網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

In case a teacher has been selected and approved by the superintending committee in conformity to law, there is no authority in the prudential committee or the district to close the house against such teacher. (See 8 Cush, 191, and Law Reporter, vol. 22, 213, Ninth School District in Weymouth v. Loud.)

But in such case or in any case where the teacher is not in actual possession, but merely has the right of possession, he should not attempt to gain possession by physical force. The law will bear him out in maintaining his possession by force if he can make it appear that force was necessary; but his right of possession he must maintain in another way. For example, if a teacher is “barred out” of the school-house by his scholars or others, he should at once notify the directors, who in turn may appeal, if necessary, to the township board invested with the legal custody of the house. In case neither the directors nor the board cause the door to be opened, the teacher, by holding himself in readiness to discharge his duties, can collect his pay precisely as though his school had not been interrupted. (Ohio School Laws, 1865, Dec. 32.)

SEC. 3. The vulgar impression that parents have a legal right to dictate to teachers is entirely erroneous.As it would be manifestly improper for the teacher to undertake to dictate to the parents in their own house, so it would be improper for the parents to dictate to him in his, the school-house. Nor does it matter whether the parents own their house, or whether, like

the teacher, they only have possession of it for a certain time specified and on certain conditions, and perhaps for certain purposes named in the lease. In either

the lawful possession is enough. It may be very proper, under certain circumstances, for the teacher to go to the house of the parents for an explanation, or to receive or give advice; and it may be equally proper for parents, under certain circumstances, to go to the school-house for an explanation, or to receive or give advice, provided that, in both cases, it is done in the right spirit. For it must be borne in mind that the school-master has no right whatever to exercise authority over parents out of the school-house, and that parents, as such, have no right whatever to exercise authority over the master. When the interests of parents and teachers are properly understood, there will be complete harmony and unity of action ; but until that happy day comes, it is well enough for all to know that the teacher's position does not require him to please any parent, but to do his duty, even though he displease them all. The impression that parents have a right to go to the school and dictate to or insult the teacher is entirely contrary to the spirit and letter of the law establishing the common or public schools throughout the country. In private schools the case is somewhat different; for the parents there, in legal effect, are the emplòyers of the teacher, and consequently his masters; but in the common and public schools they are neither his employers nor his masters, and it is entirely out of place for them to attempt to give him orders. “If any parent, guardian, or other person, from any cause, fancied or real, visit a school with the avowed intention of upbraiding or insulting the teacher in the presence of the school, and shall so upbraid or insult a teacher, such person, for such conduct, shall be liable to a fine of not more than twentyfive dollars, which, when collected, shall go into the general tuition revenue.” (School Laws of Ind. 1865, p. 36, sec. 162.) “Any parent, guardian, or other person, who shall upbraid, insult, or abuse any teacher in the presence of the school, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and be liable to a fine of not less than ten nor exceeding one hundred dollars." (Revised School Law of Cal. 1866.) If any parent or guardian shall abuse a teacher, by the use of offensive language, or shall use any means to intimidate him from exercising proper discipline, the teacher may suspend from school privileges the children of such parent or guardian until the case can be heard and determined by the commissioner. (By-Laws of Md. School Comrs. 1865, p. 18, No. 11.) In no case shall a patron of the school, who has reason to complain of the discipline or conduct of the teacher, make such complaint in the presence of the pupils. The commissioner is the only person authorized to hear and determine charges against teachers. (Id. No. 10.) In Ohio, the boards of education have power to determine the studies to be pursued, and the school-books to be used in the several schools under their control. (Ohio School

case,

Laws, 1865, ch. 1, sec. 17.) The power herein vested in boards of education carries with it the authority to prescribe a course of study for such schools, and the right to determine, or to authorize the teachers to determine, the studies to be pursued by each individual pupil. The general course of study to be pursued in each school should be prescribed by the board of education; but the studies to be pursued, and the lessons to be prepared by each pupil, should be left to the teachers, or the acting manager of schools, who should be empowered by the board to assign such studies and lessons to each pupil as the advancement of such pupil and the classification of the school will permit of and justify. When the parent or guardian refuses to permit his child or ward to comply with the direction of the school authorities, such disorderly pupil may be suspended from school. Such authority is frequently exercised in the management of our best graded schools, and, in many instances, of our township sub-district schools. The success of every school requires classification and system, which can not be secured if every parent may dictate the studies to be pursued in school by his children. The law wisely vests such power in the school authorities. In case the township board fail to prescribe the studies to be pursued, or to authorize teachers to classify pupils, and assign their respective studies and lessons, the local directors may exercise such authority, though not to the extent, perhaps, of excluding pupils from school for non-compliance with their directions. In case neither the board nor the directors empower teachers to determine the studies of pupils, they may still exercise such authority, and refuse to instruci pupils in studies and classes which they have not assigned to them. Parents feeling aggrieved may appeal to the local directors or to the board of education. (Id. Dec. 57.)

There is no privity of contract between the parents of pupils and the teacher. His contract is with the town. He is responsible to the committee who represent the town. The general charge and superintendence of the schools, in the absence of express legal provisions, includes the power of determining what pupils shall be received and what rejected. If children are suffering from a contagious disease, or so impure in morals as to render association with them pernicious to others, the school committee may direct the teacher to exclude them temporarily or permanently. In such cases, neither parent nor pupil has a remedy against the teacher, nor against the committee, unless they have acted corruptly or maliciously in the proceeding. But the law will not presume that the committee, who are invested with the power of superintendence and management, will act arbitrarily and unjustly in a matter submitted to their judgment. Where schools are graded, the committee, under the general power of superintendence, will decide how the schools shall be organized, how many shall be kept, and what shall be the qualifications, as to age and attainments, for admission. The

« 上一頁繼續 »