Saint Mary's beacon. [volume] (Leonard Town, Md.) 1867-1983, 1878-10-10
TCoMMUNicATED
ST. CLEMENTS BAY. NM.
Oef n 1879

The excitement and dissatisfaction in
the community, resulting from the late
action OF the school authorities In re-
iecsing acme OF the experienced and
tired teachers and granting TO others .
lower grade Of certificate than they had
formerly held and which eliminated IN
holding the late indigpaiIoa meeting in
Leonardtown, seem sill 10 be sgitating
The public mind. There has long been
a deep-seated dissatisfaction and oppo-
sition 70 some Of the acts Of the School
Board; while they (the Board) have
heretofore exhibited an indifference
to The complaints and wishes Of the
people in some sections Of the coun-
Nv, bot II was reserved for their late ac-
ton 10 promote an organized protest
against and condemnation Of some OF
their acts.
The immediate cause ofthe late excite
ment, the rejection by Mr.. Examiner
Thomas, under the authority ofthe Board,
oi three or more teachers, and granting
lower grade OF certificate 10 others than
that which they had formerly held,
Teachers who previously held three
year certificates issued By DIR. Exami-
her Tippeit by authority Of The same
Board. And why was thisa The same
school law was in force then as now,
and Of course the same qualifications re-
quisite. Can il be that experience in
their vocation has disqualified those
teachers Why have always been
taught, and do know from my personal
knowledge. that experience is one Of
the best of teachers. Some Of those
teachers had also been hard students
during the intervening time. II there
fore they were adiudgcd as competent
three years ago, why not now ? Will
il be pretended that any incompetent
person obtained a certificate from the
previous Examiners II Is well known
that Mr.. Tippett was most erudite
scholar; that he was thorough, rigid and
searching in his examinations, and re-
CURED quite high standard OF qualif-
cation. And does any one suppose that
had he been Examiner he would have
rejected those whom he formerly COM
missioned. Why then do the Board,
after those teachers havN performed.
their duty well and faithfully and TO The
satisfaction Of al concernSd, 90 back
upon their former action of three years
ago and now pronounce them as unpro-
ftabIe servants and unfit for the posi-
lions which they have previously filed
with SO much credit to themselves and
satisfaction TO their patronss The Board
may pretend that they are raising the
standard Of qualification, but il seems to
me that Il would be much more mcrito-
rious and reasonable for the Examiner
by encouraging the formation ofteachers'
associations and Instructory meetings to
thus aid the teachers 20 advance their
qualifications and keep pace with the
spirit Of The aga than 10 turning down
tried and experienced teachers who en-
Joy in SO high degree the esteem and
confidence Of their patrons. And this
latter = something that the law requires
Of him and duty. which his predeces-
sor performed, bot which he, 50 far as
know, never thinks of. I admit that in
his examinations The same questions are
put 10 all the applicants alike and the
same time given TO all to answer them,
but here our positive knowledge Of his
examination stops. We know moth
ing, except so far as our knowledge
of our individual examination goes,
Of the business OF casting up the per-
eentage or giving the award. We do
know, however, that some received
large credits upon questions upon which
they were not examined, while others
perhaps equally meritorious received no
credit at ell. For instance, Mr.. Holmes,
acknowledged by the Board and Exami-
ner 10 be good teacher, received no cred
il for teaching power, while others re-
ceived 90, 90, and some as high as one
hundred per cent, which was marked
on the margin Of their certificate.
Though this award may mol be consid-
cred in grading the certificate, Il never
theless must have its influence upon
those 10 whom the applicant applies for
o school, for what must they think OF .
man whom they do not know, WAC al
though acknowledged TO beagood scho'.
ar, can receive no credit from the Exami-
ner for teaching powerf contend,
therefore, that il i fragrant act OF in
irstice to deny 10 . good teacher any
per cent. for teaching power, while 9TH
ers receive the iuN credit TO which they
are entitled. Sirs. do not wonder al
the resentment and hard feeling which
Mt present obtain against ths Examiner
and Board. II has been engendered by
their own acts: il il not groundless; it
Is not without cause, and though not
universal. il is at least general In the
community.
There il another matter upon which
wish to speak. II is the late pro rata
order Of the Board, under which q
teacher, III be average ten scholars, Is to
receive full salary-ifnot 50 many. he is
TO be paid pro rata. Toallthat has been
said by Teachers and Patron. in late COM
munacalions upon this order, Ilully agree
and will say further that there are many
causes which might conspire to prevent
the required average over which the
teacher has no control. For instance.
sickness. which Is the case 1T present
with many of the schools. q continual