USA > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Somerville > Report of the city of Somerville 1951 > Part 6
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24
The total estimated collection of garbage amounted to 4200 cords, the work is being done by a contractor who fur- nishes trucks and chauffeurs, the City supplying the laborers and collections to be the same as previously, namely :- two collections a week throughout the year from private dwellings and three times a week from restaurants, stores, etc.
The department as a whole is operating efficiently and with the citizens' co-operation we shall continue to carry on in the usual manner.
I wish to thank His Honor, the Mayor, and the Board of Aldermen and the employees of my department for their co- operation extended during the year.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN F. MESKELL, Supt. Sanitary Department
109
SCHOOL DEPARTMENT
CITY OF SOMERVILLE REPORT OF THE SCHOOL COMMITTEE
December 27, 1951.
SCHOOL COMMITTEE ROOMS
Ordered, that the Annual Report of the Superintendent of Schools be adopted as the Annual Report of the Board of School Committee, it being understood that such adoption does not commit the board to the opinions or recommendations made therein; that it be incorporated in the reports of the city, and that the Superintendent of Schools be authorized to have six hundred copies printed separately at the earliest possible date.
EVERETT W. IRELAND,
Secretary of School Committee
110
ANNUAL REPORTS
SCHOOL COMMITTEE Somerville, Massachusetts 1951
WILLIAM J. SHEA JOSEPH F. LEAHY
ELEANOR S. COYNE
(January-June) Chairman (July-December) Chairman . Vice-Chairman
MEMBERS
JOHN M. LYNCH, Mayor ANDREW CAPUANO
1 Williams Court
President, Board of Aldermen
Ward One
JOSEPH F. LEAHY
16 New Hampshire Avenue
Ward Two
34 Bow Street
ELEANOR S. COYNE
59 Preston Road
SARAH M. MCLAUGHLIN
167 Central Street
Ward Five
27 Aberdeen Road
Ward Six
17 Warner Street
Ward Seven
86 Yorktown Street
Superintendent of Schools EVERETT W. IRELAND
Office: West Building, High School, Highland Avenue Residence: 18 Day Street
The Superintendent's Office will be open on school days from 8:00 to 5:00 His office hour is 4:00 on school days.
Assistant Superintendent of Schools LEO C. DONAHUE 108 Summer Street
Superintendent's Office Force
Marion E. Marshall, 62 Highland Avenue Regina Truelson, 23 Black Rock Road, Melrose Margaret R. O'Connor, 2 Adrian Street Frances C. Geaton, 29 Tennyson Street William E. Hogan, 12 Richardson Road, Newton Mary P. Brady, 164 Washington Street Anna M. Boyle, 49 Spring Street Eileen M. Mahoney, 14 Madison Street
FRANCIS H. BROWN
Ward Three
Ward Four
WILLIAM J. SHEA
V. THERESA MORRISSEY
JOHN F. FITZGERALD
Ex-Officiis
34 Browning Road
111
SCHOOL DEPARTMENT
Standing Committee of the Whole
with Chairman and Vice-Chairman designated to act during such times as the matters set opposite their names are under discussion:
TEACHERS
Morrissey, Leahy
FINANCE
Fitzgerald, Brown
CURRICULUMS AND INSTRUCTION Leahy, Coyne
HEALTH, PHYSICAL TRAINING AND ATHLETICS
Shea, Fitzgerald
INDUSTRIAL EDUCATION
Mclaughlin, Morrissey
SCHOOL ACCOMMODATIONS
Brown, Mclaughlin
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Coyne, Shea
Meetings
January 1 April 23
October 29
January 29
May 28
November 26
February 26
June 25
December 17
March 26
September 24
112
ANNUAL REPORTS
TO THE HONORABLE SCHOOL COMMITTEE SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:
In accordance with the provisions of the Rules and Regu- lations of the Somerville School Committee, the Superintend- ent of Schools has prepared and submits herewith his twenty- fourth annual report, which is the eightieth in a series of an- nual reports of the Somerville Public Schools, and covers the calendar year 1951.
