/A ~~ — 1921 117,217 28,502 24% 1928 149,262 N/A 1931 246,593 61,229 25% Estimate only. Total population in District of New Westminster which included Vancouver. Total population in District of Burrard which included Vancouver. The 1911 Census did not include this data in its report. From the Vancouver City Directory, 1928. Source: Census Canada, 1891, 1901, 1911. 1921, 1931. Vancouver Schools Although untouched by the Great Fire, the city's one and only school in operation in 1886 was closed while the rest of the city was under reconstruction. Originally opened in 1872 by the Hastings M i l l Company, around which the first settlers in the area clustered, the school was built mainly to serve its employees. In its first year, the school, a traditional wooden schoolhouse measuring 18x40 feet, enrolled 15 children, who were taught by Miss Georgia Sweeney, the 11 daughter of the Mi l l 's master mechanic. And under the Free Public School Act of 1872 the school was named Granville, after the township in which it was located. In that same year, Victoria, the largest city in the province at the time, enrolled a total of 1045 pupils and employed a teaching staff of nineteen.3 When the Granville School was reopened in the fall of 1886, its name and that of its school district, in conformity with the incorporation of the city, was changed to the Vancouver School and School District by provincial legislation in November of that year. The Board of Trustees, having found the school overcrowded as soon as it reopened, had no option but to build a new school as soon as possible. The result was a four-room, two storey building on Cordova Street at a cost of $3500. The city's first school principal, J.W. Robinson, a former teacher of the Granville School, was appointed to run the new school, which opened in January, 1887. He was paid $70 a month, a $10 a month increase from his salary as a teacher, and a $20 a month more than the salary of his two assistants.4 The school enrolled 93 pupils in its first term. With the arrival of the CPR extension in May, the enrollment jumped to 285 by the end of June. Faced with inevitable growth in the next school term, the Board that summer worked to add new buildings to accommodate the influx of new students. The two schools built in the following year were a four-room building at Burrard and Barclay Streets, then named Dawson School, and a two-roomed structure across False Creek near 3 A . M . Ross, "The Romance of Vancouver Schools," Schools of Old Vancouver (Vancouver: Vancouver Historical Society, 1971) p. 12; and Vancouver Board of School Trustees, "Growth and Progress of the Public School System in Vancouver, Including a Brief Sketch of Early School History...," Vancouver School Board Annual Report (1904), pp.5-11. Also see Vancouver School Board's First Fifty  Years. 4 Ross, p. 15. the site of the present Mt. Pleasant School, then referred to as the False Creek School. To meet the projected requirements for the next school year, the Board recommended in 1888 that a brick building of eight rooms be built on Pender, between Cambie and Hamilton. When the Central School opened in 1890, it was filled almost at once, and plans were already in the works for two more such schools in the east and west ends of the city. The city's first high school, which enrolled some 30 pupils in its first terms, was also opened that same year. This pace of expansion was the result of a rapid growth in the city's student population (see Table 2.3). The Vancouver School District's enrollment grew at an explosive rate during its first five years. Between 1886 and 1891, the number of pupils increased over 500%, from 285 to 1,748. At the same time, the number of staff increased from five in 1886 to 21 in 1891. The total number of schools grew from one to six. This rate of growth corresponded with the rate for the city's overall population which increased 585% over the same period. (table next page) 13 Table 2.3 COMPARISON OF CITY POPULATION A N D STUDENT E N R O L L M E N T City School Year Pop. % + Enrollment % + 1886 2,000 * 285 1891 13,709 585 1,748 513 1901 27,090 98 4,669 167 1911 100,401 270 12,246 162 1921 117,217 17 19,717 61 1928 149,262 " 27 23,300 18 Estimate only. 1928 figure as reported in the City Directory. Sources: 1. Census of Canada, 1891, 1901, 1911, 1921 2. Statistical Returns, Annual Reports of the Public Schools of the Province of British  Columbia. 1886-1928. 3. Vancouver City Directory, 1928. Despite slower growth since 1911, the Vancouver School District continued to increase the size of its teaching force and the number of schools (see Table 2.4). In the year 1910/11 the Board employed 249 teachers, and by the end of June 1928, the number grew to 693. The Board also built 12 new schools during this same period, bringing the total number of schools from 20 to 38. (table next page) 14 Table 2.4 SUMMARY OF ENROLLMENT. SIZE OF STAFF AND NUMBER OF SCHOOLS % No.of % No. of % Year Enroll. Incr. Staff Incr. Schools Incr. 1886/87 285 5 1 1890/91 1,748 513 21 320 6 500 1900/01 4,669 167 84 300 8 33 1910/11 12,246 162 249 196 20 150 1920/21 19,717 61 537 116 36 80 1927/28 23,300 18 693 29 38 6 Source: Statistical Returns, Annual Reports, 1886-1928. It is interesting to note that, as the system continued to expand during the 42-year period, the pupil-teacher ratio continued to drop. In 1886, the 285 pupils enrolled at the Vancouver School were taught by a staff of 5 (see Appendix 1), including the principal, for a ratio of 57 pupils to one teacher. This ratio climbed to a high of 93 in the school year 1888/89 in the midst of skyrocketing enrollment. As the growth rate stabilized in the succeeding years, the ratio began a steady downward slide. In 1891 it stood at 74, and ten years later at 54. By the end of the 1928 school year, the pupil-teacher ratio decreased to about 33, 23,300 pupils to a staff of 693. Although the pupil-teacher ratio was drastically reduced, it did not mean schools were less crowded. On the contrary, the average number of pupils per school actually increased from 285 in 1886 to roughly 600 in 1928. Despite the larger capacity of the new schools to house more pupils, schools which took the greater share of pupils continued to face accommodation problems. Since no permanent buildings had been erected to house temporary classrooms between 1914 and 1925, the few new schools that were created during this time had to be held in existing or temporary buildings. For schools like Strathcona and Dawson, which had 33 and 29 divisions 15 respectively in 1925, rooms to accommodate these classes were a major concern. In many cases, rooms were added on, or temporary buildings were put up beside or nearby the existing buildings to house the overflow. Others had to use whatever spare rooms that were available, including janitors' living quarters, attics, and principals' offices: ...Attics and principals' offices were turned into unsatisfactory classrooms in some schools..."5 The City's School Bureaucracy Between 1886 and 1928, the year before the Vancouver School District was amalgamated with those of Point Grey and South Vancouver under the "Greater Vancouver Act", the size of the city's district itself had grown from a one-school, five-teacher arrangement in 1886 to a system operating 38 schools and employing a teaching staff of 693. The number of trustees and the amounts of expenditure also bear out the magnitude of growth. In its first year, the city's School Board, directed by four elected trustees, spent $1,172.01 in operating costs. Forty-two years later in 1928, the Board, consisting of eleven trustees, reported an expenditure of $1,969,337.00. By this time, the Vancouver School District had indisputably become a major urban educational centre. The flowchart diagram shown in Fig. 2.5, reproduced in the Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes of 15 June 1928, represents the organizational structure of the Vancouver School Board just before amalgamation. Compared with what the organizational chart would have looked like in 5 "Municipal Inspector's Report," Annual Reports (1917/18) p. D40. F i g . 2.5 VANCOUVER SCHOOL BOARD ORGANIZATION AND CHAIN OF RESPONSIBILITIES BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES Business Manager & Secretary B u i l d i n g Superintendent A r c h i t e c t Accountant Workmen Caretakers Draughtsmen Cashier Purchasing Dept. Bookkeepers Storekeeper Clerks Transport Municipal Inspector or Directo r of Education Ass't Municipal Inspectors Bureau of Meaurements Teachers Supervisors Attend. Spe c i a l O f f i c e r s Classes Pupils Manual T r a i n . Domestic Sc. Ar t Cadets Physical T r a i n i n g Medical Nurses Psychologists Classes Source: Vancouver Board of School Trustees, Meeting Minutes, June 15, 1928 IBFIGA.WP5 16 1886 (Fig. 2.6) and in 1925 (Fig. 2.7), the city's school system had clearly become a modem and complex bureaucracy. There seem to have been two factors which contributed to this fast pace of expansion. The first was the rapid and continual rise in enrollment and the subsequent growth of the district The size of the system itself, with enrollment hitting the 10,000 mark in the school year 1909/10, made it necessary for a large administrative centre. As each administrative task, such as purchasing supplies and accounting, became increasingly complex, new departments and positions were formed to undertake the work. The first official to be appointed was the City Superintendent, later known as the Municipal Inspector. In 1899 the Board, having found it necessary in the interest of efficiency to have an educational expert on staff, solicited Victoria for a City Superintendent to oversee all educational matters in conjunction with the Board's standing committees. The need must have been urgent since the Board did not wait for a formal approval from the Council of Public Instruction before proceeding to appoint the Superintendent in May of that year. Final assent did not come through until 1901. Other positions and offices created due to similar circumstances included the Building Superintendent, the Medical Officer, Staff Accountant, and the Purchasing Department The second reason for the enlargement of the administrative body could be attributed to the changes brought about by prevailing educational trends. The School Psychologist and the Bureau of Measurements are cases in point. The origin of new concepts such as practical psychology and the scientific measurement of pupil capabilities and achievements could be traced to New Education, or Progressive Education as it was later known, the school of thought which revolutionized Canadian school systems in the 1910s and 1920s. The theory and its effects will be 16A F i g . 2.6 VANCOUVER SCHOOL BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL CHART - 1886/87 Board of School T r u s t e e s Teachers P u p i l s 16B F i g . 2.7 VANCOUVER SCHOOL BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL CHART - 1925 Board of School Trustees Teachers P u p i l s Management Committee M u n i c i p a l Inspector Supervisors Medical O f f i c e r Nurses B u i l d i n g and Grounds Committee Superintendent Bldg. & Grnds J a n i t o r i a l Repairs C o n s t r u c t i o n Finance Committee Secretary 17 discussed in more detail in Chapter three. The city's first school psychologist was appointed in February 1918 "to make a special study of retarded pupils...and to organize special classes..."6 This was the same year that special classes for retarded pupils were first introduced to the city's schools. By 1928, the Psychology Office had become an integral part of the educational system under the direction of the Bureau of Measurements. The Bureau of Measurements itself, as the name suggests, was opened in January 1928 to establish "standards (through testing) in the various subjects for the different grades."7 One of its objectives was to aid principals in "grouping their new pupils according to mental strength."8 In response to the negative assessment of the city's school system made by Putman and Weir in the Survey, the Board attempted to restructure the system and produced a "chain of responsibilities" chart in June, 1928 to illustrate the new design.9 The new organizational structure was a sharp departure from the old, particularly in the shifting of responsibilities from the Board's standing committees to paid staff, and the dividing up of the administrative responsibilities into educational and non-educational departments. Whereas under the old system all essential items were brought before the various committees (Fig. 2.7), under the new arrangement, the paid officials, the Business Manager and the Municipal Inspector, were responsible for almost all business and educational decisions. 6Annual Reports. 1917/18, p.D42. 7Annual Reports. 1927/28, p. M45. "Ibid. 'Vancouver School Board, Board of School Trustees, Special Committees Meetings, Minutes, 14 January 1928. *8 It is significant that the chart makes no mention of the position of the school principal. Presumably it fell somewhere between the Assistant Municipal Inspector's Office and the teachers. This indicates that even as late as 1928, school principals were still classified as part of the teaching staff, and therefore did not warrant an identification of their own on the organizational chart. As the school bureaucracy expanded, the core of the system it seems, namely principals teachers and pupils, tended to become obscure in the overall scheme of things. To make some sense of the role of the city's principals in relation to the various levels of authority, it is useful to examine briefly the provincial office's influence on local control. In the early years, after its formation in 1872 with the passing of the Public School Act for British  Columbia, the provincial education system had been for the most part a highly centralized institution. Up until 1879, the Office of the Superintendent of Education controlled virtually all aspects of the province's schools, including licensing and appointing teachers, fixing their salaries, inspecting them, authorizing textbooks, and determining holidays. As the Survey puts it, "...the Superintendent, in practice, was the whole school system."10 Through a series of legislative changes between 1879 and 1925, many of the Superintendent's previous responsibilities were delegated to newly created offices and local jurisdictions.11 By the early 1920s, the Vancouver School District had been granted much control over local affairs through provincial efforts to decentralize some of these responsibilities. The Board was now able to make its own staffing and budgetary decisions, and organize and regulate its own '"Survey, p. 16. n O n the development of the provincial educational system see Dennis Smith, A Study of the Origin  and Development of Administrative Organization in the Educational System of British Columbia (Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, 1952). 19 system. However, it had limited control over such things as choice of textbooks, and the freedom to modify curriculum to suit local needs. The Survey found that decentralization did not go far enough and recommended that the City of Vancouver be granted "educational autonomy" in such things as the appointment of its own superintendent or director of education, supervision of its schools by own staff of experts and elimination of inspection by provincial officials, its choice of own textbooks, and power to promote pupils from elementary to junior high or high schools.12 Many of these recommendations were implemented by Victoria within the next few years through amendments to provincial statutes and regulations. This about-face by provincial authorities was a direct reversal of their policies of the early 1910s when they acted to curtail some of the control they granted earlier to the city. In 1912 for example, the Public School Act was amended to change the name of the City Superintendent to Municipal Inspector of Schools, who was to come under the authority of the Council of Public Instruction and not the city's school board. His appointment and dismissal had to meet the Council's approval and his work was to be supervised by the provincial school inspectors. This and further changes made in the following year were perceived by local school officials as unjust interference by the provincial office, and prompted the resignation of the City Superintendent, W.P. Argue in June 1912, and the decision of the Chairman of the Board of Trustees in 1913 not to seek re-election. Both men cited these amendments as the prime reason for their resolve.13 This tension between the provincial and city school authorities continued into the 1920s and was finally alleviated to some degree by the Survey and the changes it subsequently effected. "Survey, pp. 433^35. "Vancouver School Board, Board of School Trustees Meetings, Minutes, 12 June 1912; January, 1913. 20 The first forty years for the city's school system, in summary, was a period marked by exceptional growth and expansion. The yearly double and triple growth rate in enrollment not only taxed the school board's ability to provide accommodations and services to its limits, but also pressed the board to re-examine and define its role and organization within the provincial system. As wil l be seen in later chapters, this conflict and controversy over local control had a serious impact on the administrative policies of the city's schools. 21 C H A P T E R 3 P R O F I L E O F T H E C ITY 'S S C H O O L P R I N C I P A L S Between 1886 and 1928, the Vancouver School Board appointed a total of 112 men and women (86 and 26 respectively) to be administrative heads of schools, either as principals or acting principals. This chapter will describe some of these individuals by identifying their birthplace, education and professional training, and any post-principalship careers. Also included in this profile is a brief discussion of their perspectives towards educational ideas and methodology introduced by the New Education movement Due to the scarcity of materials such as biographies and personal papers, it is not possible to make a study of all 112 principals and acting principals. Therefore, I have selected out those who were found in the available sources. In regard to their place of birth, education and career path, I used a subset of 39 principals whose personal data were found in the Vancouver Province and the Vancouver Sun newspapers (see Table 3.1). A different set of principals was used in the subsection dealing with their views on New Education (Table 3.2). Articles written by this group of twelve principals were largely taken from The B.C. Teacher. It is important to underscore the fact that the principals named in the two subsets in this chapter were exceptional educators. It was due to their outstanding contributions to the school system locally and provincially that they were recognized by the newspapers in articles and obituary tributes. Nevertheless, while these administrators may not represent the average principal, TABLE 3.1 - PBIICIPALS, GiOUP 1 22 PR[ICIPAL BIB THDATB OBIGII DEGBEE i B S T i r u r i o i CEBTIP. ABBIV. 1ST TB. AGE TEB l o s t e y , 1. 1 174 E n g l a n d I.A. London A 1)10 1)11 31 1 1312-1 Boyes, P.C. 1 1)4 Ladner I l l I o n . Sen. 1 ? 1)14 21 915-1 Broogh, T . l . 1 1(4 O n t a r i o B.A. Queen's A 1)04 1)04 4( 1 310-1 C l a r k , A. 1 861 O n t a r i o I d I 1)02 1)02 32 1 301-3 C o w p e r t h w a i t e , P.M. 1 l i f i I.B. B.A. lew Brunswick A 11)0 11)0 32 ] 132-1 C r o n k h i t e , A.M. 1 I l l I.B. B.A. lew Brunswick A ? 1)11 3) 1 320-4 Denton, T.L. 1 I l l I . S. B.A. A c a d i a A 1)01 1)01 30 ] 811-1 F i t c h , I.B. 1 117 I . S . M.A. A c a d i a A 1)12 1)12 2) ] 916-5 B a i i l t o n , J.A. ? S c o t l a n d I l l ? ? 1906 ? ] 307-4 J a i t e s o n , G . l . 1 I S I O n t a r i o I I I 1 l i l t l i l t 34 ] 1)2-1 J e w e t t , P.A. 1 113 I . I . B.A. lew Brunswick A ? 