River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1879-02-27
Educational.
IN. y. BAKER, A. H., Editor.
COUNTY SuPERNTENDEHT.)
TEACHERS CONTRACTS.
BY ALLEN P. WELD, ESQ.

IL has Dceu dSScIIcu budI dS IHC law
now stands teachers contract must
be in writing.
The law in regard to teachers con-
tracts has been amended several times.
See R. S. of 1858. Chapter 20 S. q; See.
IL, ch. 155, laws 1868; Sec. oh. Ill,
1866; Sec. 2 CHI. Ill, 1857; Sec. l. CHI.
100, 1871; Oh. 101 1872. and Sec. 107
eli. 155 1853 and r. S. of 1873, Sec.
1873. Up to 1872 the law merely
specified that the contract should be
in writing. In 1872 the law was
changed so as to make the district
board contract with the teacher and
with slight verbal amendment that
is the law now. In 1872 and r. S. of
1878 the words sin writing are not
inserted, but the law reads as follows:
''The District Board shall contract
with and hire duly qualified teachers
in the name of the district, and the
contract ma shall specify the wages
per week, month or year to be paid,
and when completed shall be filed in
the office of the district clerk, with a
copy of the certificate of the teacher
so employed attached thereto, and a
copy of said contract shall be furnish
ed 10y the clerk to the teacher. No
contract with any person not holding
a diploma or certificate then authoriz-
ing him to teach, shall be valid, and
all such contracts shall terminate If
the authority given to teach shall ex-
pire by limitation aud shall not be re-
newed, or if it shall be revoked"
Now it is the very evident intention
of the Legislature that this contract
shall be in writing, otherwise it could
not be filed. The words contract
made used in the connection in which
they stand, very evidently refer to
putting the contract in permanent
form. Again the clerk is to furnish
IL copy of the contract to the teacher.
That which exists in parol only would
be difficult to copy. The form of the
contract is not prescribed nor the
manner of executing it.
In view of the fact that up to 1872
the direction was specified that the
clerk should make the contract in
writing, that the change in the law ev-
identity contemplated only that the
district board instead of the clerk as
before should make the contract that
it is impossible to comply with the
law as it now stands unless the con-
contract is reduced to some permanent
form and the further fact that the
teacher is entitled to a copy of such
contract, the conclusion seems newt
able that the contract must be in
writing. That is, either partly writ
ten and partly printed or either if so
executed as to satisfy the law. The
law is now silent as to manner of exc
cution. Hence we may conclude that
if signed by the teacher and by the
clerk of the district If such signature
is adopted by the Board as evidencing
their action, the contract would be
valid. As the law was up to 1872
this would not have been valid con-
tract, and it would be safer now to
have the majority, at least, of the
board execute the contract in behalf
of the district. 1t may not be out of
place to add here, that it is possible
that if services are rendered to a dis
trict and accepted by the districtof an
unauthorized teacher, the district
could be held liable. 1S Wisconsin
Reports l91. The case however is not
decisive of the point and in view of
the fact that certain contracts are by
the law pronounced" inudtid'' the safer
course would certainly be to have a
contract in writing signed by the
teacher and the district board, especi-
ally as the law Is far more stringent
now than when that decision was
made, and that decision clearly shows
that the teacher in that case could
have been prevented from teaching at
any early stage of her school by any
taxpayer in the district.