This document is prepared in three sections, Part I of which is the report of the Superintendent of Schools to the School Committee, comprising a discussion of (1) the matters involved in the outstanding activities of the School Committee, and (2) the condition of the schools with respect to changes, improvements, and progress, which includes statements re- garding personnel, membership, and buildings, with recom- mendations concerning the immediate and necessary needs of our educational system.
Part II is prepared as a report of the School Committee to the citizens and consists of (1) a description of the school property, (2) statistical tables which set forth comparative figures covering a period of years concerning enrollment, membership, attendance, cost of instruction and maintenance, and other matters of organization, and (3) tables showing statistics, not necessary for comparison, covering the last fiscal year.
Part III presents the organization of the school system at the close of the year 1951 and the lists of graduates of this year from the secondary schools, the evening high school, and the vocational schools.
Respectfully submitted,
EVERETT W. IRELAND,
Superintendent of Schools
December 27, 1951
113
SCHOOL DEPARTMENT
PART I REPORT OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS 1951
As the executive officer of the Somerville School Com- mittee, the Superintendent of Schools is deeply appreciative of the opportunity and privilege to discuss with the citizens of Somerville what has occurred within their educational system during the past twelve months under the legislative direction of the present School Committee of 1950 - 51 during the sec- ond year of its term of office, and to express a few pertinent thoughts concerning current and future needs. In conse- quence, there is herewith submitted the twenty-fourth annual report of the present Superintendent in the series of eighty such reports since Somerville became a city in 1872.
The American system of free education is unique in world history. This system is the greatest safeguard of the freedom of the people, and guarantees their social and eco- nomic well being. Universal free education has as its main purpose the maximum development of the human capabilities within our democracy. In a modern advancing world, the country's greatest resources are its children, youth, and adults, and they must never stop learning. The local public school system, adapted to the needs of all pupils through the best possible programs of education properly conceived, organized, administered, and taught, develops individuals so that they may live intelligently and happily in a free democratic society.
What the school system is and what it accomplishes is de- termined in large measure by the citizens of Somerville, for the schools belong to the people and are what the people make them. Since it is impossible for all the people of the commu- nity to meet as a body to discuss the common problems of the city, there is an elected representative agency, known as the School Committee, which is charged to study and to discuss thoroughly the problems of the schools, and consequently to formulate the proper policies for their solution. The School Committee functions under delegated authority from the state, because education is a function of the state organization.
The School Committee is composed of seven elected members, one chosen from each ward for a term of two years, and two ex-officio members, the mayor elected for two years, and the President of the Board of Aldermen during his term
714
ANNUAL REPORTS
"of one year. In consequence, the Committee for 1951 had but "one new member in January when Alderman Andrew Capuano Ireplaced Alderman Paul I. McCarthy as President of the Board of Aldermen.
Due to a deadlock in the balloting for the position of Chairman of the School Committee between the Messrs. Leahy and Shea, a unique solution resulted, with the selection of Wil- liam J. Shea to serve as Chairman from January 1st through June, and Joseph F. Leahy to serve from July 1st for the re- mainder of the year. Mrs. Eleanor S. Coyne was elected to serve as Vice Chairman for the year 1951. Mr. Shea had been a member of the Committee for a period of eight years and had previously served as both Chairman and Vice Chairman, while Mr. Leahy had served three years previously as a member and had had an experience of two years as a member of the Great and General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachu- setts, where he had been privileged to preside on occasion. Mrs. Coyne had a fine basic foundation in the field of educa- tion through her nine years of teaching experience in the Northeastern Junior High School, and a year of service as a member of the School Committee in 1950. The effects of the cooperative endeavors of the School Committee for 1951 will be shown in the succeeding pages to have been in the interests of the welfare of the children, the educational program, and the community.
Each year the activities of the School Committee are nu- merous and varied. In giving the necessary time and energy to the formulation of policies and other necessary consideration of personnel, courses of studies, and the like, in connection with the educational organization, the biggest business of the country, school committee members have found that more is demanded of the schools than from any of our governmental institutions. They have also learned that the unselfish devo- tion of educators has caused the public to become so accus- tomed to the efficiency of the schools that it expects miracles of accomplishment for a relatively small investment. In fact, it has frequently been noted that there is provided altogether too little money for Education.