1 ) 0 ) 2) 1 312-3 J o h n s t o n , O.B. 1 172 O n t a r i o B.A. Queen's A 1301 1)01 ii 1 911-3 l i n g , B.B. 1 17) O n t a r i o M.A. T o r o n t o A ? 1)04 2) 1 301-3 l i s t e r , J.G. 1 S ( ( I . S . • I L I 1)03 1)04 55 ] 921-3 L o r d , A.B. 1 114 I . S . B.A. Queen's A ? 1)15 31 ] 815-1 N a t h e v s , S . I . 1 171 O n t a r i o M.A. Queen's A 1)02 1)02 33 ] 310-1 H c D o o g a l l , H i s s A. 1 15) O n t a r i o U L 1 1175 U K 30 ] 113-3 M c G a r r i g l e , T.A. 1 1(2 I.S. B.A. l i n g ' s C o l l e g e A l i t ) l i t ) 21 1 130-3 M e l e e , G . l . 1 I l l M a n i t o b a B.A. Manitoba A 1)03 1)05 23 ] 310-4 Meadows, S.D. 1 H e s s i n g e r , C.B. 1 1)1 O n t a r i o B.A. N c G i l l A 11)1 1)13 36 ] 32(-S I I I I . S . B.A. A c a d i a A 1)6) 1 ) 0 ) 26 ] 314-4 Band, I . L . 1 112 I.S. B.A. A c a d i a A 1)07 1)14 36 1 317-1 B e i d , B . I . 1 112 I . S . B.A. A c a d i a A ? 1)15 35 ] 817-4 B o b l n s o n , A. 1 1(3 I.B. B.A. D a l h o o s i e A 11)0 11)0 27 1 130-3 i o b i n s o n , D.N. 1 171 I.B. B.A. D a l h o o s i e A 11)0 1130 30 1 301-1 B o b l n s o n , G.E. 1 1(4 P . E . I . B.A. D a l h o o s i e A ? 11) t 42 1 307-1 B o b i n s o n , J . I . 1 153 I.B. • I L 2/B ? U K 21 1 !!(-! Shav, J.C. ? I.B. M.A. D a l h o o s i e A ? 11)4 33 1 300-0 S b e r a a n , B.S. 1 1(5 Ohio U L ] 1131 1)03 42 1 307-3 S p a r l i n g , B. 1 t ( ( O n t a r i o U L 1 ? 11)1 26 1 182-1 S t e e v e s , B.P. 1 1)2 I.B. • I L 1 1)13 1)13 30 1 322-5 S t e w a r t , A.C. 1 ! ( ( P . E . I . U L 1/6 11)2 11)3 33 1 133-1 S t r a i g h t , B. 1 I K I.B. U L 1 1)05 1)07 26 ] 312-2 T e i p l e r , Mrs. J . 1 151 O n t a r i o U L 1 ? ? 53 1 311-1 T h o i a s , O.J. 1 1)1 I.S. B.A. M c G i l l A 1)00 1)11 23 1 314-3 T o i , G. 1 1(3 O n t a r i o U L B l i l t 11)1 30 1 133-1' l i l l i s , S . J . 1 177 P.B.I. B.A. N c G i l l A 1)17 1)1) 42 1 311-1 l i l s o n , P.C. 1 171 Manitoba B.A. M a n i t o b a A ? 1)01 41 1 312-3 l o o d h e a d , T. ? ? • I L A ? 1)01 ? 1 314-5 BOTES: DEGBEE - t y p e o f d e g r e e a t t h e t i i e o f c e r t i f i c a t i o n ii B.C. CEBTIP. - t y p e o f c e r t i f i c a t e f i r s t g r a n t e d i n B.C. 1ST I B . - y e a r f i r s t t a i g h t i n T a i c o u v e r . ABBIT. - y e a r a r r i v e d i s Tanconver AGE - age a t t h e t i i e o f appointment t o p r i n c i p a l s h i p . TEIK - t i i e s e r v e d l a Vancouver as s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l . SOUBCES: 1. An n u a l B e p o r t s , 1 I K - 1 3 5 5 2. The Vancouver Sun, The Vancouver P r o v i n c e , 1 I K - D 5 5 3. B r i t i s h C o l u i b i a T e a c h e r s Database, 1171-1)01. In p o s s e s s i o n by Jean B a r i a n . Table 3.2 PRINCIPALS - SELECTED GROUP 2 22A PRINCIPAL Brown, J.E. Denton, V.L. Fergusson, G.A. Fitch, Handley B. Hamilton, John Herd, H.D. Lister, John Lord, Alexander Manning, V.Z. Nesbitt, W.J. Pollock, J.R. Thomas, O.J. Y E A R S OF PRINCIPALSHIP FROM/TO (TO 1928) SCHOOLS 1916- 18 General Gordon 1918- 28 Strathcona 1911-12 Mt. Pleasant 1920- 24 King Edward 1915-17 Charles Dickens 1917- 19 Grandview 1919- 21 Franklin 1921- 27 Grandview 1907-09 Macdonald 1917- 19 Franklin 1922- 24 Junior High 1920- 28 Technical School 1914-15 Grandview 1919-21 Grandview 1926- 27 Mt. Pleasant 1927- 28 Grandview 1911-28 Dawson 1913-15 Dickens 1918- 28 Nightengale 23 their personal and professional profile does provide a general portrait of the first generations of principals. Place of Birth The Survey included in its report a section on the province's teaching personnel. The commissioners, using "comprehensive questionnaires", managed to collect a fair amount of personal information on a sample of 2,733 teachers, including their place of birth: Table 3.3 P L A C E OF BIRTH A L L BRITISH COLUMBIA TEACHERS 1924 Place of Birth Percentage (%) British Columbia 29.90 Ontario 16.50 Manitoba 7.50 Nova Scotia 4.06 New Brunswick 3.26 P.E.I. 2.05 Alberta 1.39 Saskatchewan 1.21 Quebec 1.46 British Isles 24.04 U.S.A. 6.07 Others 2.55 Source: Putman Weir Survey p. 180 This table shows that the majority, or 70% of teachers active in the province's schools in 1924, was bom outside the province. Teachers from other provinces accounted for almost one-half the total, with 16.5% from Ontario, and 9.4% from the maritime provinces, teachers came from the British Isles, the United States and other countries. 24 About a third of all The Survey also rearranged the birthplace data by elementary and high school teachers. In the elementary schools, the breakdown was similar to the distribution of all teachers, although the number of British Columbians was slightly higher, representing about one-third of all elementary school teachers. Table 3.4 P L A C E OF BIRTH E L E M E N T A R Y SCHOOL TEACHERS 1924 Place of Birth Percentage % British Columbia 32.6 Ontario 15.3 Manitoba 7.9 Nova Scotia 3.5 New Brunswick 2.9 P.E.I. 2.0 Quebec 1.5 Alberta 1.5 Saskatchewan 1.3 British Isles 22.4 U.S.A. 6.4 Others 2.6 Source: Putman Weir Survey, p. 180 Those from other provinces accounted for over one-third of the elementary teaching staff, and the number of teachers from other countries was slightly lower at 30%. The breakdown for high school teachers by place of birth departs noticeably from this pattern: 25 Table 3.5 P L A C E OF BIRTH HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS 1924 Place of Birth Percentage % Ontario British Columbia Nova Scotia New Brunswick Manitoba P.E.I. Quebec Saskatchewan Alberta 28.0 14.8 8.5 6.3 4.7 2.1 1.3 0.8 0.4 British Isles U.S.A. Others 25.4 5.1 2.5 Source: Putman Weir Survey, p. 180 High school teachers from east of the Great Lakes accounted for almost one-half of the total, with those bom in Ontario making up the bulk. Those bom in British Columbia made up only 15% of all high school teachers, compared with 32.6% in elementary schools. British and other foreign bom teachers remained at about a third. The large percentage of out-of-province teachers in the high schools was due in pan to the fact that until 1915, the province did not have its own professional and higher education institutions to produce high school teachers. To teach high school, candidates had to have advanced knowledge in at least one subject area, and in most cases, this meant a college or university degree. The Survey found that 96% or 227 high school teachers out of the sample of 236 who responded to the questionnaire were university graduates. Before the opening of the University of British Columbia in 1915, high school graduates had little choice but to go east to obtain a university degree. Those with limited financial means usually had to spend up to two years taking university level courses offered by the McGi l l University College at the High School 26 (first opened in 1907), or other similar colleges, before transferring to McGi l l or other eastern universities to complete degree requirements. By comparison, the distribution of 39 selected Vancouver principals by place of birth displays a pattern similar to that for the province's high school teachers. Table 3.6 P L A C E OF BIRTH V A N C O U V E R PRINCIPALS -SELECTED GROUP OF 39 Place of Birth Number Percentage % Ontario 10 25.6 Nova Scotia 9 23.1 New Brunswick 8 20.5 P.E.I. 3 7.7 Manitoba 2 5.1 British Columbia 1 2.6 British Isles 2 5.1 U.S.A. 1 2.6 Unknown 3 7.5 Sources: The Vancouver Province and The Vancouver Sun A total of 30 principals, or about three quarters of the group, came from the eastern provinces and graduated from eastern colleges and universities. The two who immigrated from the British Isles, one from England and the other Scodand, accounted for only 5.1% of the total. The sole British Columbian in the group was a native of Ladner. Due to the lack of personal information, it is impossible to ascertain the places of birth for the other 73 principals. 27 Education As the above data indicate, eastern Canadians played a dominant role in managing the city's schools. A good number of these principals and acting principals were university and college graduates, and were often master teachers of subjects in which they majored. Of the 112 principals and acting principals, about half (51) held degrees at the time they were certified in British Columbia. They represented the following institutions: Table 3.7 INSTITUTIONS ATTENDED B Y PRINCIPALS (AT THE TIME OF B.C. CERTIFICATIONS Institution Number Percentage % Acadia 7 13.7 Queen's 7 13.7 Toronto 7 13.7 Dalhousie 5 9.8 McGi l l 5 9.8 New Brunswick 5 9.8 Manitoba 4 7.8 McMaster's 2 3.9 Trinity College 1 2.0 Victoria College 1 2.0 British Universities 4 7.8 (London, Glasgow, Liverpool, Cambridge) Unknown 3 5.9 Source: Annual Reports. 1886-1928. Of these, 41 graduated with Bachelor of Arts degrees, two with Bachelor of Science, seven Master of Arts, and one Doctorate of Philosophy. Among them were a number of academics and scholars who had "brilliant careers" at their alma mater. James C. Shaw, one of the earlier principals, for example, (Vancouver High School 1900-1907), was a gold medallist at Dalhousie, a classical 28 master at Pictou Academy in Nova Scotia, a tutor of classics at Dalhousie College, and a graduate of Harvard. Others with distinguished university careers included Stanley W. Mathews, M.A. (Vancouver High School 1910-18), who was a gold medallist in mathematics at Queens; George E. Robinson (Vancouver High School 1907-10); Robert Law, Ph.D., Victoria College (Central High School 1888-91); and Thomas A. Brough (Britannia, 1910-18), English & History Honours, Queen's University. In the subset itself, 24 of the 39 principals held degrees when they were certified. (For a listing of their degrees and the institutions from which they graduated, refer to Table 3.1.) Records show that a few of the principals in the group who were not university graduates made up for this deficiency by attending summer sessions and ultimately obtaining degrees. This wil l be discussed in more detail in Chapter four. Prior to the opening of the first provincial normal school in Vancouver in 1901, all prospective teachers, including those from outside the province, were certified by means of the "Public School Teachers' Examinations." The type of certificate (i.e., First, Second or Third Class, Grades A or B) was determined by the marks achieved on the examinations. Those with university degrees from a recognized British or Canadian university could obtain a First-Class Grade A certificate by demonstrating to the examiners their ability to teach and some knowledge of class discipline and management.1 With the Normal School in place and in full operation in Vancouver, certification criteria after 1901 were gradually revamped to focus more on professional training. In 1901, the classes of certificates were changed to Academic, First, Second and Third. Candidates with no university degrees were required to graduate from normal school and pass •Hindle, pp. 75-77. 29 examinations, which were basically the same examinations for high school courses. For example, to obtain the First Class certificate, candidates had to pass those subjects of Senior Grade Course of High Schools. Those with university degrees were exempt from these exams. More emphasis was put on normal school training for all candidates in subsequent years. In 1918 Arts graduates from a recognized Canadian or British university were required to either hold a normal school certificate or pass a written departmental examination on teaching methods, discipline and management, and the school law.2 By 1920, university graduates lacking normal school preparation were required to complete one term at either of the two provincial normal schools, Vancouver or Victoria, to be certified. And three years later in 1923, full professional training became compulsory for those holding university degrees.3 The program comprised fifteen weeks at the Normal School and fifteen weeks at the University of British Columbia.4 Although normal school training had not been a requirement for certification in British Columbia until 1901 (1920 for university graduates), there were indications that a number of Vancouver principals, particularly those from eastern Canada, received some form of professional training. The certification practices of the eastern provinces provide some clues. By the closing decades of the nineteenth century, provincial normal schools were becoming an integral, i f not a 2MacLaurin, pp. 210-215. 3Survev. p. 183. 4 On the development of the provincial normal school system, see John Calam's Teaching the Teachers: Establishment of Early Years of the B.C. Provincial Normal Schools," in B.C. Studies. 61 (Spring, 1984), p.30-63. 30 mandatory, part of the training procedure for elementary school, and later high school teachers, in Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. In 1877, education authorities in both Ontario and Prince Edward Island made attendance at normal school a requirement for certification of elementary school teachers, whatever the level of non-professional or academic education.5 In Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, attempts were also made in this direction, however normal school training did not become compulsory until much later. It is highly probable then, that a good number of elementary school principals educated in the east towards the end of the last century complied with these regulations, particularly those from Ontario and Prince Edward Island. Since professional training for high school teachers was generally not a requirement until after the 1890s (1897 for Ontario), principals educated and certified to teach high school before this time were less likely to have had normal school training. Among the principals in the subset, at least five were graduates of normal schools. Three of them obtained normal school diplomas prior to or after attending university. (table next page) S C.E. Phillips, The Development of Education in Canada (Toronto: W.J. Gage, 1957) p. 587. 31 Table 3.8 PRINCIPALS TRAINED A T N O R M A L SCHOOL Principal Degree (Institution) Normal School F. C. Boyes T.A. Brough D.B. Johnston G. E. McKee J. Templer N i l B.A. (Queen's) B.A. (Queen's) B.A. (Manitoba) N i l Toronto Normal School Toronto Normal School Regina Normal School Toronto Normal School Vancouver Normal School In terms of educational credentials, the city's principals could be categorized into two groups: those with an academic education, and those with professional training and/or extensive teaching experience. Several principals in the subset could be used to show the contrast between the two groups. The city's first school principal was not a university or college graduate. John W. Robinson held only a Second Class B Grade certificate, which meant he achieved between 50 to 60% on the "Public School Teachers' Examination". It is not known what kind of training, if any, he received in New Brunswick before coming west to teach at the Vancouver School where he was principal for two years (1886-88). The arrival of more teachers among the trainloads of migrants from eastern Canada during the next decade afforded the city's school board the opportunity to select and engage better educated teachers and principals. A group of easterners, whose names became synonymous with the early development of the province's educational system, arrived in Vancouver during the 1890s and were hired shortly thereafter to teach in the city's schools. This group consisted of three individuals sharing the surname of Robinson: Alexander, George E. and David M . , all able scholars and graduates of Dalhousie. Collectively, their service to Vancouver as school principals 32 spanned over a quarter of century, from 1890 to 1915, and all three became celebrated British Columbia educationists: Alexander Robinson, provincial Superintendent of Education (1899-1919); George E. Robinson, Professor of Mathematics and Dean of Arts at the University of British Columbia (1916-1920); and David M . Robinson, Principal of the Vancouver Normal School (1920-36). The most colourful character of the three by far was Alexander Robinson who spent nine years in the city's schools, all of them as principal or acting principal, before joining the provincial bureaucracy as the Superintendent of Education in 1899. Bom 1863 in New Brunswick, he attended Dalhousie University majoring in classics. He arrived in Vancouver in 1889 and, after obtaining a First Class A certificate, was quickly appointed by the city to head the Central School in 1890. After two years at Central, he was promoted to the High School, the city's first and only high school at the time. While in charge of the 1st Division, he also taught Greek and Latin classes. At the age of 27, he was the youngest of the three to become principal. The other Robinsons both began teaching in Vancouver in 1894. David Robinson was next to be promoted principal, at age 30, to the Central School in 1900, followed by George Robinson, at age 42, to the High School in 1906. Both taught for at least five years before becoming principals. Others in the group with similar academic qualifications include Frederick Cowperthwaite, Herbert King, Stanley Mathews and Herbert Fitch. The second group of administrators were those who had more normal school training and teaching experience than an academic education. Principals in the subset who fall under this category include Francis Boyes, Stanley Meadows, and John Lister. Both Boyes and Meadows 33 grew up in the province (Meadows was born in Ontario but migrated with his parents to Vancouver as an infant), and Lister immigrated from Halifax, England. Compared with the educational background of the Robinsons and others in the previous group, only Meadows, who received his Bachelor of Arts from McGi l l , had comparable academic preparation. Educated in the Vancouver schools, Meadows had some contact with the earlier generation of principals. He attended Fairview and M L Pleasant schools as a child, and must have had George McRae and George Jamieson as principals at these schools. At the Vancouver High School, from which he graduated in 1907, Meadows would also have had both J.C. Shaw and George Robinson as principals. When he returned to the city in 1911 after attending McGi l l , he was appointed teacher at the Fairview school and within two years, to the vice-principalship of Florence Nightingale School. He did not become principal until 1926 at the age of 35. Neither Boyes nor Lister held degrees when they were certified by the Province. Boyes, born and raised in Ladner, graduated from the Vancouver Normal School in 1914. Upon graduation, he began teaching at the Livingstone School, to which he was appointed principal in 1916 at the age of 21. After serving in the War, he returned to teach, but not as principal, at Livingstone and Alexandra schools. John Lister, who "was never a pupil in high school anywhere,"6 stood out among his colleagues as having had no training and all experience. He began his teaching career at the age T h e Vancouver Sun, 19 June 1926, p. 3 (Magazine Section). 