Buchanan County bulletin. [volume] (Independence, Iowa) 1869-1891, 1878-12-20
EDUCATIONAL DEPARTMENT.
VIM. ELDEN, Editor.
Authority Of the Teacher.


ter of correspondent who refers ap-
provingly to our recent article upon the
Moral Suasion and Compulsory Educa-
ton dilemma, which has been repeated
with appreciation by number of our
exchanges. Right here, then, we desire
to disclaim advocacy of corporal punish
ment except as a last resort, before ex-
pulsion, precisely as it should be en-
ployed by a parent when all other means
fail. in preference to leaving the child
to grow up in insubordination, a curse
to himself and society. Society cannot
permit the teacher to shirk his respon-
sibilities by turning unruly scholars out
of doors until every means Of educating
them (compulsion last of alb has been
tried. The very fact that the teacher
may and will, when all other means fail,
use physical coercion, renders him
stronger to reform the few who are at
first almost insensible to moral sua-
sion, without actual appeal to it. Ac-
cordingly, man who is fit to govern
school will rarely use the rod, but will,
under no provocation, apply it in anger.
What we urge upon the attention OF
school boards is the fact that it was not
the expectation of the founders of our
public school system that refractory
school boys should be excluded from
school privileges until every means to
govern them in school had been ex-
hausted
In this opinion, as to the authority
and duty Of the teacher in such cases,
we are sustained by all the courts of
highest appeal in this country. Three
Supreme Court decisions have come to
us within month from as many differ
ent States. The courts hold that indie
pendent of any affirmative instructions
from school boards, the teacher, because
he stand IN loco parentts, is clothed with
authority to use any means of governing
his pupils that the parent may exercise
at home, corporal punishment included
As an authoritative declaration Of the
duty of the teacher to exercise all
means to govern his school. including
corporal punishment, and finally, when
all these fail, to resort to suspension, we
take the following extract from deci-
sion rendered by the Supreme Court Of
Wisconsin, at its last August session
Observe that the Court holds that the
teacher may, under certain circum-
stances, suspend scholar from school
without direct Instructions from the
school board, but also observe that it
plainly regards suspension and expul-
sion as remedies of last resort to be ap-
piled only when the offender is incorri-
gible." Austin f. Burpee, of Janesville,
Wisconsin, applied for writ of manda
mus to compel the readmlssion Of his
son to the high school, after he had
been suspended by the Principal, for in
subordination. The lower court had
granted the writ; on appeal the Su-
preme Court reversed this award. In
its decision it says:
On the argument of the appeal, coun
sci informed us that the learned Circuit
Judge held that the defendant has no
power to suspend a pupil for any cause,
such power being vested by law eXclu-
siyely in the Board of Education and
that the demurrer to the return was
sustained on that ground. Whether the
defendant had such power of suspen-
sion, and, if so, whether it was pro-
perly exercised in the present case, are
the controlling questions to be determ-
ined on this appeal.
While the Principal or teacher in
charge of public school is subordinate
to the School Board or Board of Edu-
cation of his district or city, and must
enforce rules and regulations adopted
by the board for the government OF the
school, and execute all its lawful orders
in that behalf, he does not derire all his
po,cer and outhority in tie school and orer
his pupils from the afi,matire action Of
tile Board He stands for the time be-
ing IN loco parentis to his pupils, and be-
cause of that relation he must necessa
rily exercise authority over them in
many things concerning which the board
may have remained silent. In the school,
as in the family, there exists on the
part of the pupils the obligation of obe
dience to lawful commands, subordina-
ton, civil department, respect for the
rights of other pupils, and fidelity to
duty These obligations are inherent in
any proper school system, and consti
tute, so to speak, the common ia'c Of the
school. Every pupil is presumed to
know this law and is subject to it,
whether it has or has not been re-enact-
ed by the District board in form Of writ
ten rules and regulations. Indeed, it
would seem impossible to frame rules
which could cover all cases Of insubor
dination and all acts Of vicious tendency
which the teacher is liable to encounter
daily and hourly.
The teacher is responsible for the dis
cipline of his school, and for the pro-
gress conduct and department of his
pupils. 1t is his imperative duty to
maintain good order, and to require of
his pupils faithful performance of
their duties. If he fails to do so, he is
unfit for his position. To enable him to
discharge these duties effectually, he
must necessarily have the power to en-
force prompt obedience to his lawful
commands. For this reason the law
gives him power, in proper eases, to
mRict corporal punishment upon refroc-
tory pupils. But there are cases of
misconduct for which such punishment
is an inadequate remedy. If the offender
rs incorrigible, suspension or erpulston is
the only adequate remedy. In general,
TO doubt, the teacher should report a
case of that kind to the proper board for
its action in the first instance, it no de-
lay will necessarily result from that
course prejudicial to the best interests
of the school, But the conduct of the
recusant pupil may be such that his
presence in the school for day or an
hour may be disastrous to the discipline
of the school, and even to the morals Of
the other pupils In such case, it
seems absolutely essential to the well
fare of the school that the teacher
should have the power to suspend the
offender at once from the privileges of
the school; and he must necessarily de-
eide for him whether the case requires
that remedy. If he suspends the pupil,
he should promptly report his action,
and his reasons therefor, to the proper
board. We conclude, therefore that the
teacher has, in proper case, the inher
ent power to suspend a pupil from the
privileges of his school, unless he has
been deprived of the power by the af
firmative action of the proper board