The National Education Association recently made a case study of the national income and the proportion which had been spent for public education. This study shows that in the year 1930, when the national income was $75 billion, $2.3 billion or 3.09 per cent of the total income was spent on schools. In 1950 the national income rose to $250 billion, but
115
SCHOOL DEPARTMENT
only $4.6 billion or 1.85 per cent of the total income was spent for public education.
Comparing these two years and remembering the in- creased educational services provided, and the larger propor- tion of pupils attending school, it is brought out that the cost of education when compared with the national income has dropped nearly 40 per cent since 1930.
The Public also manifests too little interest and consider- ation in one of its most efficient governmental agencies, its school system. Such apathy, indifference, and failure to pro- vide for the necessary expense must be eliminated by correct- ing this unhappy imbalance through causing the public to be aroused to the situation.
A brief review of the types of problems confronting our Somerville School Committee over the period of the last dozen years will provide evidence of the necessity of electing school committee members with proper attitudes toward their respon- sibilities and the ability to cope with the many and varied problems in order to arrive at the proper conclusions in de- veloping policies which will bring success.
Beginning in 1940, when the world was anxiously con- cerned over the struggle between democratic and totalitarian ideas and ideals, the School Committee, without once losing sight of the primary purposes of the schools and keeping them functioning, accepted the challenge to improve its institutions so that they would be adequate for whatever should come in a changing world. Improvement in the training for the com- plex issues of citizenship, arranging for the around-the-clock use of school buildings to prepare men and women to function vocationally, avocationally, and civically, and giving thorough consideration to combining study and work in proper correla- tion through cooperative schooling, were the first necessary steps taken, which were covered by the term "Preparation."
On December 8, 1941 it was necessary to quicken the educational process and prepare for National Defense, and shortly it was evident that Preparation for National Defense became Preparation for Total War. When in 1943 the Allied Nations took the offensive in the war, by virtue of the speed with which the armed forces had been trained so effectively for their tasks of complex warfare, and the speed and effi- ciency of industry in providing adequate, proper, and accurate materials of war, education was once again faced with a pro-
116
ANNUAL REPORTS
gram of change. With victory in sight, thinking and prepara- tion had to be directed towards the postwar period.
The postwar plan for Somerville was based upon (1) the possibilities of changes in aims and objectives for Education, with changes in curriculum, and an intensification and elabo- ration of the health program, and (2) the possibilities of a long-term building program which would provide adequate replacements of some of the buildings which had become quite. unsuited for modern educational needs and demands.
A quick review of recent reports of the Superintendent of Schools will reveal two important conclusions. The first of these shows that the educational pattern, formulated in Som -. erville, upon which the schools were operated during the war period, had been well founded, and there is ample evidence that the school committees, administrators, and the entire school personnel had given careful study and loyal and devoted: service to the successful solution of the problem.
The second conclusion is that the financial condition of the City offered little opportunity even to think of modern- izing the educational plant when so many other phases of governmental activity seemed to the public to be so much more important. All appeared to agree that the tax structure could stand no further straining so long as the school struc- tures were not in too much danger of collapse. A patchwork plan, therefore, appeared to be the most expedient answer for the time, and the City Government expended $800,000 on a program of redecoration and repairs, and $180,000 to meet the requirements of the State Department of Public Safety. Before this work was completed, the School Committee was notified in August 1949 that the Charles G. Pope School was structurally unsound and could not be used for school purposes in September 1949. This instruction was supported by structural engineers employed by the Mayor and City Government, and the opinion was expressed that the cost of necessary repairs would be so great that such repair could not be justified.
Such was the situation when the new School Committee and the Mayor and City Government assumed office in Jan- uary of 1950. Immediately Mayor Lynch, believing in the principle that it should be the proper function of the School Committee to specify the site, the capacity, and the design and necessary equipment of schools, requested the School Committee to study the Pope School problem and forward as
117
SCHOOL DEPARTMENT
soon as possible its suggestions to the proper authorities hav- ing the necessary power to act, namely, the Mayor and the Board of Aldermen.