34 of 11 in his native England "because (his) master wanted to save money."7 Since the lessons were "set and mechanical", he was employed mostly to supervise. He taught non-stop after that, and took evening courses at the technical schools in Bradford and Manchester. When he reached Vancouver in 1903 at the age of 37, he had with him 18 years of experience teaching science at technical schools. He was possibly brought over from England as part of the Macdonald Robertson program which subsidized manual training schools in cities across Canada.8 Certified with the "Special" certificate, Lister was appointed to teach at the Manual Training School. He was later to become the first principal of the Vancouver Technical School in 1921. A discussion about him at a School Board meeting in 1926, cited in a newspaper article, sums up rather nicely the Board's respect for teaching veterans like himself: ...a discussion arosc.as to the employment of a high school principal who had not a high school education, and a number of the board mentioned that one of the high school principals now at work had not attended high school. Then it came out that while he lacked a high school diploma, or even a university degree for general education, Lister had been a teacher in high schools for 21 years continuously.9 7 On the history and description of England's pupil-teacher system, under which prospective teachers were apprenticed under headmasters at a young age, see H.C. Barnard, The History of English Education,  from 1760 (University of London Press, Ltd., 1947), pp.184-186. The program, launched in 1899, was underwritten by W.C. Macdonald, a wealthy Montreal industrialist, and directed by J.W. Robertson, Dominion Dairy and Agriculture Commissioner. Subsidy was provided to Vancouver to open the Manual Training School but was ceased in 1903. See John Keith Foster, Education and Work in a Changing Society: British Columbia 1870-1930 (M.A. thesis, University of British Columbia, 1970) pp. 176-179. It is uncertain whether Lister was actually recruited under the program, since no sources could be located to indicate this. T h e Vancouver Sun. 19 June 1926, p. 3 (Magazine Section). 35 Career Path Once in office, the city's principals tended to pursue different career paths. However, as teachers on their way to becoming principals, they seemingly took the same route. A majority of the 39 principals and acdng principals in the subset shared three common characteristics when they became principals: teaching as first career, the amount of teaching experience, and the age at the time of appointment to a principalship. First, all but four who had pursued other professions or vocations, apparently chose teaching as their first career. The four, Thomas Brough, William Rand, Ruyter Sherman and Robert Straight, switched to teaching from other fields. Brough, who had planned on a law career after an honours degree in English and history, abandoned this training to enter normal school after one year in a law office. Similarly, Rand and Sherman both had several years' experience in other professions, Rand in real estate in Nova Scotia, and Sherman in land surveying and engineering in his native Ohio. Both became teachers after establishing themselves in the province. Straight, who began as a temporary teacher in the city's high school, had been a New Brunswick farmer before coming west to Vancouver in 1905. Second, as far as teaching experience was concerned, most of the principals in the group spent a number of years teaching in the classroom prior to their appointments. In addition to experience elsewhere, most principals had served at least one year as teachers in the city's schools. The two principals who had not previously taught in Vancouver had been principals in other British Columbia school districts. Alexander Lord (principal at Grandview, 1914/15) had been a principal at Kelowna Central School, and Samuel Willis had been principal at Victoria High 36 School (1908-17) and a classics professor (1917-18) at the University of British Columbia before accepting the principalship position at King Edward High School in 1918. Interestingly, both Lord and Willis spent just one year as principals in Vancouver before moving on to higher positions. Lord was appointed Inspector of Schools in 1915 and Willis became Superintendent of Education in 1919. Teachers interested in becoming administrators were usually promoted first to assistant or vice-principalships, then in some cases, to acting principalship. Almost three-quarters of them (28 out of 39) had taught between one and five years in Vancouver before becoming principals. This included one or two years as vice-principals or acting principals.1 0 Most of the 28 were elementary school teachers who also had previous teaching experience elsewhere. High school teachers on the other hand taught longer before becoming administrators. Because there were far fewer high schools, comparatively fewer advancement opportunities existed for high school teachers. Therefore, those that sought promotion relocated to neighbouring municipalities and districts. In 1918 for example, the principal of King Edward High School, lamenting the continual flux in his staff, reported that schools such as Kitsilano, South Vancouver and North Vancouver, New Westminster and others "had taken teachers from his staff for principalship at their schools."11 10It is not clear exacdy what the procedure was for securing an administrative position. School Board meeting minutes indicate that positions were advertised internally and candidate teachers made applications to the Board. As a general policy, however, only those who considered "...their length of service under the Vancouver School Board entitled them to the appointment" to administrative positions were encouraged to apply. As well, since new principals were selected from the list of vice-principals, the Board in 1913 advised those seeking to be raised to the standing of vice-principals to make certain they were "suitable persons to occupy die position of principals" before they apply. From Management Committee Meeting Minutes, 12 February 1918 and Board Meeting Minutes, 16 January 1913. "Vancouver School Board, Board of School Trustees, Meeting Minutes, 22 May 1918. 37 Lastly, the majority of the subset were in their mid-thirties when they became principals. The average age at the time of appointment was 35. The youngest to become principal was Francis Boyes. As noted above, he was 21 when he took the position at Livingstone in 1915. At the other end of the scale, George Lister was 55 when he became principal of the Vancouver Technical School in 1921. Once they became principals, the 39 displayed different career preferences, and accordingly could be categorized into three groups. Twenty-one could be classified as career-principals who devoted most of their working lives to local school administration. Another sixteen, who could be called educational bureaucrats, served as city principals for a certain period of time before moving on to higher administrative positions with the city's school board, the Department of Education, or the University of British Columbia. The two women in the group fall into a third category. Since the Board's policies did not make allowance for women principals, the two were restricted to the position of acting principals during the time period of study. Career principals are distinguished by the longevity of their careers as heads of schools, and/or a lack of a post-principalship career. The 21 in this category spent an average of 29 years in that capacity in the city's schools (Table 3.9). Seven of them served as principals for 35 years or more, a few not retiring until the 1950s. As well as continuous service, it was not uncommon for some of them to have spent their entire careers as principal at one school, as demonstrated by Abram Cronkhite who served 27 years without a sabbatical at Bayview School (1920 to 1947), and Ruyter Sherman, who served at Seymour for 25 years (1907-32). Not surprisingly, few with long service as principals pursued other careers after retirement, although one or two did have interests in business ventures. Clarence Messinger for one, after a 35-year career as school Principal Table 3.9 CAREER PRINCIPALS  Schools Term 38 Years Hamilton, J.A. Woodhead, T. Tom, G. Fitch, H.B. Steeves, R.P. McKee, G.E. Messinger, C R . Sparling, R. Reid, E.W. Meadows, D. Cronkhite, A . Clark A. Jamieson, G.W. Cowperthwaite, F .M. Sherman, R.S. Wilson, F.C. Johnston, D.B. Lister, J.G. McGarrigle, T.A. Rand, W.L. Robinson, J.W. Macdonald/B rock/Van Home Norquay/Selkirk Kitsilano/Model Van. East/Strathcona/ Grandview/Alexandra Dickens/Grandview/ Franklin/rempleton Franklin/Gordon Macdonald/Mt. Pleasant/ Tennyson Roberts/Livingstone Van. East/Aberdeen Hastings/Franklin Aberdeen Bayview Fairview/ML Pleasant Mt. Pleastant/Nightengale Central/Dawson/Tennyson/ Bayview Seymour Hudson King George Vancouver Technical Vancouver West Bayview Vancouver School 1907- 49 1914-53 1893-1932 1916- 52 1922-58 1910-45 1914-48 1892-1924 1917- 47 1926-55 1920- 47 1908- 34 1892-1918 1892-97 1900-01 1902-17 1907-32 1912-35 1918- 37 1921- 30 1890-98 1917-19 1886-1888 42 39 39 36 36 35 34 32 30 29 27 26 26 21 25 23 19 9 8 2 2 Term: Term as principals in Vancouver Years: No. of years as principals in Vancouver 39 principal, operated a large farm near Claybum and went on to build one of West Vancouver's first apartment blocks. And Gregory Tom, after a 36-year career, joined Monarch Securities, a Vancouver brokerage firm, to become its president. The bureaucrats were more career-mobile. While career-principals remained principals until retirement, illness or death, those classified as bureaucrats took up other positions after a stint as principals. Of the 16 who fall into this category, almost all continued in the education field, accepting appointments to more administrative posts within the provincial school system (Table 3.10). As well, the majority of them changed positions several times, moving higher up the organization with each appointment. It is significant to note that of the 16, 13 held university degrees prior to becoming teachers, and one received his while a principal. It could be speculated, from this high figure, that education and training was one determining factor of career choices for principals. Four out of the sixteen principals: Vernon Denton, Arthur Anstey, Alexander Lord, and Francis Boyes, shared similar career paths that eventually led to administrative posts at the Vancouver Normal School. Denton, who was born and raised in Nova Scotia and taught for a few years in Saskatchewan, was a teacher and assistant principal for four years in Vancouver before he became principal of Mt. Pleasant School in 1911. In July of the following year, he was appointed provincial inspector for Revelstoke. He continued as inspector for five years before joining the staff of the Normal School in 1917 and becoming its principal in 1932. Both Anstey and Lord followed the same path. Anstey spent two years as teacher and one as principal at Kitsilano High School before securing the inspector's position for Okanagan and Fraser Valley in 1913. He later became an instructor at the Normal School and served as its vice-principal from 1923 to 1939. 39A Table 3.10 EDUCAT IONAL B U R E A U C R A T S Principal Anstey, A . Boyes, F.C. No. of Years as Principal 1 Brough, T.A. Denton, V .L . Jewett, F.A. King, H.B. Lord, A.R. Mathews, S.D. Robinson, A . Robinson, D .M. Robinson, G.E. Shaw, J.C. Stewart, A .C . 1 23 26 1 10 10 13 10 8 3 Post-Principalship Careers Inspector of Okanagan/Fraser Vancouver Normal School (VNS) staff, vice-principal Superintendent of Girls' Industrial SchooVBoy's Industrial School VNS staff, vice-principal, principal Director of Student Teaching, U.B.C. Assistant Superintendant of School U.B.C. senator and B.C. examining board Inspector, Revelstoke Victoria Normal School staff Inspector, Kootenays Chief Inspector of Schools Curriculum Advisor Inspector, Prince Rupert/ Okanagan/Vancouver VNS principal U.B.C. Registrar Superintendent of Education VNS principal McGi l l University College, principal Professor of Mathematics, U.B.C. Dean of Arts, U.B.C. Staff of McGi l l College Life Insurance, Monarch Life Vancouver School Board trustee EDUCATIONAL B U R E A U C R A T S 39B Principal Straight, R. Thomas, O.J. Will is, S J . No. of Years 16 22 Post-Principalship Careers - Director, Bureau of Measurement - Inspector, Secondary Schools - Superintendent of Schools, Secondary - Inspector, Elementary Schools - Assistant Superintendent, Elementary Schools - Superintendent of Education - Deputy Minister of Education 40 Lord, appointed Inspector of Schools after his one year as principal at Grandview became the Normal School principal in 1936. Boyes, who did not join the staff of the school until 1941, had been a superintendent at the Girls' Industrial School in Vancouver as well as at Coquitlam's Boys' Industrial School. He became principal of the Normal School in 1952. The other 13 career bureaucrats took up a variety of senior administrative posts at all levels of the provincial education system. The careers of George Robinson and Robert Straight were typical of this group. Robinson was one of many who accepted positions at higher learning institutions. As mentioned previously, Robinson was promoted to principalship of the High School in 1906 and McGi l l University College at the High School in 1909. In 1915 he was appointed Professor of Mathematics at the University of British Columbia when it first opened, and a year later, the Dean of Arts. Robinson stepped down as Dean of Arts in 1920 and remained a professor of Mathematics until his retirement in 1932. Straight was representative of those who ended up in administrative positions in the Department of Education. After teaching for four years, Straight was appointed principal in 1911, and from then until 1926 he served as principal for four different elementary schools. In 1927 Straight was appointed the city's Director of the Bureau of Measurement. Four years later he moved to the provincial offices to become the Provincial Inspector of Schools, Secondary, and in 1949 he was promoted to be Assistant Superintendent of Schools. The Vancouver School Board in 1912 reaffirmed its long-standing policy that gave preference to promoting male teachers over female teachers to principalship. At the particular board meeting during which this topic was deliberated, questions were raised regarding the salary 41 and status of Jean Templer, the acting principal of Hastings School. The Board recommended that: Mrs. Templer be given the rank of vice-principal, salary $110 per month. It was agreed that the general policy of the Board is in favour of male principals, and that with the growth of the Hastings School in all probability a male principal will be appointed.43 Since the Board made it plain that it preferred male principals, the promotion of women teachers was limited to vice and acting principalship. It was a general rule that, as new schools were opened to accommodate the outlying residential areas or to house overflows from over-crowded schools, a qualified and experienced female teacher was appointed to oversee the new school of three or four divisions. As these schools grew in size and were in need of full-fledged principals, these women acting heads were then relieved of their positions by male principals. None of the 26 women listed among the 112 was in charge of schools with more than seven divisions. Although this was the case, a number of women teachers did become acting principals during the period of study.44 Two of them, Archena McDougall and Jean Templer were characteristic of the women administrators in the city school system at this time. Although not a lot was written about either of them, the local newspapers did acknowledge their passing with short biographical articles. McDougall, a native of Ontario, was the first female acting principal in Vancouver when she, at the age of 30, was appointed to head the False Creek School in the school year 1888/89. The newspapers credited her with establishing this school which later became Mt. 4 3Board Meeting Minutes, 16 February 1912. 4 4Acting principals were usually listed as teachers of 1st divisions, but no title beside their names. In 1917/18 school year, 5 women were listed as such, and in 1925/26 there were 4. Pleasant. McDougall, who held a First Class B certificate (or Second Class) continued as acting principal at the school until 1892. That fall, the Annual Reports showed that the school had gained four more divisions, to make it seven altogether, as well as a new principal, George Jamieson. McDougall had apparently moved to Central School as a grade 5 teacher. From this year onwards until her retirement, her name was listed only as teacher. Table 3.11 GROUP 3: W O M E N ACTING PRINCIPALS Acting Principal Schools No. of Years McDougall, A . False Creek/Mt. 3 Templer, J. Hastings 3 Source: Annual Reports. 1886-1928. With a similar background to that of McDougall, Templer came west from Ontario in 1881 after receiving a normal school training at Toronto, and teaching for a number of years in Ontario schools. She began her career in British Columbia by obtaining a First Class B certificate and teaching in Chilliwack and the Fraser Valley area. In 1911 she was hired by the Vancouver School Board as assistant teacher at Hastings School, which had four divisions at the time. In the following year Templer was put in charge of the school. As the Board meeting minutes indicate, Templer, at the age of 54 appeared before the Board in 1912 requesting a clarification of her position and salary while acting as the school's administrator.45 While the Board was adamant in its position of appointing male principals, it did nevertheless grant Templer the status of a vice-principal of Hastings School. A year later, her title was changed to acting principal. As the 4 5Board Meeting Minutes, 16 February 1912. 43 school grew to more than seven divisions however, Templer was replaced by C.C. Chute, who became the school's principal in 1914. The Board meanwhile transferred Templer to teach Division 3 at Fairview, and three years later again promoted her to vice-principalship, this time at Mt. Pleasant with 16 divisions headed by George McKee. Templer held this post until resigning in 1930 at the age of 72, presumably to retire. Principals and New Education The British Columbia school system, like many of its counterparts across English Canada, became a target of scrutiny and critique by educational reformers during the early years of this century. Perhaps the best-known product of this effort was the Putman-Weir Survey which critically examined the province's educational system through one of the most comprehensive investigations to be undertaken in the country at the time. The Survey, broadly labelled "progressive", represented only one aspect of the many different facets of the reform movement. Known in Canada before the 1930s as New Education, the crusade's primary objective was to modernize education to meet the problems and challenges of the new society. During the late 1920s and 1930s, as the movement became more identified with the work of the American educational philosopher John Dewey, it came to be referred to as Progressive Educatioa Early Canadian reformers generally belonged to one of two camps, those who promoted a child-centred, more humane method of pedagogy, and those who wanted to see schools take on a more practical approach in making students more useful in the work world.4* Recent analyses show that the 4*Neil Sutherland, "The 'New Education' in Anglophone Canada: Modernization Transforms the Curriculum," The Curriculum in Canada in Historical Perspective. CSSE Yearbook 1979, p. 49-59; and his Children in English-Canadian Society: Framing the Twentieth Century Consensus (University 44 commissioners of the Survey were advocates of the latter view. Their recommendations call ing for more bui lt - in mechanisms to sort children, such as the junior high school and specialized high school programs, exemplify what 'practical* education reformers believed was the primary role of the school in society. 4 7 A s this was the state of affairs in the provincial educational arena, just where the city 's school principals stood on the reform issue needs to be addressed, specifically, what they had to say about reform and progressive ideas, and to which of the two schools of thought they belonged. Twelve principals or former principals out of the group of 112 wrote or spoke on topics related to the methods and ideas of N e w Education (see Table 3.2). A number of them who were active in the Brit ish Columbia Federation and contributed articles to the Federation's magazine, The B .C .  