網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

have done was to inflict the punishment out of school. We think it would have been more prudent to wait until the next day, and inflict the punishment in the school. It is always better to take time for reflection before an act, the propriety of which is likely to be at all questioned. Besides, the teacher's jurisdiction in the school-room would be less likely to be disputed, and, if it were, he could find more and better authorities to support him. In fact, the authority of the teacher to punish for the offense may in some measure depend upon whether the scholar continues under the jurisdiction of the master. For, if the scholar, after leaving the school in the evening, committed an offense as in this case, but never again returned to the school, we think that the teacher's right to inflict punishment under such circumstances would be more than doubtful. Consequently, we would advise the punishment to be deferred in all cases until it can be inflicted in the school-room.

SEC. 4. In RHODE ISLAND the teacher should endeavor to exercise an inspection over the conduct of his scholars at all times. But the power to punish for offenses committed out of school is considered doubtful. In a case where a boy had committed a theft out of school the teacher called him to account for it, and punished him for refusing to answer. The court ruled that the teacher had no right to punish him for refusing to confess a crime for which he might be punished at law. In connection with this decision it must be borne in mind that

the law does not require criminals to confess their guilt. Consequently any punishment for such a refusal, whether the crime is committed in school or out of school, would probably meet with no favor in the courts. The law permits criminals to confess their crimes, but it will not force them to do so. The decision in this case, then, does not place the Rhode Island court against the policy of punishing for misconduct out of school. (See Pub. School Acts of R. I. 1857, with Rem. p. 53.) The following upon this subject is from an excellent French treatise upon education, by J. Willm, Inspector of the Academy at Strasbourg, p. 176: "The last question which presents itself is, how far teachers should pay attention to the conduct of the pupils out of school, and especially at the time when they resort to it or return home. The road leading to school is truly a part of it, if we may so speak, as well as the play-ground. Consequently any disorders committed by the pupils on it ought to be suppressed by the teacher. He ought especially to watch over them at their play, for the sake of discipline, as well as for that of education in general. Their games are, as has been said, of serious importance to him. The conduct of the pupils, when under the paternal roof, and everywhere but in the school or the road leading to it, escapes all the means of discipline; but the teacher ought not to be indifferent to that conduct, especially in the country; he should carefully inquire concerning it, for the sake of moral education. For the same reason, he will have to watch over his own conduct out of school, and

avoid whatever might tend to diminish the respect his pupils owe to him, and which is the chief condition of the success of his mission."

SEC 5. MASSACHUSETTS.-"The question is not without some practical difficulty, how far the school committee and teachers may exercise authority over school children before the hour when the school begins or after the hour when it closes, or outside of the school-house door or yard. On the one hand, there is certainly some limit to the jurisdiction of the committee and teachers out of school hours and out of the school-house; and, on the other hand, it is equally plain, if their jurisdiction does not commence until the minute for opening the school has arrived, nor until the pupil has passed within the door of the school-room, that all the authority left to them in regard to some of the most sacred objects for which our schools were instituted would be but of little avail. To what purpose would the teacher prohibit profane or obscene language among his scholars, within the school-room and during school hours, if they could indulge it with impunity and to any extent of wantonness as soon as the hour for dismissing the school should arrive? To what purpose would he forbid quarreling and fighting among the scholars at recess, if they could engage in single combat, or marshal themselves into hostile parties for a general encounter within the precincts of the school-house, within the next five minutes. after the school-house should be closed? And to what purpose would he repress insolence to himself, if a scholar,

as soon as he had passed the threshold, might shake his fist in his teacher's face and challenge him to personal combat? These considerations would seem to show that there must be a portion of time, both before the school commences and after it has closed, and also a portion of space between the door of the school-house and that of the paternal mansion, where the jurisdiction of the parent on one side, and of the committee and the teachers on the other, is concurrent.

"Many of the school committees in this commonwealth have acted in accordance with these views, and have framed regulations for the government of the scholars, both before and after school hours, and while going to and returning from the school. The same principle of necessity, by virtue of which this jurisdiction out of school hours and beyond school premises is claimed, defines its extent and affixes its limit. It is claimed because the great objects of discipline and of moral culture would be frustrated without it. When not essential, therefore, to the attainment of these objects, it should be forborne." (10 Report of Hon. Horace Mann.)

SEC. 6. OHIO.-The legal right of the teacher to punish his scholars for disorderly acts done in the schoolroom, or on the play-ground, before the opening of the school, after its close, during morning or afternoon recess, or at noon, has been fully recognized by the courts of this country. But whether his authority to punish his scholars extends to immoral or disorderly conduct elsewhere, is not so fully established. By some it is con

tended that the legal right of a teacher to inflict corporal punishment upon a scholar in any case is derived from the fact that he stands in loco parentis, and that, therefore, it can not be extended to acts done before this relation has commenced, or after it has terminated, without the express consent of the parent. It is further contended that this delegation to the teacher of the power allowed by law to the parent over the person of his child does not take place till the child has reached the school premises, and must end when he leaves for home. On the contrary, it is maintained by others, that the right of a teacher to hold his scholars responsible for improper conduct on their way to and from school is fully sanctioned by usage. Under all the circumstances, it is believed that the most prudent course for a teacher to take in a case like the one presented would be to notify the parent of the misconduct complained of, and if his permission to punish the offending scholar can not be obtained, and the disorderly behavior be repeated, then to refer the matter to the board of education. There can be no doubt that boards of education possess the legal power to make and enforce such rules and regulations as, in their judgment, may be necessary for the best interests of the schools within their jurisdiction; and it is their duty as well as their right to coöperate with the teacher in the government of the school, and to aid him to the extent of their power and influence in the enforcement of reasonable and proper rules and regulations, and to dismiss a scholar from the school whenever he uses at

« 上一頁繼續 »