A special committee of the School Committee undertook the commission and diligently, with seriousness and intelli- gence, brought forth a report, in the form of a resolution, which indicated that the solution to the problem would only in a very small way be effective if the emergency of the Pope School was considered alone because of the many coordinated problems.
The report therefore suggested that it would be advisable to study and survey thoroughly all the elementary school buildings of the city, and since it was assured that a goodly proportion of the expense not only of the survey but of the resultant building costs could be subsidized by State and Federal agencies, it finally resolved that a competent and ex- perienced group of school building experts be employed to conduct a survey of the school building needs of Somerville for the purpose of creating a long-term building program for the next twenty to thirty years, to the end that our educational system and its educational tools will be the best, most modern, and adequate, and such as Somerville should maintain. The adoption of this resolution is one of the most important for- ward-looking actions taken by the Committee over a period of many years.
The School Committee contracted with a survey staff of experts, composed of Leo T. Doherty, Assistant Superintendent of Schools of Worcester, Massachusetts, as Director; Dr. Homer W. Anderson, nationally known educational consultant, former Superintendent of Schools of Omaha, Nebraska, St. Louis, Missouri, and Newton, Massachusetts, and now asso- ciated with the faculty of the Harvard University Graduate School of Education; Roger Creighton, formerly Senior Planner of Worcester, Massachusetts, now City Planner of Portland, Maine; Donald P. Mitchell, Assistant Director for the Center of Field Studies, Graduate School of Education, Harvard Uni- versity; and Dr. Cyril G. Sargent, Associate Professor, Graduate School of Education, Harvard University.
The agreement with the Survey Staff provided that the survey would concern an appraisal of the present and future elementary school building needs of Somerville, and the needs of the school program which should be considered in the planning of the future pattern of school plant utilization and construction.
118
ANNUAL REPORTS
It further provided that the extent of the survey should include:
(a) A study of the existing elementary school facili- ties with regard to possible consolidation of, and alterations and/or additions to, the present school buildings, as well as the need for new independent construction.
(b) A study of sites upon which elementary schools are now located, with recommendations for im- provement, and general locale of sites for new school buildings.
(c) A consideration of the desirable elementary school program as affected by school plant facil- ities and size of enrollment.
(d) A study of the matter of traffic arteries insofar as they materially affect the location of elemen- tary school buildings.
(e) A study of those other factors which the Con- sultant deems to have a bearing upon the ele- mentary school plant problem in Somerville.
(f) The development of a final report which will include:
(1) A resume of the problem with all per- tinent data necessary for public under- standing.
(2) A consideration, where indicated, of trends, principles, educational theory and practice, and other related matters.
(3) Such maps, charts, and tabulations as may seem necessary for the purposes of the survey, but not architectural draw- ings or plans.
(4) Recommendations and a time schedule for action. Alternatives will be incorpo- rated into the recommendations where indicated by circumstances. Recommen- dations will include a consideration of school districts served by the elementary school buildings.
(g) The above specifications apply primarily to elementary school building needs and all studies
119
SCHOOL DEPARTMENT
of program, organization, and districting are to be limited to their relationship to such needs.
Functional aspects of the Survey are stated as follows:
(a) Insofar as possible, this survey is to be a coop- erative project. The Somerville School Commit- tee, through the School Personnel, is to provide present and past elementary school enrollment records, make available city and school reports as requested, provide data for pupil population and district maps, conduct a census of preschool children, and provide the survey staff with access to all elementary school buildings.
(b) The Consultant is to be free to engage such competent assistants as may be needed to com- plete the survey. Such assistants are to be paid by the Consultant, without additional expense to the Somerville School Committee.
(c) Coordination of the survey is to be developed through meetings of the Superintendent of Schools and the Consultant. Opportunity for meetings of the School Committee and the sur- vey staff, at which progress may be evaluated and efforts correlated, will also be provided.