Teacher. The city 's newspapers also carried interviews, reports of public speeches, retirement announcements and obituaries of principals giving their views on this subject. Although the principals' opinions of the Survey itself would have been of interest, I was unable to find any evidence o f their reaction in any of the available sources. Taken as a whole, the various articles and newspaper items show that the professional convictions of these principals were more 'child-centred' than 'practical ' . In December 1922, The  B.C . Teacher reprinted an article entide, "What is Progressive Education?" which was prepared by o f Toronto Press, 1976) pp. 172-181. 4 7 T w o such studies include Jean Barman and Ne i l Sutherland, "Royal Commission Retrospective," Pol icy Explorations 3, l (Winter, 1988), and Jean M a n n , " G . M . Wei r and H .B . K i n g : Progressive Education for the Progressive State," in J.Donald Wi lson et a l . , eds., Schooling and Society in 20th  Century Brit ish Columbia (Calgary: Detselig, 1980). B . Anne Wood's Idealism Transformed: The  M a k i n g of a Progressive Educator (Kingston: McGi l l -Queen 's University Press, 1985) on the life of J . Putman convincingly shows Putman as having "subscribed to a creed of practical idealism" and endeavoured to put it into practice, pp. x i i , 148-168. 45 the Association for the Advancement of Progressive Education ( " A A P E " ) o f Washington, D.C. (see Appendix 2) The article lists seven principles based on John Dewey's doctrines, the aim of which was "the freest and fullest development of the individual, based upon the scientific study of his physical, mental, spiritual, and social characteristics and needs." 4 8 The contents o f the articles and speeches by the twelve Vancouver principals show a harmony with these guidelines. According to the first principle, "freedom to develop naturally," the pupi l is given self-governance, as opposed to arbitrary law, so that initiative and self-expression could be fostered. One of the city 's principals who endorsed and attempted to apply this approach was Handly Fi tch. He was known to have observed "complete democracy" among his pupils and staff, and as a result created "one of the smoothest school operations in B .C . " 4 9 John Hamilton, in support of less structured teaching methods commented that, "today's system means that Johnny, i f he isn't as bright as M a r y , is allowed within reason to go his own speed." Hamilton also highlighted the more humane school management style of reasoning with the pupils rather than ruling them, ".. . in the old days they didn't give the student any reason for why he had to do things. They just said he had to do i t . " 5 0 The next two principles, "interest, the motivator of all work" and "the teacher as guide, not a task master," in short, maintain that the student's interest is developed through contact with the world and its activities, application of knowledge gained, and consciousness of achievement. 4 8 Associat ion for the Advancement o f Progressive Education Bul let in. "What is Progressive Education?", reprinted in The B.C. Teacher. Brit ish Columbia Teachers' Federation (Vancouver: Wr ig ly Printing Company, L imited, December 1922) p. 88. 4 9 The Vancouver Sun. 21 A p r i l 1949, p. 11. ^The Vancouver Sun, 10 June 1948, p.9. 46 Therefore, the teacher as guide and motivator must employ whatever means to train students to acquire and process information using observation and reasoning skills while cultivating in them a desire for knowledge. A speech given by Vemon L. Denton to the Rotary Club in 1928 demonstrates the principal's keenness for these ideas. In rallying support for school libraries, Denton declared, "...we must make our accumulated store of information more readily available to children in our schools and in our homes...Children need to read, digest, reflect as well as merely listen to oral prompting of the teacher."51 To capture and develop student interest, John G. Lister proposed a more practical way of teaching in his address on technical schools to the B.C. School Trustees Association convention in 1922. Using the difficulty of teaching geometry as an example, Lister stated, "...but the same subject can be made more delightful, in fact can be made a subject to appeal to a child, i f dealt in a practical way by means of any object you l ike." 5 2 Similar sentiments were expressed in the area of curriculum. Just before the Survey was commissioned, there had been pressure from all sides, particularly from the British Columbia Teachers' Federation, to reform policies and guidelines to make the course of study more progressive. John R. Pollock, who chaired the B.C.T.F. sub-committee on Public School Curriculum, conducted a study on the school curriculum in 1924, which could have been submitted as a brief to the Survey commissioners. In his findings, Pollock made much use of the reform jargon, such as "applying principles", "working out projects" and "freedom of expression and self-criticism."5 3 As well, his committee recommended that reorganization be made of the course of 5 1 Vemon L. Denton, "New Vision Guides Teaching," a speech given to the Rotary Club as reported in The Daily Colonist, 18 August 1928, p. 1 (Magazine Section). 5 2John G. Lister, "The Position of the Technical School in the General Scheme of Education," The  B.C. Teacher, 22 February 1922, p. 12. "John R. Pollock, "Public School Curriculum," The B.C. Teacher, December 1924, p. 78. 47 study for several subjects, including the deletion of all course of work in arithmetic "not in accordance with everyday business and social practises," in order to make the curriculum more relevant and applicable to students. The A A P E article affirms in its fourth principle that progressive education included the "scientific study of pupil development," which meant schools were responsible for scientifically measuring and keeping records of each pupil's physical, mental, moral and social characteristics. Several articles in The B.C. Teacher dealing with this very subject were penned by the city's principals. In a 1926 article entitled, "Tests: Their Use and Abuse," Alexander Lord, then on staff at the Vancouver Normal School outlined for his fellow teachers the fundamentals of conducting and using tests. That same year, J.E. Brown wrote about Japanese school children, a topic of great interest to those who sought to compare the academic abilities of different racial groups. Since Brown had the highest proportion of Oriental, particularly Japanese children at the Strathcona School, he inquired into this question by comparing scores achieved by white and Japanese students, grades five to eight, on the National Intelligence Test. Going beyond measuring intelligence, he also compared athletic abilities and physical traits of the two groups, as well as classroom behaviour and personal hygiene. Brown found that the Japanese children were inferior to white children in subjects requiring knowledge of the English language, but superior in mechanical operations of mathematics. While shorter in stature and lighter in weight, Japanese children were more "enthusiastic and energetic" on the playfield, and they were generally above-average in the area of deportment and personal hygiene54 "J .E. Brown, "Japanese School Children," The B.C. Teacher. June 1928, pp.8-11. 48 The fifth principle, calling attention to all factors affecting the child's physical development, shows Progressive thinkers' consideration of the overall health of the pupil. An example of this view is found in W.J. Nesbitt's article of 1928 wherein he describes the aims of the physical education program. The program, he explained, was more than physical training, but also involved the "cultivation of sound social attitude" and removal of "bodily and social impediments" that interfered with normal growth and development."55 The rule which calls for "cooperation between school and home to meet the need of child life," was strongly favoured by several principals. In an article entitled "What Our Schools Should Expect from the Citizens," G.A. Fergusson exhorted parents to "boost don't knock" the school's effort in training their children.56 This theme reappeared in 1925 in two separate reports by H.D. Herd, in "The Inter-Relation of the School and the Community,"57 and Owen J. Thomas in "Better Relations Between Home and School."58 Both articles outlined the different responsibilities of school and home, and made suggestions on how a better relationship could be achieved. The final principle, "the progressive school, a leader in educational movements," seemed to have been an unwritten motto among the above-mentioned school administrators. The various 55W.J. Nesbitt, "Physical Education," The B.C. Teacher. June 1928, pp. 19-20. ^G.A. Fergusson, "What Our Schools Should Expect from the Citizens," The B.C. Teacher. June 1922, p.20. "H.D. Herd, "The Inter-Relation of the School and the Community," The B.C. Teacher. January 1925, pp. 105-07. 580wen J. Thomas, "Better Relations Between Home and School," The B.C. Teacher. January 1925, pp. 107-08. 49 articles, speeches and interviews collectively show a commitment to improve schools by the means of new educational methods and innovations. As shown above, this group of principals subscribed to the kind of New Education ideology that centred around children and curriculum, and pedagogical reform that emphasized individual development and freedom. Certainly not all Vancouver principals concurred with these reform ideas. Many, no doubt, were traditionalists59. Others like Herbert B. King viewed progressivism in a different light. In King's case, it was to be a vehicle to integrate the school population socially, so that traditional values and ethics could be entrenched. The final goal of such reform was to preserve and ensure the continuity of the existing democratic system. To summarize, if a composite were made of the early school administrator in Vancouver using the data reported above, the result would be a portrait of a Canadian male, who more likely than not, graduated from a post-secondary institution in the east before migrating west to pursue a teaching career. As a principal, he spent his entire career in the city's elementary or secondary schools, while other colleagues accepted appointments to higher administrative positions. With respect to instructional theory and methodology, he conformed to the progressive thought that promoted the liberal, child-centred approach to education, although it is not certain whether or not he put these ideals to work in his school. 5 9 Neil Sutherland's inquiry into the state of the city's elementary schooling from the 1920*s to the 1960's in "The Triumph of Formalism" in Vancouver Past, pp. 175-210, reveals that although the New Education movement had seemingly been successful as evidenced in curricula, in actual practice, a large number of teachers continued to employ traditional methods of teaching well into the 1950s. CHAPTER 4 THE WORK OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS U p until the mid-1920s, the majority of Vancouver school principals were sti l l to be found in classrooms, teaching entrance classes in elementary schools, and graduating classes in high schools. On off ic ial records they were classified as teachers who were also responsible for the administration of the city 's schools. Beginning at around 1918, the role of the principal came to mean more than that of head teacher and record keeper. A s a result of the city 's school system coming under review towards the end of the 1910s, the work of school principals was re-examined and redefined, as they became managers and directors of their respective schools. This chapter w i l l document how this transition took place. It w i l l include a description of the roles of principals and other school officials under the old system, and an account of how the nature of the profession was transformed as principals took on new responsibilities and moved to professionalize themselves, and most significantly, as they became ful l - t ime supervisors of their schools. The Role of the Principal-Teacher Under the old scheme, individuals who were appointed to be principals doubled both as teachers and administrative overseers of schools. This dual role not only required the principal-teacher to teach, but also to keep records, look after the grounds, equipment and furniture, make reports, organize teachers and pupils, and ensure that provincial and civ ic rules and regulations 51 were complied with. Although some supervisory and management functions such as conducting staff meetings and directing teachers were required, the principal's work was largely clerical in nature Essentially, both the Publ ic School Ac t ("the Act"), the province's legislative statute, and the Department of Education's "Rules and Regulations" ("Provincial Regulations") were standard operating procedures for Brit ish Columbia schools. Since they applied to al l public schools in the province, they provided only basic guidelines, making no distinction between large or small schools in the province, graded or ungraded, city or rural. Therefore, references that were made to the work of the school principal were general and applicable to all practising school principals, whether they were in charge of a large high school in Vancouver or a medium sized graded school in Kamloops. The Act , from its introduction in 1872, up to and including its 1924 amendment, made no mention of the school principal in its definition of terms or its rules. This suggests that off ic ial ly , the public school principalship had not yet been recognized as a separate and distinct position from that o f teachers. In the revised statute of 1924, for example, while legislators defined the roles of the provincial Inspector of Schools, the Munic ipa l Inspector of City Schools and teachers, they made no reference to school principals. Changes were not made to recognize principals until 1932 when amendments added the term "(school) principals" to the list of definitions. However, rules were yet to be enacted for them. The Provincial Rules, issued by the Department of Education ("the Department"), spelled out in more detail the policy for the operation of al l schools within its jurisdiction, and 52 accordingly, it had more to say about the work o f principals. From its first edition, the Department had designated several administrative tasks to principals, for which the heads of schools were responsible. In the 1887 version for example, out o f the 16 rules, two directly pertained to principals. Principals were expected to "supervise over timetables, exercises, methods and general discipline pursued in al l its lower grades," 6 0 to submit a yearly report to the Superintendent o f Education on the progress of his school with any "expedient suggestions", and to report in writing to the Secretary of the Board of Trustees every violation o f the rules by teachers. B y 1919 these rules expanded to include convening meetings with assistants to discuss "al l matters affecting the proper management of each division," of which a record was to be kept for the purpose of inspection by the Superintendent of Education, and the Inspectors of the Board o f Trustees. The principal was also required to instruct children of the entire school in the fundamentals of fire safety and to conduct fire drills. In short, from the Department's perspective, school principals were heads of schools who taught, supervised the teaching and marking of al l classes, organized timetables, administered discipline to pupils, conducted fire dri l ls, and reported on the progress of schools and violations of school laws. The Vancouver School Board's own rules and regulations for its schools, first drafted in 1914, furnish a closer view of the duties of the city 's school principals. The number of rules addressing principals shows that the Board had, since 1914, considered the position o f school principalship significant enough to warrant eight pages and 29 clauses to prescribe the various duties. These specifically applied to the management of schools. Another 37 rules oudining the duties and tasks o f teachers were also relevant to principals since they were also active teachers. In a l l , the Vancouver school principals had to observe some 66 city rules. "''Department of Education, "Rules and Regulations," 1887. 53 The 29 regulations specific to school management consist of two categories of duties: administrative and supervisory/management (see Appendix 3). Administrative tasks included clerical work, pol ic ing regulations, and building maintenance. Out o f the 29, 19 rules could be classified as administrative duties. From updating the general register and requisitioning supplies to keeping track o f the caretakers' absences and gauging classroom temperatures, the principal was in essence the school clerk, regulation officer and head caretaker. Without the help of secretaries and stenographers, who were not introduced into the city's schools until 1912, principals no doubt found these tasks to be both time-consuming and labour-intensive. The other 10 rules which describe the principal's supervisory/management functions included conducting and evaluating exams for the purpose of placing pupils, convening regular staff meetings, organizing grades and departments, supervising work and discipline of classes, and supervising and directing assistants. The city's principals were expected to exert leadership in managing school affairs, as wel l as in directing the staff. For example, one rule exhorted principals to "endeavour to secure the cooperation of their assistants and seek to inspire them with an ambition to excel in their profession." 6 1 Although they were given the authority to lead their teachers in instructional and professional affairs, it is not clear to what degree this extended. Since the bulk of personnel decisions such as the selection and appointment of teachers rested with the Munic ipa l Inspector, who made recommendations to the Board, principals did not have local control over such key areas. Furthermore, as the first two rules point out, matters concerning directing teachers and organizing classes and departments had to meet the Inspector's approval as we l l . It seems that by 1914 the supervisory function and leadership role o f the school principals 6 , Vancouver School Board, Board of School Trustees, "Rules and Regulations o f the Vancouver School Board," 1914, p.9. 54 were being acknowledged but were limited by the authority of the Municipal Inspector. The relationship between principals and the Inspector wil l be discussed in more detail in the next subsection. In addition to conducting educational business, principal-teachers also attended to a number of extracurricular chores. Through their monthly meetings with the Municipal Inspector, they were requested by parents, business and community leaders to collect donations, clothes and papers from children and teachers for charities, such as the Children's Home, and the Red Cross. They also collected names for clubs such as the Little Mothers' League, encouraged participation of pupils in locally sponsored programs such as City Beautiful and Home Gardening, and helped with a variety of competitions, from music to essay writing, sponsored by civic associations and business organizations.1 The principal's time outside the classroom was therefore crowded further by these activities. And this was not counting the time he also spent outside school hours seeing instructional supervisors, teachers, parents, community representatives and other local interest parties. Roles of Other Officials The findings of the Survey reveal that before 1925, the Management Committee of the School Board ("the Committee") was the major decision-making body of the city's school system. With the assistance of the Municipal Inspector, the Committee conducted all the Board's business outside of building and financial concerns. This included all staffing and supervision matters. Some of these Principals Meeting Minutes, 1912-1918. 