Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1858-01-01
TO All who are Intere.tcd IN the Conn

The course pursued by the Board Of
School Examiners in this county has not
only resulted in the rejection of ify-six ap-
plicants for certificates of qualification, but
has been the cause of much complaint, both
against the Board itself and the officer mp
pointing them. Much of this complaint
has arisen from the disaffection Of few Of
the rejected applicants, and has unfortunate
ly extended TO the local directors of sub
districts, and others interested in schools.
That the public man know who arc in
the fault ask a careful perisal of the fol-
lowing. First, has the officer, upon whom
devolves the duty of appointing the board
Of examiners, done anything which renders
him justly chnrgeable with blame in this
matter9
The law makes it the duty of the Pro-
bate Judge Of each and every county in the
State to appoint county board of school
examiners TO consist of three competent
persons.
Now this is just what has been done in
this county, no ono pretends that the board
is not competent, but that it is too rigid in
its examinations, asking too much from its
applicants. But why blame the officer ap-
pointing it Has he to any extent violated
the law in so doing? or was it wrong to ap-
point well qualified and fully competent
board9 ? Certainly no one will pretend this,
but had there been board of inefficient
and incompetent persons appointed, there
would have been just and good cause for
censure.
But says the objector, the board should
be removed from office, and Others appoint
ed in their stead, such as will give us teach
ers. In reply would say that the statute
confers no power to remove upon the ap-
appointing officer, each member of the board
holds his office for the term of two years,
and until his successor is appointed. After
the appointment is made all duties of tho
Probate Judge in the matter at once cease
and no member of the board, or the whole
collectively are in the least degree amena-
bic to him. The undersigned then would
respectfully entreat that no further blame
be attached to him in this matter. And
would here say that much of the feeling
which now exists against the board, has
been excited by such applicants as are Who'll
! ly unfit to teach any of our primary schools,
and who have no other than a monied in
terest.
Of the truth of this the papers made out
by them for the inspection of the board of
examiners, furnishes abundant evidence. The
importance of employing in our public
schools teachers of practical experience and
sound education, should be fully understood.
1t is self-evident proposition, that if teach
ers have not experience and aptitude to
teach, or of limited or defective education.
in the elementary branches, they cannot
have any other than poor schools The
employment of poorly qualified teachers in
wolves a serious disadvantage, which is too
often overlooked
If child be started wrong in his cdu-
cation, it will require as much time to un-
learn what he has learned amiss, as it would
to obtain correct knowledge at the outset,
hence the necessity of thoroughness in the
examination of teachers, and hence to the
requirements of law, that tho examiners
shall not grant certificates of qualification
to such as cannot teach orthography, read
ing, writing, arithmetic, geography and En-
gish grammar. Why then should the board
of examiners be censured? They have on
ly complied with law and the best interests
of schools, and in elevating the standard Of
qualification, above that of former boards
they have not even yet advanced TO the
point to which law and the best interests
of schools would permit. A few counties
of this State have heretofore complained O
the same thing, but in all such cases it wa.
found, that it only created a demand fo
good teachers, and that that demand neve
long failed to bring the supply. 1t is al
admitted fact, that, in every township some
of the schools have been uniformly good
while others have been as uniformly poor
In the former the demand has always beer
for good teachers and no Others; but in tn,
latter, the proclamation has been, our schoo
is backward, therefore poor teacher vii
answer the purpose. Tho very course t
keep it backward. But, say tho objectors
the high order of qualifications required b,
the examiners, deprives many schools c
teachers, and of those too with whom tn
people in the district are we'll satisfied. /
reply it need only TO be said, that the lay
constitutes the examiners judges of tn
qualifications Of such teachers, and not tn
local directors, or any one else; were thi
. not the case there would be no need of e,
: aminers at all. Again it is further obje,
! ted that school teachers should not be scho,
a examiners. And why mott Are not stl
4 dents of law examined bnfora n hoard 4