(d) The final report will be submitted in typewritten form, four copies, double spaced, ready for printing. Costs of duplication of this material will not be the responsibility of the Consultant. However, Mr. Doherty will assist the printer with suggestions on format and other aspects. If the report is duplicated by the Somerville School Committee, or any other City agency, twelve copies of the report will be forwarded to the Consultant in the same form as provided for dis- tribution in Somerville, as part of the cost of the survey.
This agreement was ratified by formal vote of the School Committee, and approval was obtained from the Director of the Massachusetts School Building Assistance Commission, in order that when the survey was completed a subsidy of $1,000' could be obtained partially to pay for the survey. The Con- sultants immediately proceeded to fulfill their part of the agreement and the administrators, supervisors, and teachers diligently attacked their tasks so that the necessary informa-
120
ANNUAL REPORTS
tion for consideration might be available as soon as possible. Commendation should here be given to some of the members of the Fire Department who volunteered, under the direction and supervision of District Chief Edward Murray, to collect the very necessary facts pertaining to the preschool census.
Two preliminary oral reports were made by the Director of the Survey to the School Committee at special meetings, keeping the School Committee acquainted with the progress of the work, and finally, late in June, four copies of the preliminary draft of the report, in typewritten form, were presented to the School Committee. Immediately, after the necessary bids for printing had been obtained, arrangements were made for the then edited copy to be printed by photo- graphic offset.
The printed copies, nicely bound with plastic binding, were received during the latter part of August and a general distribution to the members of the School Committee, the press, officers of Parent-Teacher Associations, members of service clubs, and other organizations, and to the general public as requested was made beginning September 4th.
In the opinion of the Superintendent of Schools, the re- port of the "Survey of Elementary School Building Needs of Somerville, Massachusetts" is a worthwhile document justi- fying the expenditure. The recommendations of the Survey Staff, for the attainment of an adequate elementary school plant for our community, are an outgrowth of an intensive, complete study of the community, its present school build- ings, and other related factors which must be considered in planning a modern school plant. The survey provides the information which should serve as a guide for future planning of the school building activity in Somerville.
As indicated in the Table of Contents, the report is set forth under eight chapter headings, as follows: (1) Introduc- tion, (2) Guiding Principles and Desirable Inclusions in a Long- Range School Plant Plan, (3) Somerville as a Community, (4) Elementary School Enrollments, (5) The Present Elementary School Plant, (6) The Ultimate School Plant, (7) Summary of Recommendations, and (8) Financing the Program.
The chapter entitled "Introduction" points out that structural unsoundness is one kind of building inadequacy which generally provokes prompt action, but there is another more damaging and more prevalent building defection, which
121
SCHOOL DEPARTMENT
is that of educational inadequacy, the detrimental effects of which are not so easily recognized and not so readily given action. It is generally conceded that school buildings used for thirty-five or more years have passed the period of their educational utility and become obsolescent rapidly. It is noted in this connection that fourteen of our elementary school buildings were built during the 19th century, and three of those were erected more than eighty years ago and have been in constant use. Of the ten elementary buildings constructed during the present century, five were built prior to 1906, and no new elementary building has occurred since 1932. Base- ment rooms are used as classrooms in the Cutler, Edgerly, and Hodgkins buildings. Only a very few of the buildings used for this purpose conform to nationally accepted standards.
Since it is likely that any school buildings erected in Somerville at this time will be in service considerably beyond the year 2000 A.D., it is obvious that construction of any school building in this city should be carefully weighed in terms of the effect upon the over-all situation. Is such a projected building a logical solution, fitting into a studied sequential plan which will ultimately produce a plant so de- signed and located that it will meet the needs of the com- munity for the next fifty to eighty years?
The basal considerations and principles which should be prominent in the study and deliberations leading to the answer to that question are set forth in the second chapter entitled, "Guiding Principles and Desirable Inclusions in a Long-Range School Plant Plan."
School buildings are educational tools which should be tailored to augment and facilitate the educational program and to encourage the details of a modern curriculum as related to local needs. In other words, school buildings must be func- tional.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.