55 responsibilities as meeting minutes show, were later shared with or transferred to principals when organizational changes were made to the school system. Generally speaking, the school board had early on delegated to the Committee matters dealing with administration, staffing and organization. The Board's Rules and Regulations, as they existed in 1914, made it the duty of the Committee to: examine applicants for teaching positions; make recommendations to fill vacancies (subject to the approval of the Board); suspend teachers for misconduct and make temporary appointment for vacancies; report on needed accommodations and facilities; visit schools frequently to make program assessments; submit regulations needed to improve schools; and, make recommendations re equipment, school grounds, organization, instruction and discipline.2 The Management Committee was not only responsible for all of the city's school staffing decisions, it also governed areas such as school organization, instruction and discipline. This meant that all complaints, suggestions and queries by parents, teachers or principals related to the above were referred to the Committee. The work of the Municipal Inspector (previously known as the City Superintendent), as defined by the same document of 1914 included: Paraphrased from "Rules and Regulations of the Vancouver School Board," 1914. visit ing schools to ensure that rules and regulations are carried out by principals and teachers; cal l ing meetings with principals at least once a quarter regarding school business; cal l ing other meetings with principals and teachers when necessary; recommending the dismissal of teachers or withholding salary increases of teachers; notifying teachers whose work is found unsatisfactory and to help such to do more efficient work; and, with sufficient cause, suspending pupils, and with concurrence of the Management Committee, suspending teachers. 6 4 The city Inspector had a certain degree of power in regulating staff. Upon his recommendation, teachers found to be deficient could be terminated from their positions, or could have their increases withheld from their salary. The Munic ipal Inspector was also responsible for supervising teacher performance. It was his duty to notify teachers of their unsatisfactory evaluation as reported by a supervisor, the principal, or the Provincial School Inspector. Expected to help poor teachers to improve as wel l , the Munic ipal Inspector also acted as a coach to those who needed remedial assistance. In sum, the Munic ipal Inspector, who served as a l iaison between the Board and its schools, was appointed to execute "advisory functions in respect to such matters as are within the off icial jurisdiction of the trustees."6 5 The minutes o f the Board and Committee meetings reveal a gradual shift towards decentralizing certain decision-making responsibilities, from the Board to the Committee, and in 6 4 Paraphrased from "Rules and Regulations of the Vancouver School Board," 1914. 6 S The Publ ic School Act , as quoted in "Rules and Regulations o f the Vancouver School Board," 1914. some cases, to the Municipal Inspector. This decentralizing process is best exemplified by the changes in staffing policies. In 1892, to f i l l teaching vacancies or new positions, the Board had to identify the needs of each individual school and communicate them to the Department of Education for approval. Minutes of the same year also indicate that the Committee, then called the Standing Committee, presented to the Board names of potential candidates it had examined. The full Board would then cast ballots for each position.6 6 This was the procedure for selecting teachers as well as appointing teachers to principalship. In 1897 for example, elections were recorded of R. Fraser to the principalship of Central School, A.C. Stewart as 1st Assistant at East End School, and J.S. Gordon as 2nd Assistant at Mt. Pleasant School.6 7 As the school district grew in size, it became less feasible to continue having the full Board sit for the selection and appointment of every teacher, therefore the Board made the move to transfer this responsibility to the trustees on the Management Committee. This decision was apparently made at the Board meeting of August 1902 when the Board moved to leave the appointment of a high school teacher to the "discretion of the Management Committee."68 Similar resolutions were found in meeting minutes after this date. When the Board began to appoint its own City Superintendents, the procedure of selecting and hiring teachers was further amended to take advantage of their knowledge and expertise in 6 6Board Meetings Minutes, 19 July 1892. *7Board Meeting Minutes, 30 July 1897. 6 8Board Meeting Minutes, 26 August 1902. 58 such matters. In 1903, the Board passed a motion to empower the Superintendent to fill a vacancy left at M L Pleasant School . 6 9 This was followed by another resolution in 1906 to authorize h im to advertise in eastern Canada for male teachers. 7 0 This staffing authority to recruit and hire teachers was further reinforced in 1911 when the Board gave fu l l power to the Ci ty Superintendent and the Chairman of the Committee to " f i l l any vacancies" occurring before its next meeting and report to the Board. It is not clear i f this also included the appointment of principals. In 1909 principals were sti l l selected through balloting by the fu l l Board. B y 1911, however, the selection of principals was reported in the Committee's meeting minutes and not in the Board's, indicating that the Committee was now responsible for their appointment. The City Superintendent, it seems, made recommendations of qualified applicants as well as about which principals and First Assistants (later known as vice-principals) should be placed in what schools. 7 1 It seems that during the first decade, the C i ty 's Superintendent, or Munic ipa l Inspector, became more active in the decision-making process of the Board in such matters as staffing, but as evidence cited in the fol lowing subsection w i l l show, the Munic ipal Inspector's powers were much restricted by the Management Committee during the latter part of the 1910s and early 1920s. ' 'Board Meeting Minutes, 8 September 1903. 7 0 Ib id . . 13 July 1906. ""Vancouver School Board, Management Committee Meeting Minutes, 17 August 1911. 59 N e w Responsibilities Dur ing the 1920s a series of events and circumstances worked to change the role of the city 's principals. M o s t significant of these were changes in stal l ing policies, high school entrance requirements, and the concept of school supervision. The effort to authorize more control to principals, namely in staffing decisions and promotion of students to high schools, occurred at about the same time that principals were taking a more active part in the city 's school affairs. Changes i n the nature of school supervision w i l l be dealt with separately in the last subsection. A n analysis of the kinds of issues and questions raised at meetings between the Munic ipa l Inspector and principals shows that, from 1918 onwards, principals were becoming more involved in the city 's educational concerns. The purpose of these meetings was to resolve problems, answer questions and clarify policies. Although many activities and issues had been discussed at their meetings before 1918, a major portion of the topics had to do with the clerical aspect of the principalship such as record keeping, reports and extracurricular chores. Since only large high schools were given ful l or part-time clerical assistants during the mid 1910s, the Munic ipa l Inspector took much time at these meetings to instruct and remind principals of record keeping procedures and other administrivia such as approving invoices, keeping cash accounts, updating pupi l medical records, fire dril ls, supplies, monthly reports, raising and lowering flags and watering o f plants. A good part of these meetings was also spent discussing extracurricular activities such as writing, spelling and home garden competitions, collections for the Children's Home and orphanages, music festivals, exhibitions, Christmas entertainment for needy children, and the traditional paper and magazine drives. The few items which related more to the management o f their schools and the education of their pupils included keeping office hours after class time, school boundaries, timetables, l imit tables, and the review of the Board's "Rules and Regulations" on duties of the teachers and the administration procedures of the schools. The turning point seemed to have occurred when the Vance- M a c K a y Report on the efficiency o f the city 's schools was released in December 1917. The background to this investigation was as fol lows. In December 1916, an angry delegation o f "citizens" and "taxpayers" who were dissatisfied with cutbacks and reduction of programs, due to fiscal restraint during wartime, and inadequate attention paid to matters such as proper ventilation, took the floor of the School Board meeting and demanded that records of these decisions be made public and an en bloc resignation of the Board of Trustees. 7 2 This outburst of public crit icism of the school system along with poor showing by high school students in departmental examinations, a device commonly used to gauge the effectiveness of the city's high schools, sparked an investigation commissioned by the Board in August 1917. In the first self-examination of its k ind , the Board sought to establish a special committee, "made up of two or three individuals who can devote their time to investigate the conditions of Vancouver schools." 7 3 The two individuals selected were Dr . John M a c K a y , B .A . , D.D. , principal of Westminster Ha l l , the local Presbyterian Theological College affiliated with M c G i l l College, and Dr. W . H . Vance, M . A . , D.D. , principal of the Angl ican Theological College in Point Grey. A s a result of the Report, the city 's principals spent several meetings with the Munic ipa l Inspector trustees early in 1918 discussing the issues it brought out, particularly the recommendation that principals be given fuller control over their staff. These meetings also led to " B o a r d Meeting Minutes, 12 December 1916. 7 3 Board Meeting Minutes, 21 August 1917. 61 a debate on the subject of releasing principals from teaching dudes so that they could supervise their schools ful l t ime. 7 4 The principals' reaction to the Report marked the beginning of change, as minutes o f their meetings after 1918 show more debate and exchange over more essential educational matters. Under the direction of the Munic ipal Inspector, committees of principals were formed on a frequent basis to study and report on topics such as manual training, entrance pupils, intelligence tests, arithmetic course work, departmental examinations and school by - law plebiscites. Their findings and opinions were frequendy presented to the Board through the Munic ipa l Inspector. One subject studied at length, for example, was the nomenclature and grouping of grades. The committee of principals responsible for the report recommended the eight-grade (8-4) over the seven-grade (7-5) system. Although the eight-year system was preferred, the principals decided to wait for the Survey findings before making a formal statement The Survey however recommended the 6 -3 -3 system, six years in elementary schools, three in junior high and three in high school. Since the ful l discussion of the principals' preference was not disclosed in the minutes, it is difficult to determine the reasoning behind their decision and why it departed from the Survey's recommendations. The decentralization of control over staffing decisions was an important step towards giv ing the city 's school principals the authority to direct their own schools. However, it took the urging of both the Report and the Survey to force the Board to make any tangible changes. The Report made some candid statements regarding its findings on the Board's personnel policies. The question o f the Board's staffing policies and their effectiveness was one of the major targets o f investigation, among others, such as the schools' courses of study, the Medica l 7 4 Board Meeting Minutes, 6 M a y 1918. 62 Department and the influence of the Department o f Education on local affairs. One recommendation suggested that principals participate more in staffing decisions: If principals are to be held responsible for the success of their schools they should be given fuller control over the members of their staffs and should be consulted to a greater degree than at present in regard to appointments, promotions and dismissals. 7 5 This f inding implied that individual principals had very l imited control over staffing matters in their respective schools. A s mentioned earlier, staffing decisions were passed from the fu l l Board to the Management Committee and the City Superintendent in 1902, and the Board's meeting minutes seem to show that the Superintendent and the Committee were empowered to fill vacancies with concurrence of the Board. There is however, evidence to suggest that the Board in the early 1910s had attempted to bring principals in as an advisory body to assist in such tasks as staffing. After the resignation of the City Superintendent W . P . Argue i n June 1912, the Management Committee appointed a group of principals to report on, among other things, suitable applicants for teaching positions. 7 6 This group could have been formed only to provide interim assistance to the Board until the new Superintendent could be engaged. Nevertheless, the Report made it clear that this advisory committee o f principals was not adequate to grant each individual principal the control he needed over his own school. Evidence from the Board's discussion over the K i n g Edward H igh School controversy further supports this assessment. The Report had apparently unearthed serious problems between the staff and principal at the high school. When Stanley Mathews was called upon to respond to accusations that he mishandled his school and staff, he cited his frustrations over attempting to dismiss unsatisfactory 7 i V a n c e and M a c K a y Report, p.6. 7 6 Management Committee Meeting Minutes, 8 July 1912. 63 teachers. For example, one teacher whom he had asked to resign remarked that "he had friends" on the Board of Trustees, and before long, "the teacher asked to resign appealed to the Board and was retained despite unsatisfactory record.. ." 7 7 Mathews thus felt that his reports on the different teachers were but a form, "...that is one weakness I admit in my work as Principal of K i n g Edward H i g h School . It was idle to make recommendations to the Board . " 7 8 Surprisingly, the issue of patronage by Board members was not treated as a major concern at this particular meeting. It is not certain how much the Board tried to accommodate principals in staffing decisions after the Report, but the fol lowing taken from the ful l Board meeting on 23 February 1918 suggests that the Board did not see the necessity for any action: ...The Committee consider that the principals should have fullest practicable control over the members of their staff...and from official records this appears to have been the policy pursued. 7 9 This however, was not the end of the issue. The same problem resurfaced in the Survey. In the section entitled, "The Vancouver School Problem", the commissioners came to similar conclusions as had Mathews regarding the Board's staffing policies. The Survey's observations and recommendations were even more pointed than the Report. It not only found staffing decisions to be highly centralized, but that trustees could overrule any recommendations made by the Munic ipa l Inspector, " B o a r d Meeting Minutes, 22 M a y 1918. " I b i d . 7 9 Board Meeting Minutes, 23 February 1918. 64 ... in actual practice, the management committee exercised a measure o f control over the chief Munic ipa l Inspector. 8 0 It found, for example, that in appointing teachers, the Management Committee held closed meetings and selected teachers by secret ballot, occasionally passing over the Munic ipa l Inspector's nominations. The commissioners therefore recommended that al l appointments be placed under the authority o f the Munic ipa l Inspector, the educational expert on staff, without interference by the trustees. In contrast to the Report, the Survey, commissioned by the Minister of Education, no doubt motivated the Board to more seriously consider this and other problems and make changes where needed. In its review of the progress in implementing the Survey's recommendations in 1927, the Special Committee reported that the Board had altered its original staffing policy and was appointing only teachers recommended by the Munic ipa l Inspector.8 1 N o w that the Munic ipa l Inspector was off icial ly responsible for all staffing decisions, as he was originally during the early 1910s, the Board moved closer to giving the individual principal more say. in the appointment, promotion and dismissal of his staff. If his past record was any indication, the Munic ipa l Inspector, J .S. Gordon, was one who was wi l l ing to involve principals in such matters, as he commented in 1925: When steps are taken to secure teachers by such a method as this, and principals o f schools are not only allowed to, but held largely responsible, under your chief executive, for the selection of teachers of their schools, our schools w i l l stand a better chance o f getting the best available teaching talents. 8 2 "'Survey, p. 16. "Spec ia l Committee Meeting Minutes, 3 November 1927. ^Special Committee Meeting Minutes, 26 January 1925. 65 Another important development that altered the nature of the principalship, particularly that of elementary schools, was the amendment of provincial regulations governing high school admissions. Before changes came into effect in 1918, all candidates wishing to enroll in high school were required to take the provincial H igh School Entrance Examinations held annually in selected centres throughout the province. To be successful, the candidate had to achieve at least 3 4 % on every subject and 5 0 % on the average. 8 3 Essentially, high school admissions throughout the province were regulated by the Department of Education. Towards the end of 1910s, the Department began to make allowances for a less centralized and standardized system by reducing the role of provincial examinations, such as those for high school entrance. The Annual Report of 1918 contained an announcement describing the first stage of change. In cities of first or second class (or, larger cities), "entrance pupils were to be promoted on the recommendation of their respective principals." 8 4 Those that failed to receive such recommendations but felt capable of high school level work were sti l l eligible to write the provincial examinations, together with pupils attending schools in smaller cities. Problems emerged in the next few years, however, as complaints from school boards and high school teachers to the Department expressed fears that "a uniform standard of admission was not being maintained," and some of the pupils recommended were not prepared for high school work. The city 's principals also shared similar concerns at their meeting i n M a y 1921 when they agreed among themselves that "great care must be taken in recommending students...(as) many 8 3 Johnson, p. 68. " A n n u a l Report. 1918. 66 (were) recommended on account of age and not preparation for school work." 8 5 A s a result of these problems, the Department further amended regulations in 1922 to l imit recommendations by principals to 6 0 % of the entrance class in larger schools of seven divisions or more. The other 4 0 % had to write the entrance examinations. The Survey findings and recommendations also confirmed the need for power at the local level to "promote pupils from elementary...to the high school without writ ing the departmental examinations." 8 6 Consequently, in 1926, further modifications brought the regulations into line with the Survey's recommendations. Under the new regulations, entrance pupils attending a public school of four or more divisions were issued Entrance Certificates, unless the Board of School Trustees requested the Department to conduct the examinations. Promotions were to be based on the recommendation of a committee composed of the principal of the school, the principal of the high school, the Munic ipal Inspector, and the Provincial Inspector of Schools. In Vancouver, however, the Board found it necessary to adapt the new regulations of 1926 to suit local conditions, which resulted in the transferring of the entire responsibility of promoting entrance pupils to elementary school principals. Due to the sheer number o f students entering high school each year, approvals from the other members of the committee (the Munic ipa l Inspector and the provincial inspectors) were no longer workable: ...due to the difficulty in the...two officials to find time to investigate the hundreds o f promotions, consequently the principals' recommendation was the deciding factor in nearly al l cases. 8 7 "Pr inc ipa ls ' Meet ing Minutes, 31 M a y 1921. "Survey , p. 434. "Spec ia l Committee Meeting Minutes, 2 January 1927. 67 In sum, while the Board had, as early as 1912, involved the city's principals as an advisory and consultant body, it was not until the mid-1920s that it made any genuine effort to shift some of its authority to these administrators. A s the subsection on school supervision w i l l bear out, change did not result from a 'progressive-minded' Board, but rather through the urging of commissioned reports, as local needs and circumstances dictated. Professionalization A s Vancouver school principals were given more and more responsibilities and some control over their schools, the nature of their work also became more and more distinct from that o f teachers. A t a time when principals and teachers were stil l sharing similar teaching duties and educational goals and concerns, the city's principals were becoming leaders among their teaching colleagues and were beginning to develop their own professional identity. This discussion w i l l examine how the city's principals f i l led this leadership role, primarily in local and provincial teachers' organizations, and how the occupation itself became professionalised, namely through the formation of its own association and its effort to secure advanced training and education. The minutes o f the first meeting of the Vancouver City Teachers' Institute ("V.C.T.I.") in M a r c h 1901 8 8 show that several principals and future principals were actively involved i n its affairs. George E. Robinson, then on staff of the H igh School , was elected the Institute's first president and, together with David M . Robinson, the principal of the H igh School , helped to write 'Vancouver City Teachers' Institute, Meeting Minutes, March 1901. 68 the Institute's first constitution and by- laws. Other principals who took part in the city institute's executive activities included E .V . Caspel l , Robert Sparl ing, A . C . Stewart and A . G i lchr is t The V.C.T . I . was modelled on the Provincial Institute for teachers which had been in operation since 1874. The early Provincial Institute was essentially an in-service teacher training program and a social function to bring educators together from across the province. The annual conference, which lasted between three and four days, provided a forum for the presentation and discussion of the latest educational research. A n d with the provincial educational authorities presiding over its activities, the Institute in its early years was more of a normal school 'on wheels' , which took place from one city to another across the province, than a teachers' organization per se. B y the time it was suspended in 1914 8 9 , the Institute had become increasingly aggressive in its agenda by making resolutions on such issues as advocating a provincial university, and forming a provincial teachers' union. Its eventual collapse aside, the Provincial Institute and its offshoots such as the V.C.T . I . paved the way for the formation of local teachers' associations and later, the Brit ish Columbia Teachers' Federation ("B.C.T.F.") in 1916. Since the meeting minutes of the V.C.T. I . extended only to January 1903, it is impossible to determine when and why it was dissolved and succeeded by the Vancouver Loca l Teachers' Association ("V.L.T.A.") . In contrast to the Provincial Institute, local associations' objectives focused more on "economic" issues and "professional security" of 8 9 Reasons for suspension were unclear in al l three accounts on the beginnings o f the Brit ish Columbia Teachers' Federation, but were generally attributed to the outbreak of Wor ld War I: Stanley Heywood, "The Early History of the B .C . Teacher's Federation," ( M S in possession of the B C T F , 1954); Arthur Harold Skolrood, The Brit ish Columbia Teachers' Federation: A Study of its Historical  Development. Interests and Activities from 1916 to 1963 (Ph.D. thesis: University o f Oregon, 1967); Jerry Bruce Roa ld , Pursuit of Status: Professionalism, Unionism, and Mi l i tancy in the Evolution of  Canadian Teachers' Organizations. 1915-1955 (Ph.D. thesis: University of Bri t ish Columbia, 1970). their members. In other words, local associations such as the one in Vancouver became increasingly more involved in professional concerns such as salary increases and superannuation for retired teachers. It is diff icult to tel l , from the records that are available, just how active the city 's principals were in leading and directing the V . L . T . A . However, the School Board's meeting minutes do show that they, on many occasions, acted as spokesmen and representatives for the city 's teachers as a group. A s far back as 1895 for instance, a delegation of teachers, consisting mostly of principals, presented to the Board an account of salaries paid to teachers in other major Canadian cities in an effort to propose a salary increase. 9 1 From this time onwards, principals continually appeared before the Board to discuss salary issues on behalf of al l teachers. This suggests that principals could have filled executive positions on the V . L . T . A . board and were recognized as leaders by the local membership. The city 's principals also took a major part in establishing and directing teachers' organizations at the provincial level. A s the need to form a provincial union of teachers became more pressing, the V . L . T . A . was credited for making firm initiatives to set the task in motion. In 1916, the V l . T . A . , under the direction of John G . Lister, invited delegates from Victor ia and neighbouring municipalities to a meeting solely to discuss the possibility of organizing a provincial federation o f teachers. The result of this meeting was the formation of the Brit ish Columbia Teachers' Federation, off icial ly declared on October 18, 1916. Lister, elected the federation's first ^Skol rood, p.49. 9 1 Board Meeting Minutes, 12 December 1895. 70 president was succeeded in subsequent years by a number o f fellow Vancouver principals, including J.R. Pol lock, G . A . Fergusson, T . W . Woodhead and R.P. Steeves. A t the same time that principals were taking the lead role in these organizations, their work as school administrators developed to a point where they needed their own representative body. Aga in , the lack o f key sources prevents the identification of the date, year and other particulars o f the founding o f the Vancouver Principals' Association ("V.P.A." ) . The first mention of its existence in the Board meeting minutes was in November 1911 when correspondence from the association was received and filed. Previous to this, although principals had always been referred to as a group when they presented resolutions to the Board, it is not clear i f they had come together off icial ly as an association or loosely as a group of administrators. F rom this reference in 1911 onwards, the V . P . A . regularly appeared on record as having forwarded resolutions on such subjects as beginners' receiving dates, the work of the Supervisor of Primary Work, and the handling of juvenile delinquents. B y the 1920s, it had also become an active affiliate of the B.C.T.F. , to which it frequently made reports on teaching and curriculum issues. In the Report of the Education Committee of the B.C.T .F . in 1927 9 2 for example, the committee made a special mention of the work of the V . P . A . , then under the direction of J .E. Brown, principal of the Strathcona School . The group was commended for its insightful reports on " M o d e m Educational Objectives", "Curr iculum", "Teacher Training", and "Examination". S imi lar ly , at the fo l lowing year's convention, the V . P . A . presented two resolutions for consideration on curricular revision and teacher training courses. The B .C . Teacher. M a y 1927, p. 15. 71 Although the minutes of the V.P.A. meetings are unavailable93, the kinds of resolutions and reports they presented to the Board and the B.C.T.F. suggest, in themselves, that a significant portion of its meetings must have been devoted to educational matters such as curriculum and teaching methods. Communications between the V.P.A. and the Board also show that much time at these meetings was also spent on concerns related to their work as school principals, and evaluating the changes taking place in the nature of school administration in other urban Canadian and American centres. As well as forming their own association to look after group interests, principals also worked to improve their qualifications by returning to universities to obtain additional training, and in some cases, higher degrees. Included among them were those who had no previous university education, and took the opportunity to make up for this deficiency. From what I am able to gather, this effort to upgrade educationally through university programs became more popular in the 1920s. Up until the opening of the University of British Columbia's summer sessions in 1920, teachers and principals who wished to improve their subject knowledge and teaching skills could take summer courses offered by the Department of Education held in Victoria. These summer sessions, which originated in the school year 1913/14, were designed to "increase the efficiency" of the province's schools by giving teachers the opportunity to "strengthen their grasp of certain subjects, and to qualify themselves further along certain special lines of school work."94 It is difficult to ascertain from the enrollment books how many of the city's principals actually took part in summer school for courses such as Nature Study, Choral Singing or Penmanship, but Normal School extra-sessionals were one of the few options opened to them at the time. "Minutes were misplaced or destroyed during the 1970s. 94Annual Reports. 1914/15. 72 Wi th the opening o f the summer session at the University of Brit ish Columbia, teachers were offered university level courses that counted toward degree programs. A l o n g with subject-oriented courses such as Chemistry, French and Mathematics, special courses in educational theory and methods were also given, but not many. B y 1928, the three special courses in Education included "Elementary Educational Psychology" and "History and Principles of Education." Although the university's annual calendars 9 5 did not list individuals who only enrolled at summer sessions, they did list those enrolled in degree programs. Only two Vancouver principals were found listed between 1920 and 1928. The two, W . K . Beech and Herbert K i n g were registered in the Master's degree program. Beech, who was the principal of the Commerce School at the time, graduated with a Master of Arts degree in Economics and Government in 1924, while K i n g (General Gordon) completed his in Philosophy and Greek in 1925. This was K ing ' s second Master 's degree as he obtained an earlier M . A . degree at the University of Toronto. Since both men were working as principals at the time, they would have had to complete their course work and theses during their summer vacations, although records do show that K i n g had taken a year's absence in 1923/24 perhaps to do just that. Another option available to teachers and principals who wished to upgrade their credentials was to attend the University o f Washington in Seattie which offered a fuller range of undergraduate and graduate level courses. For a general tuition fee o f $20, summer students travelled to Seattle, boarded on campus for about $40 per term, and studied through either or both of the two terms, the first being from the middle of June to mid-July , and the other from mid-July to mid -August . 9 6 "Univers i ty o f Brit ish Columbia, Summer Session Calendar, 1920-28. ^University of Washington, Summer Quarter Calendar, 1927. 73 From Washington's summer quarter registers beginning with 1922, it was possible to locate 10 Vancouver principals (all active at the time) who enrolled either to obtain the First university degree or additional degrees, or to take a few courses relevant to their work or interest (see Table 4 . 1 ) . The two who made up for the lack of a university education by obtaining a baccalaureate in Education, R. Straight and R. Sparling, were both on staff as principals at Tennyson and Aberdeen Schools respectively while they pursued their studies during the summer from 1921 to 1927. Those who were classified as graduate students included J .E . B r o w n (Strathcona), C R . Messinger (Livingstone), H .B . K i n g (Kitsilano, his third master's degree), H .B . F i tch (Grandview), and S .D . Meadows (Aberdeen). Whether these men took graduate studies in Education or not could not be determined from the university calendar. A n d since they did not attend every summer, several of them did not complete their graduate studies at Washington until the 1930s. Two principals, T . W . Woodhead (Kitsilano) and C .C . Chute (Hastings) were listed as unmatriculated students, those who were of "considerable maturity" and were deemed able to carry college level work. It is only possible to speculate what courses these principals took from the list of Education courses in the summer quarter calendars. Whi le the variety was rather l imited at the University of Br i t ish Columbia, the School o f Education at Washington offered some 56 courses for undergraduates and graduates, and a dozen for graduates only. A m o n g these were several courses directly related to school administration, such as "the H igh School Pr incipal" , "School Administration: State and County", "Educational Administration: C i ty School" , and "School Supervis ion". 9 7 Had some of these principals enrolled in these courses, they would have been the "Univers i ty of Washington, Calendar, 1927. Table 4.1 PRINCIPALS ENROLLED AT T H E UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON Principal Straight, R. Sparl ing, R. B r o w n , J .E. Chute, C .C . F i tch, H .B . K i n g , H .B . Messinger, C R . Woodhead, T . W . Meadows, S .D . Thomas, O.J. Y r . Initial Enrolment 1922 1922 1923 1926 1926 1926 1926 1926 1927 1927 Previous Degrees N i l N i l B . A . (Acadia) N i l M . A . (Acadia) B . A . / M . A . (Toronto) M . A . (Brit. Columbia) B .A . (Acadia) N i l M . A . (Acadia) B . A . (McG i l l ) Classif. Undergrade E d . Undergrad., E d . Grad. Unmat. L A Grad. Grad. Unmat. Grad. Undergrade E d . Source: University of Washington, Summer Quarter Calendars, 1915-1928. 74 first group of the city 's school administrators to actually study school administration as a discipline at the university level . The school principal as leader and model teacher, as wel l as a professional administrator is best summed up by the fol lowing excerpt o f an eulogy entitled, " A Tribute to a School Pr incipal" contained in the Survey for Robert Sparling who passed away while the report was being written: ...Though the oldest in years, M r . Sparling was one of the most up-to-date of Vancouver schoolmen in his grasp of modem methods in teaching and his knowledge of recent developments in educational practice...His ambition to equip himself to render more efficient service as teacher and principal, was highly commendable and should prove a strong incentive to the flagging zeal o f younger members of the profession who may be disposed to 'rest on their oars' . . . 9 8 Supervision The move to release principals from teaching duties signified a major change in the development o f school principalship. Although teaching principals had been freed to supervise their schools ful l - t ime in major American cities during the latter half of the nineteenth century, it was not until after 1918 that the Vancouver school system formally adopted the concept This subsection w i l l examine the process of change by which the city's teaching principals became supervisors o f their schools. It w i l l include a discussion on the definition of school supervision, those who shared the responsibility prior to change, those who advocated and opposed the idea, and when and how change was authorized and implemented. One of the objectives in chronicl ing this change process is to identify the various factors and elements i n the school organization which 'Survey, p.435. 75 helped to shape the role of the city's school principals. It also serves as a case study of how new ideas in educational administration were introduced and adopted by the city 's school board. The first part o f the discussion w i l l describe the supervisory situation before 1918 and the latter w i l l document how changes took place thereafter. Pierce classified school supervision into six categories: 1. classroom visitation 2. teachers' meetings 3. tests and measurements 4. instruction in methods 5. pupil adjustment 6. teacher rating The aim of these supervisory activities was to ensure efficiency and promote improvements of schools. 9 9 Traditionally, in areas where boards of education were first established, schools were supervised by official school committees. In Vancouver for example, before the first city superintendent was appointed, individual trustees were "apportioned certain schools for supervision." 1 0 0 It is not clear what role they actually had in carrying out supervisory duties such as instruction methods or teacher rating but they did visit their respective schools on a regular basis and presented reports to the Management Committee. It is certain that some of these functions were also carried out by provincial inspectors of school who inspected the various schools for such things as progress and attendance of pupils, discipline and management o f the school, and the efficiency of individual teachers. These reports assisted the Board in making the necessary changes and adjustments for the fol lowing school year. "P ie rce , p. 57. 1 0 0 Special Committee Meeting Minutes, 25 January 1894. 7 6 In 1899 when the Vancouver School Board appointed its first C i ty Superintendent, many of its supervisory duties, such as regular school visitations, were delegated to the Superintendent. The need for such an education expert on staff became imperative in a system that was rapidly growing in size and complexity. A s discussed in previous chapters, the Board engaged the Superintendent, later known as the Munic ipal Inspector, to manage local administrative affairs such as inspection, staffing and school accommodation and facilities. The appointment o f the local superintendent thus created the dual inspection system under which Vancouver schools were inspected by both the provincial inspectors and as the City Superintendent. Although the Superintendent's primary role was to supervise all city schools through on-site inspection and meetings with teachers and principals, there were indications however, that his supervisory duties were shared with others, including principals. In his first meeting with school principals in December, 1912, the Munic ipa l Inspector, J.S. Gordon, outlined the method he intended for them to use to inspect schools. H e stated that he would depend "partly on the principals' reports and partly on the provincial inspector's reports" 1 0 1 This implies that he was not planning to keep a regular schedule to inspect each school and therefore needed to rely on the principals' reports to supplement those from the provincial inspectors. The findings o f the Report as discussed by the Board provide further evidence that Gordon as the city's Munic ipa l Inspector had not devoted enough time and attention to supervising schools due to the disproportionate time he spent on doing "routine and secretarial work . " 1 0 2 'Principals' Meeting Minutes, 6 December 1912. 'Board Meeting Minutes, 18 February 1918. 77 B y the above account, the Munic ipal Inspector had delegated some of his supervisory and management responsibilities to the principals while he undertook other administrative routines. Although the off ic ial Board policy in "Rules and Regulations" required the city inspector to regularly visit schools to perform such duties as ensuring compliance with school regulations and supervising poor teachers, in actual practice, the Munic ipal Inspector depended much on the principals' evaluations, reports and his monthly meetings with them to satisfy most o f these supervisory obligations. It is evident then, that principals under Gordon were front-line supervisors who provided the Inspector with first-hand observations on staff, school progress, bui lding and maintenance needs, and supplies. Historical ly, by virtue of their office as heads of schools, the city's principals had always been recognized to some extent as school supervisors. A s early as 1900 their supervisory role was acknowledged through the relief time they were allotted each day to supervise classes. In the meeting minutes of the Board in June 1900, one trustee asked the City Superintendent i f it was customary to combine the classes of the principal and the 1st Assistant for a portion of the afternoon. It was affirmed by the Superintendent that this was the procedure to give the principal "the opportunity o f inspecting the different classes of his school . " 1 0 3 The Board recognized that principals needed relief time to conduct their schools' supervisory responsibilities such as convening teachers' meetings and evaluating pupils. However, as long as principals were stil l spending most of their time teaching in the classroom, their role as school supervisors was confined. 'Board Meeting Minutes, 12 June 1900. 78 A portion of the Munic ipa l Inspector's supervisory work was also delegated to a group of instructional supervisors who were appointed by the Board. These supervisors were responsible for the teaching method, progress and efficiency of the specialized subject areas such as Manual Training, Drawing, Mus ic and D r i l l taught by classroom teachers. A supervisor was also appointed to oversee the whole area of Primary Work for al l schools. The first Drawing Supervisor, for example, was hired in A p r i l 1906 to supervise the drawing i n the Vancouver city schools since "many of the teachers were not masters of the subject" 1 0 4 These supervisors made periodic visits to the schools to observe and inspect classes under their jurisdiction. They provided the assistance and counsel in these subject areas in which the Munic ipa l Inspector and the principals would have had little experience. In essence, local school supervision in Vancouver was a two-tiered system, with principals and instructional supervisors at the lower level and the Munic ipa l Inspector at the upper. Principals carried out general supervision of their schools while the supervision of specialized subject areas such as Primary Work, were done by instructional supervisors. Reports and evaluations from principals and supervisors were fed to the Munic ipa l Inspector who, acting as a chief supervisor, made assessments and recommendations to the Board. The first recorded initiative by the Board to increase school supervision by giv ing the ful l responsibility to principals was a resolution made in June 1909: ...That the principals be appointed as supervisors and inspectors of their respective schools. Their duties sit to be defined by the Superintendent and approved by the B o a r d . 1 0 5 Annua l Reports. 1905/06, p. A 4 8 . 'Board Meet ing Minutes, 29 June 1909. 79 The listing o f principals and teachers by their respecdve schools in the Annual Reports for the fo l lowing school year (1910) show that the principals of nine elementary schools with more than ten divisions, and the principal of K i n g Edward H igh School , which had 20 divisions, were relieved of their 1st D iv is ion classes. Whi le the minutes do not show which parties approached the Board with the proposal or the rationale behind the resolution, they do show that the city 's principals had played a major part in lobbying for and promoting the concept o f freeing principals to supervise, by appearing before the Board with presentations and reports on the topic of free-principals. A s to why the Board elected to make the change is difficult to tel l . Two years before, in the school year 1907/08, the Annual Report had listed G . E . Robinson as the principal of the H igh School and not as the teacher of the school's 1st Div is ion. Nothing in the Board meeting minutes show the reasoning for the release of Robinson from teaching duties, but it may have had something to do with the fact that he was also the head of M c G i l l University College that had just been established that year. This responsibility was in addition to his principalship at the H i g h School which had 16 divisions at the time. The Annual Report of the same year also shows the principal of the H i g h School in Victoria as having been freed from teaching obligations to supervise the eight divisions as wel l as the new M c G i l l College. Releasing principals was perhaps a practical solution to ease the load of principals of large schools so that they could perform two jobs and provide adequate on-site supervision. Since the decision to release principals was made locally, it had to meet the approval o f the Counci l of Publ ic Instruction. For two years, from 1909/10 to 1911/12, the Annual Reports show principals of large elementary and high schools with more than 10 divisions were freed from teaching to supervise and inspect their schools. However, the l isting for the next school year (1912/13) indicates that the Board had reverted to the old policy of principal teachers, which again made principals, with the exception of the K i n g Edward principal, teachers o f D iv is ion 1 classes. The reason for this policy reversal could be traced back to a special meeting of the Board held August 17, 1911 at which the subject of free principals was discussed. The Superintendent o f Education, Alexander Robinson, had stated in a letter to the Board that it was the "wish" o f the Min ister of Education that free- principals "should be again assigned among their other duties the teaching of the entrance classes in their respective schools." 1 0 6 Although no reasons for the Minister 's decision were given in the letter, it is possible to speculate from discussions in 1918, involving principals and the Munic ipa l Inspector, that the inspector's report, submitted shortly before the Superintendent's letter, had much to do with the instructions to re-engage principals to teach. Apparently, the report showed a drop in the number o f those passing entrance examinations, and provincial officials had attributed this failure to the freeing of principals from teaching 1st Div is ion classes. 1 0 7 After much discussion, the Board responded by complying: ...while it is the unanimous opinion of the Board that our Educational System would be greatly benefitted by having principals free to supervise the work in our larger schools, yet as it is the wish of the Honourable, the Minister of Education that the present freed principals be again assigned the teaching o f entrance classes, that his request be acceded to . 1 0 8 l 0 6 Letter from the Minister of Education, Alexander Robinson, to the Vancouver School Board dated 14 August 1911 (British Columbia Provincial Archives, Victoria). " "Pr inc ipals ' Meeting Minutes, 6 M a y 1918. 1 0 8 Board Meeting Minutes, 17 August 1911. The Minister o f Education therefore, through his intervention in local school decisions, dealt a setback to Vancouver principals in terms of the development of their profession as supervisors and inspectors of schools. The minutes of Board meedngs for the fol lowing September show that principals responded to this decision by forwarding written communications on the subject to the Board. Although the contents of the letters were not disclosed in the minutes, it is more than l ikely that principals were voic ing their dissatisfaction and disappointment with the pol icy reversal. The minutes of subsequent Board meetings continue to show that the Board recognized the need for ful l - t ime, on-site supervision and the role that principals were to f i l l in this regard. In A p r i l 1922 for example, after a discussion on the supervision o f subjects such as writ ing, the Board concluded that "instead of there being too much supervision, there was too littie," and that "principals, with all the work they are expected to do with their entrance class cannot give the necessary supervision." 1 0 9 The Munic ipa l Inspector, J.S. Gordon, was also in agreement with the need for more local supervision, as he put it in his report of 1913: A s the number of teachers increases in our schools and as school activities inevitably mult iply , my duties must become more and more administrative. The absolute necessity, therefore, of having capable supervision and inspection of our schools are manifest, . . 1 1 0 It was the Report which brought the issue of supervising principals back on the agenda and gave the city 's principals the impetus they needed to lobby for change. In a special principals' meeting with the Munic ipa l Inspector to examine the Report's recommendation that 1 0 9 Board Meet ing Minutes, 12 Apr i l 1912. 1 1 0 Munic ipa l Inspector's Report, August, 1913. 82 principals should be given fuller control over the members of their staff, one principal expressed the opinion for the majority of his colleagues that, " i f principals were to be expected to carry out this suggestion, they should be free to give their time to the supervision of their schools." 1 1 1 This resolution was deliberated further at a subsequent meeting to which a number of the Board's trustees were invited. T o open the discussion, Robert Sparling, the principal o f Aberdeen School , presented the findings from his research on the subject of free principals. H i s sources of information were largely American. Not only did he quote from a report commissioned by the Boston School Board outlining the duties of supervision principals, he also submitted a report of his own, based on observations he made on the work done by supervision principals in certain schools in the State of Washington. His presentation strongly advocated the adoption o f the concept. Several other principals took turns emphasizing the numerous advantages to be gained by releasing principals to supervise. The trustees, however, were less enthusiastic and more cautious about the proposal. Their statements show that, whi le they were mildly in favour of the idea, they were also concerned over the logistics and expense of adopting such a system, and the removal from the classroom of the best teachers. The Munic ipa l Inspector, J .S. Gordon, at the same meeting, also expressed negative feelings. He thought that it would be a great mistake to expect a less qualified and experience teacher to take the teaching position of principals which he believed would weaken the whole teaching force. H e also called attention to the fact that when the idea was tried out from 1909 to 1911, "the results had not been satisfactory, and that there must be some explanation for the fal l ing " 'Pr inc ipals Meeting Minutes, 1918. 83 off of successful entrance candidates during that per iod." 1 1 2 Gordon concluded by saying that he would l ike to see change implemented on a "small scale" by releasing first the principals of very large schools and then gradually phasing others in . Under this cautious "wait-and-see" approach only two elementary principals were released the next year, but it was more due to the size of their schools than a conscious effort to adopt the free-principal idea. The two schools, Dawson and Lord Roberts, had more than 20 divisions each. Under these circumstances the Board had little choice but to seek the Department of Education's approval to release these principals to supervise. These principals were not relieved of teaching duties until A p r i l 1919 as the Munic ipal Inspector reported to the Superintendent of Education that year: The work in two of the public schools, Dawson and Lord Roberts, with staffs of twenty-six and twenty-five respectively, became too heavy for the principals to properly administer when teaching full -t ime. The men were consequently relieved from teaching duties in A p r i l 1919 and thereafter devoted their time to supervisory and administrative work in their schools, fol lowing a programme approved by your Department. 1 1 3 This trial proved to be satisfactory as Gordon observed that the "schools had benefitted by having a man to organize the work and supervise the work being done." 1 1 4 However, it took further lobbying by principals to release the next principal. The minutes show that the Principals' Association made much effort to present its case for free principals and it was a delegation of principals early in 1921 that convinced the Board to release the principal o f Strathcona to ' "Pr inc ipa ls Meet ing Minutes, 6 M a y 1918. ' " A n n u a l Report. 1919, p. A 3 8 . " 4 B o a r d Meeting Minutes, 5 February 1920. 84 supervise the 29 divisions at the school . 1 1 5 The principal of K i n g George H i g h School was also freed that year. B y 1927 almost al l principals in the city 's schools were freed at least half-t ime. The change was piece-meal, only as financial resources permitted. A l l high schools principals were released first, as they took priority over elementary schools, and those principals in charge o f less than 18 divisions were freed only half-time through the help of part-time assistants. In 1925 Gordon finally went on record to endorse the concept of free principals: From what I have seen myself of the work in these schools, both under o ld and new regimes, I am satisfied that...much better work is being done by staffs with supervising principals...it takes time to show the beneficial results of any such change.1 1* A n d it was not until two years later that virtually all the city's principals were released at least part-time, "(The Board) has relieved practically al l its principals for ful l or half-time for supervisory duties." 1 1 7 1 1 5 Board Meeting Minutes, 31 January 1921. 1 1 6 Special Committees Meeting Minutes, January 26, 1925. 1 1 7 Specia l Committee Meeting Minutes, November 3, 1927. 85 C H A P T E R 5 S U M M A R Y A N D C O N C L U S I O N S Between 1886 and 1928, the rapid growth of Vancouver's population translated into a constant demand for more classes, schools and teachers. This pressure to expand also prompted the city 's school board to define its organization and its functions within the provincial education system. Differences in opinions with the provincial office often created conflict and friction between the two levels of government. It was within this uncertain, at times turbulent, environment that the early Vancouver school principalship developed. Although not al l principals held degrees, many of the city's first school administrators represented the academia of eastern Canada. Once appointed, principals generally followed one of two career paths. Whi le career principals continued on as principals until retirement or death, their career-mobile colleagues moved on to fill higher administrative positions within the system. Women acting principals could choose neither of these options, as they were denied the opportunity to advance to ful l principalship. A number of the city 's principals displayed an ideological leaning towards the strain of New Education that emphasized l iberal, child-centred pedagogy promoted by Dewey and the American Progressive Education movement. Those in charge of the city's schools before 1920, more accurately called principal-teachers, functioned both as teachers and administrators. Their work was typically divided between teaching, and record keeping tasks. B y and large, they had l imited control over their schools, since authority was largely vested in the Management Committee of the Board. 86 It was not until the late 1910s that any serious move was made to improve the city 's school administrative practices. A n d it took the combined effects of commissioned reports, provincial pol icy modifications, and needs of the local schools to set into motion the changes needed to make the city 's principal-teachers school managers and directors. O f particular significance was the release o f principals from teaching duties, as they effectively became supervisors o f schools. The questions posed at the outset of the study ask whether principalship in Canada experienced the same kind of transformation which had taken place in American cities, and whether the American model quickened the rate of improvement for Canadian principals or had any influence on how changes were carried out. In Vancouver's case at least, the answer to the first question is yes. A l l of the changes Pierce had identified as important to the early development o f the profession, as outlined in Chapter one, had also occurred in Vancouver. However, it took a considerable amount of time before any progress could be seen. Whi le school boards in many American cities, such as Cincinnati, New York , and Boston, had already freed principals from teaching in the 1860s and ' 7 0 s 1 1 8 , the first attempt to release Vancouver's principals did not happen until 1909. This, however, proved to be a short-lived arrangement, and it was not until 1927 that al l of the city's principals were freed, at least part-time. Before the close o f the last century, principals in major American cities had already been granted rights to graduate pupils and participate in decisions transferring and assigning teachers connected with their schools. In contrast, Vancouver principals were not granted these rights until the late 1910s and early 1920s. Similar ly , while American principalship candidates, in the opening decades o f the century, had in possession master's degrees or the equivalent, few principals in Vancouver had P ierce , p. 210. 87 graduate degrees or attempted to obtain advanced training prior to 1920. A n d in regard to women principals, major American cities had, by 1917, employed equal numbers of men and women heads o f schools. In 1917, there was but one female acting principal in Vancouver, as no fu l l -fledged women principals could be found prior 1928. The fact that it took until the late 1910s and the early 1920s for the profession in Vancouver to undergo any significant change, leads to the conclusion that standards set in American urban centres did little to shorten the change process for the Vancouver principals. In other words, city officials did not directly borrow administrative ideas from American school systems and transfer them to the local organization. On the contrary, decisions seemed more to have been dictated by local events and circumstances. In the case of appointing women principals, for example, the trend set by American schools did not seem have any effect on the city's school board's staffing preferences and policies. The issue of freeing principals from teaching duties further gives evidence that decisions were more influenced by internal rather than external factors. When the city first decided to test the idea of releasing principals from teaching duties in 1909, it was perhaps an attempt to transfer an idea from its American neighbours. However, due to the adverse effect it was perceived to have caused, the effort was quashed by provincial authorities two years later. When the topic was reintroduced in 1918, principals who supported the scheme, used American studies and materials to make their case. A s strong as their evidence may have been, the Board nonetheless decided against making wholesale changes, citing concerns over financial and academic ramifications of such a move. The Board did not relent until 1919 when the size of some schools desperately 88 needed ful l - t ime supervising principals. Thus, for the city 's principals, it was a long, round-about route to progress, as the Board waited until it could be convinced of the need to change. Since little is known about the development of the school principalship in other Canadian cities, it is diff icult to tell whether this experience for Vancouver principals was typical or unique. Therefore, before any comparisons could be made, research needs to be done on the early development o f school leadership in large cities such as Montreal , Toronto and Winnipeg, particularly in documenting the change process and identifying the internal and external elements which influenced the growth of the profession. O f interest also, would be to examine how school administrators fared in smaller areas around Brit ish Columbia. D id Vancouver, as the largest city in the province, set the pace o f change for the smaller cities and municipalities or did principals in these areas actually see more development than their counterparts in Vancouver? Unt i l these studies could be undertaken, this inquiry into the development of Vancouver school principalship w i l l remain a case study of how the profession evolved in one Canadian city. B I B L I O G R A P H Y Primary Sources Brit ish Columbia, Education Department "Rules and Regulationsfor the Government of the Publ ic Schools in the Province of Brit ish Columbia." 1887, 1919, 1926, 1929. Br i t ish Columbia, Legislative Assembly. Annual Reports of the Publ ic Schools of the Province of  Br i t ish Columbia. V ictor ia , K i n g ' s Printer, 1886-1928. Br i t ish Columbia , Legislative Assembly. The Publ ic School Act . Revised statutes, 1885, 1891, 1911, 1924, 1936. Br i t ish Co lumbia Teachers Database, 1871-1901. In possession by Jean Barman, University of Brit ish Co lumbia (data from 1881 and 1891 manuscript census). Br i t ish Columbia Teachers' Federation. The B.C. Teacher. Vancouver: Wrigley Printing Company. The Dai ly Colonist. Putman, J .H . and G . M . Weir , Survey of the School System (Victoria: K i n g ' s Printer, 1925). Report of Principals Vance and M a c K a y on the School System ofVancouver. December, 1917. University o f Br i t ish Columbia. Summer Session Calendars, 1920-1928. University of Washington. Summer Quarter Calendars, 1915-1928. Vancouver City Teachers' Institute. Minutes of Meetings. Vancouver School Board. "Rules and Regulations of the Vancouver School Board." Vancouver, 1914. Vancouver School Board, Board of School Trustees. Minutes o f Meetings. Vancouver School 'Board, Board of School Trustees. Management Committee Meet ing Minutes. Vancouver School Board, Board of School Trustees. Principals' Meet ing Minutes. Vancouver School Board, Board of School Trustees. Special Committee Meeting Minutes. The Vancouver Province. The Vancouver Sun. 90 Secondary Sources Barman, Jean. ' "Knowledge is Essential for Universal Progress but Fatal to Class Pr iv i lege' : Working People and the Schools in Vancouver During the 1920's." Labour/Le Travai l . 22, Fa l l , 1988. Barman, Jean. "Neighbourhood and Community in Interwar Vancouver: Residential Differentiation and C i v i c Vot ing Behaviour," R .A . J . McDona ld et a l . , eds., Vancouver Past: Essays in Social  History. Vancouver, University o f Brit ish Columbia Press, 1986. Barnard, H.C. The History of Engl ish Education, from 1-760. University of London Press, 1947. Ca lam, John. "Teaching the Teachers: Establishment of Early Years of the B .C . Provincial Normal Schools," B .C . Studies. 61 (Spring, 1984), pp.30-63. F leming, Thomas. "In the Imperial Age and After: Patterns of Br i t ish Columbia School Leadership and the Institution of Superintendency, 1849-1988," B.C. Studies, no. 81, Spring 1989. F leming, Thomas. ' "Our Boys in the F i e l d ' : School Inspectors, Superintendents, and the Changing Character of School Leadership in Brit ish Columbia," N . Sheehan et a l . , ed. Schools in the  West: Essays in Canadian Educational History. Calgary, Destselig Enterprises, 1986. Foster, John Kei th . "Education and Work in a Changing Society: Brit ish Columbia, 1870-1930." University of Brit ish Columbia, unpublished M . A . thesis, 1970. Heywood, Stanley. "The Early History of the B.C. Teachers' Federation." M S in possession of the B C T F , 1954. Hindle, George. The Educational System of Brit ish Columbia. Tra i l , Trai l Printing & Publishing Co. , L t d . , 1918. Holdsworth, Deryck. "House and Home in Vancouver: The Emergence of a West Coast Urban Landscape, 1886-1929. Unpublished Ph .D . thesis, Department of Geography, University of Br i t ish Columbia, 1981. Interview with Dr. Frank Hardwick, Professor Emeritus, Faculty of Education, University of Brit ish Columbia, January, 1989. Johnson, Henry F. A History of Publ ic Education in Brit ish Columbia. Vancouver, University of Br i t ish Columbia Press, 1964. Kloppenborg, Anne, et a l . , ed. Vancouver's First Century: A C i ty A l b u m . 1860-1960. Vancouver, J.J. Douglas, 1977. London, James B. "The Dynamics of a Non-Professional Educational Organization: A History of the Brit ish Columbia School Trustees Association, 1905-1980." Unpublished Ph .D . thesis, Seattie University, 1985. 91 Macdonald, Norbert. ' " C . P . R . T o w n ' : The C i ty -Bui ld ing Process in Vancouver, 1860-1914," G . A . Stelter et a l . , eds., Shaping the Urban Landscape: Aspects of the Canadian C i ty -Bu i ld ing  Process. Ottawa, Carleton University Press, 1982. MacLaur in , Douglas Lesl ie . T h e History of Education in the Crown Colonies of Vancouver Island and Br i t ish Columbia and in the Province of Brit ish Columbia." Department of Education, University of Washington, unpublished Ph .D . thesis, 1936. Phi l l ips , C E . The Development of Education in Canada. Toronto: W . J . Gage, 1957. Pierce, Pau l R. The Origin and Development of Publ ic School Principalship. University of Chicago, 1935. Roa ld , Jerry Bruce. "Pursuit of Status: Professionalism, Unionism, and Mi l i tancy in the Evolution of Canadian Teachers' Organizations, 1915-1955." University of Br i t ish Columbia, unpublished P h . D . thesis, 1970. Ross, A . M . "The Romance of Vancouver Schools," Schools of O ld Vancouver. Vancouver, the Vancouver Historical Society, 1971. Sandison, James M . , ed. Schools of Old Vancouver. Vancouver, the Vancouver Historical Society, 1971. Skolrood, Arthur Harold. The Brit ish Columbia Teachers' Federation: A Study of its Historical Development, Interests and Activities from 1916 to 1963. University of Oregon Press, 1967. Smith, Dennis. A Study of the Origin and Development of Administrative Organizations in the Educational System of Brit ish Columbia. Unpublished Ph .D . thesis, University of California, L o s Angeles, 1952. Sutherland, N e i l . Children in English-Canadian Society: Framing the Twentieth Century Consensus. University of Toronto Press, 1976. Sutherland, N e i l . "The 'New Education' in Anglophone Canada: Modernization Transforms the Curr iculum," The Curriculum in Canada in Historical Perspective. C S S E Yearbook, 1979. Sutherland, N e i l . " T r i u m p h of Formal ism' : Elementary Schooling i n Vancouver from the 1920's to the 1960's", B .C . Studies. Nos. 69-70, 1986. Tyack, D a v i d , and Elizabeth Hansot. Managers of Virtue: Publ ic School Leadership in America.  1820-1980. N e w York , Basic Books Inc., Publishers, 1982. Vancouver School Board. First F i f ty Years: Vancouver H igh Schools. 1890-1940. Vancouver, Wr ig ley Printing Co . , 1941 Vancouver School Board. Glancing Back: Reflections and Anecdotes on the History of Vancouver  Publ ic Schools. Vancouver, 1988. Wormsbecker, John Jr. "The Development of Secondary Education in Vancouver." University of Toronto, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, 1961. Appendix 1 ENROLLMENT, STAFF AND NUMBER OF SCHOOLS % NO.OF % NO. OF % YEAR ENROL. INCR. STAFF INCR. SCHOOLS INCR. 1 8 8 6 / 8 7 285 -- 5 — 1 --8 7 / 8 8 642 + 125 7 + 40 - 3 +200 8 8 / 8 9 1, 024 + 60 11 + 57 4 + 33 8 9 / 9 0 1, 465 + 43 17 + 55 5 + 25 9 0 / 9 1 l i 748 + 19 21 + 24 6 + 20 9 1 / 9 2 2 , 004 + 15 27 + 29 6 + 0 9 2 / 9 3 2, 175 + 9 41 + 52 7 + 17 9 3 / 9 4 2 , 247 + 3 43 + 5 7 + 0 9 4 / 9 5 2 , 375 + 6 43 + 0 7 + 0 9 5 / 9 6 2 , 4 0 3 + 1 46 + 7 7 + 0 9 6 / 9 7 2, 644 + 10 49 + 7 7 + 0 9 7 / 9 8 2, 983 + 13 56 + 14 6 - 14 9 8 / 9 9 3 , 296 + 11 64 + 14 6 + 0 9 9 / 0 0 3 , 907 + 19 68 + 6 7 + 17 1 9 0 0 / 0 1 A, 669 + 20 84 + 24 8 + 14 0 1 / 0 2 A, 510 - 3 83 + 1 8 + 0 0 2 / 0 3 A, 334 4 92 + 11 8 + 0 0 3 / 0 4 5 , 557 + 28 97 + 5 8 + 0 0 4 / 0 5 6, 342 + 14 107 + 10 10 + 25 0 5 / 0 6 6, 896 + 9 120 + 12 12 + 20 0 6 / 0 7 7, 792 + 13 137 + 14 13 + 8 0 7 / 0 8 8, 823 + 13 167 + 22 13 + 0 0 8 / 0 9 9, 580 + 9 183 + 10 13 + 0 0 9 / 1 0 1 0 , 879 + 14 220 + 20 16 + 19 1 0 / 1 1 1 2 , 246 + 13 249 + 13 20 + 25 1 1 / 1 2 1 3 , 081 + 7 290 + 16 26 + 30 1 2 / 1 3 1 4 , 030 + 7 305 + 5 29 + 12 1 3 / 1 4 1 4 , 272 + 2 352 + 15 30 + 3 1 4 / 1 5 1 4 , 611 + 2 398 + 13 32 + 7 1 5 / 1 6 1 4 , 717 + 1 361 - 10 33 + 3 1 6 / 1 7 1 5 , 440 + 5 364 + 1 33 + 0 1 7 / 1 8 1 6 , 465 + 7 446 + 23 34 + 3 1 8 / 1 9 1 7 , 7 7 3 + 8 481 + 8 29 - 14 1 9 / 2 0 1 8 , 803 + 6 520 + 8 35 + 21 2 0 / 2 1 1 9 , 717 + 5 537 + 3 36 + 3 2 1 / 2 2 2 0 , 649 + 5 578 + 8 34 - 5 2 2 / 2 3 2 1 , 056 + 2 577 + 0 36 + 6 2 3 / 2 4 2 1 , 372 + 2 597 + 3 36 + 0 2 4 / 2 5 2 1 , 665 + 1 619 + 4 36 + 0 2 5 / 2 6 2 2 , 357 + 3 637 + 3 37 + 3 2 6 / 2 7 2 2 , 971 + 3 666 + 5 37 + 0 2 7 / 2 8 2 3 , 300 + 1 693 + 4 ** 38 + 3 Source: S t a t i s t i c a l Returns, Annual Reports, 1 8 8 6 - 1 9 2 8 . 94 Appendix 2 "WHAT IS PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION?" (A d e f i n i t i o n from a b u l l e t i n i s s u e d by the A s s o c i a t i o n f o r the Advancement of P r o g r e s s i v e Education, 1818 N. S t r e e t , Northwest, Washington, D.C.) "The Aim of P r o g r e s s i v e E d u c a t i o n i s the f r e e s t and f u l l e s t development of the i n d i v i d u a l , based upon the s c i e n t i f i c study of h i s p h y s i c a l , m o r t a l , s p i r i t u a l and s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and needs." P r o g r e s s i v e E d u c a t i o n i s thus d e f i n e d i m p l i e s the f o l l o w i n g c o n d i t i o n s : 1. Freedom t o Develop N a t u r a l l y The conduct of the p u p i l should be s e l f - g o v e r n e d a c c o r d i n g t o the s o c i a l needs of the h i s community, r a t h e r than by a r b i t r a r y laws. F u l l o p p o r t u n i t y f o r i n i t i a t i v e and s e l f -e x p r e s s i o n should be p r o v i d e d t o g e t h e r w i t h an environment r i c h i n i n t e r e s t i n g m a t e r i a l t h a t i s a v a i l a b l e f o r the f r e e use of every p u p i l . 2. I n t e r e s t the Motive of a l l Work I n t e r e s t s h o u l d be s a t i s f i e d and developed through: (1) D i r e c t and i n d i r e c t c o n t a c t with the world and i t s a c t i v i t i e s , and use of the experience thus gained; (2)' A p p l i c a t i o n of knowledge gained and c o r r e l a t i o n between d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s ; (3) The consciousness of achievement. 3. The Teacher a Guide, Not a Task-Master P r o g r e s s i v e t e a c h e r s w i l l encourage the use of a l l the senses, t r a i n i n g the p u p i l s i n both o b s e r v a t i o n and judgment; and i n s t e a d o f h e a r i n g r e c i t a t i o n s only, w i l l spend most of the time t e a c h i n g how t o use v a r i o u s sources of i n f o r m a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g l i f e a c t i v i t i e s as w e l l as books; how t o reason about the i n f o r m a t i o n thus a c q u i r e d ; and how t o express f o r c e f u l l y and l o g i c a l l y the c o n c l u s i o n s reached. Teachers w i l l i n s p i r e a d e s i r e f o r knowledge, and w i l l serve as guides i n the i n v e s t i g a t i o n s undertaken r a t h e r than as task- m a s t e r s . To be a proper i n s p i r a t i o n t o t h e i r p u p i l s , t e a c h e r s must have ample o p p o r t u n i t y and encouragement f o r self-improvement and f o r the development of broad i n t e r e s t s . 95 Appendix 2 (Cont'd) 4. S c i e n t i f i c Study of P u p i l Development School r e c o r d s s h o u l d . . . i n c l u d e both o b j e c t i v e and s u b j e c t i v e r e p o r t s on those p h y s i c a l , mental, moral and s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which a f f e c t both s c h o o l and a d u l t l i f e , and which can be i n f l u e n c e d by the s c h o o l and the home. Such r e c o r d s should be used as a guide f o r the treatment of each p u p i l , and should a l s o serve t o focus the a t t e n t i o n of the t e a c h e r on the a l l - i m p o r t a n t work of development, r a t h e r than on simply t e a c h i n g s u b j e c t matter. 5. G r e a t e r A t t e n t i o n t o a l l t h a t A f f e c t s the C h i l d ' s P h y s i c a l  Development One of the f i r s t c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of P r o g r e s s i v e E d u c a t i o n i s the h e a l t h of the p u p i l s . Much more room i n which t o move about, b e t t e r l i g h t and a i r , c l e a n and w e l l v e n t i l a t e d b u i l d i n g s , e a s i e r access to the out of doors and g r e a t e r use of i t , are a l l necessary. There s h o u l d be frequent use of adequate playgrounds. 6. C o o p e r a t i o n Between School and Home t o Meet the Needs of  C h i l d L i f e The s c h o o l s h o u l d p r o v i d e , with the home, as much as p o s s i b l e of a l l t h a t the n a t u r a l i n t e r e s t and a c t i v i t i e s of the c h i l d demand, e s p e c i a l l y d u r i n g the elementary s c h o o l y e a r s . I t should g i v e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r manual experi e n c e f o r both boys and g i r l s , f o r home-making, and f o r h e a l t h f u l r e c r e a t i o n of v a r i o u s k i n d s . These c o n d i t i o n s can come about on l y through i n t e l l i g e n t c o o p e r a t i o n between parents and t e a c h e r s . I t i s the duty of the p a r e n t s t o know what the s c h o o l i s doing and why. 7. The P r o g r e s s i v e School a Leader i n E d u c a t i o n a l Movement "The P r o g r e s s i v e School s h o u l d be a l a b o r a t o r y where new i d e a s i f worthy meet encouragement, where t r a d i t i o n alone does not r u l e , but the best of the p a s t i s leavened w i t h the d i s c o v e r i e s of today, and the r e s u l t i s f r e e l y added t o the sum of e d u c a t i o n a l knowledge. As r e p r i n t e d i n The B.C. Teacher, December 1922, p.88. APPENDIX 3 96 DUTY OF PRINCIPALS From the Rules and Regulations of the Vancouver School Board (Paraphrased) A d m i n i s t r a t i v e / C l e r i c a l Record Keeping/Reports/Paperwork Rule #12 keep general r e g i s t e r #14 — make report of s u p p l i e s / f u r n i t u r e #21 — make r e q u i s i t i o n of s u p p l i e s #20 — prepare r e q u i s i t i o n and c e r t i f y i n v o i c e s #27 — keep re c o r d of a l l students and t h e i r s t a t s a v a i l a b l e P o l i c i n g R e g u l a t i o n s Rule # 8 — ensure a l l p u p i l s leave b u i l d i n g #11 — n o t i f y Secretary of the Board re temperature problems #15 — ensure r e g u l a t i o n s re s u b s t i t u t e s are fo l l o w e d #16 — ensure school premises were not used unless a u t h o r i z e d #17 — ensure books and s t u d i e s were a u t h o r i z e d #18 — f i r e d r i l l r e g u l a t i o n s #25 — keep t r a c k of t r u a n t s and absentees #26 — n o t i f y Attendance O f f i c e r of t r u a n t s and absentees #29 • — ensure r e g u l a t i o n re medical cards are fo l l o w e d Grounds M a i n t e n a n c e / J a n i t o r i a l Rule # 7 _ shut windows and doors, l o c k up i f j a n i t o r absent # 9 — upkeep of f u r n i t u r e , b u i l d i n g , yard e t c . #10 — Gauge classroom temperatures #13 — r e c o r d absences of caret a k e r #28 — general s u p e r v i s i o n of j a n i t o r 97 Appendix 3 (Cont'd) B; Supervision/Management Examination/Evaluation/Leadership/Organization Rule #1 d i r e c t a s s i s t a n t s #2 o r g a n i z a t i o n of school #3 - supervise a s s i s t a n t s / t e a c h e r s (attendance, d u t i e s ) #4 examine every c l a s s under charge #5 supervise work and d i s c i p l i n e of a l l c l a s s e s #6 secure cooperation of a s s i s t a n t s #19 - conduct s t a f f meetings #22 - p l a c e teachers i n charge of c l a s s e s #23 - c l a s s i f y , arrange, a s s i g n teachers and p u p i l s #24 - examine every p u p i l f o r placement purposes APPENDIX 4: LIST OF ALL PRINCIPALS 1886-1928 98 Anstey, A. Anstie, Miss J.K. Beech, W.K. Blainey, Miss C l a i r e Boyes, David Boyes, F.C. Brough, T.A. Brown, J.E. Bruce, G. Bryant, S.J. Calvert, F.G. Campbell, D.W. Caspell, E. Chute, C.C. Clark, A. Code, L.B. Coldwell, R.F. Cole, J.A. Cole, Miss A l i c e J. Cowperthwaite, F.M. Crandall, Miss I.M. Cronkhite, A.M. Currie, Miss F.M. Davis, Miss I.G. Davis, Miss Ivy Denton, V.L. Dobson, F.H. Dole, H.P. Dunbar, J . Dunning, J.T. Evans, CR. Fergusson, G.A. F e r r i s , Mrs. A.J. F i t c h , H.B. Fletcher, Miss M.L. Fraser, Miss A.E. Fraser, R. Ganton, J.B. G i l c h r i s t , A. Gourlie, W.G. Gower, G.H. Grant, Miss W.A. Green, J.K. Hamilton, J.A. Harding, Mrs. JMH Hartney, Miss M. Hemsworth, E.A. Herd, H.D. Jamieson, G.W. Jamleson, Miss A.B. Jewett, F.A. Johnston, D.B. King, H.B. Laing, G.A. Lai r d , Miss E.J. Law, R. Lawrence, F.J. Lawrence, Miss E. Le i t h , T. L i s t e r , J.G. L i t t l e , D.C. Lord, A.R. Manning, V.Z. Martin, J. Mathews, S.W. McCain, Miss M.C. McDonagh, W. McDonald, Miss E. McDougall, Miss A.J. McGarrigle, T.A. McKee, G.E. McKenzie, Miss M.N. McLenaghen, Miss M.Y. McMurray, Miss J.E. McRae, G.W. McTaggart, H.A. Meadows, S.D. Messinger, CR. M i t c h e l l , M.W. Mooney, Miss W. Murphy, E.H. Nesbitt, W.J. Paget, H.L. Palmer, J.T.E. Pattison, T. Pollock, J.R. Pottmeyer, H. Ramage, W.G. Rand, W.L. Reid, E.W. Rines, A. Robinson, A. Robinson, D.M. Robinson, G.E. Robinson, J.W. Shaver, M.E. Shaw, J . C Sheepy, Miss Janet Sherman, R.S. Sparling, R. Steeves, R.P. Stewart, A.C Straight, R. Suter, R.W. Sutherland, A. Templer, Mrs. J . Thomas, O.J. Tom, G.H. Warne, Miss F. W i l l i s , S.J. Wilson, F.C. Woodhead, T.W. Wyatt, J.M. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055841/manifest

Comment

Related Items