The Manitowoc pilot. [volume] (Manitowoc, Wis.) 1859-1932, 1891-10-29

of Milwaukee city teachers, will hardly
add to his reputation as a lawyer In
this matter Supt. Wells is the better law
yer of the two and is unquestionably
right IN his Interpretation of the law
touching the legality of teachers certif-
Gates.
Mr.. Austin's opinion that "the words
ability to teach are Synonymous with
qualified to teach and authorized to
teach" finds refutatlon in the fact that
there are thousands of persons in Wis
consIn today who are competent to teach
IN public schools without being legally
qualified. If Mr.. Austin was admitted
to the bar in Michigan his abil-
ity as a lawyer might not be questioned
in this state but the certificate OF admis-
sion would not be an authorization to
practice In this state. Authority" is
secured only through forms prescribed
| by law no matter how unguestioned the
ability.
The personality of Mr.. Wells plays no
part in the dispute 1t is simply what
| the law prescribes and the duty of the
state superintendent in the premises.
The city charter of Milwaukee cannot
contravene a general statute unless the
statute is express in its permission, and
nowhere are the statutes regarding the
qualification of teachers generally made
special for particular schools except as to
teachers of free high schools.
| A diploma authorizes no one to teach
unless it be counterslgned by the state
superintendent. When Mr.. Austin asks
how the holder of a normal school diplo-
ma could teach one year SO as to enable
him to obtain a counter-signature In case
he desired it," he forgets that the holder
of the diploma does not teach one year by
virtue of his diploma when not counter
signed, but by virtue of the certificate
which he must have to be a legally quail
fed teacher during the year of his pro-
| baton.
The law is specific on this point:
Every person who shall desire to teach
unless he shall hold a diploma or
certificate THEN authorizing him to teach"
shall procure certificate &c.
How is the certificate to be procured?
The law states in unmistakable terms:
Every applicant for certificate shall
be EXAMINED in the subjects hereinafter
mentioned" &c.
The law permits only one way to de-
termine the qualification of teacher not
holding valid certificate or It's equiva-
| lent examination. The diploma does
| not give the authority to teach until
oountersigned by the state superinten-
dent. Otherwise counter-signature is
wholly unnecessary. The law specially
provides that the diploma "shall have
| the force and effect of an unlimited state
certificate" after having been counter
| signed by the state superintendent. Mr..
Austin's opinion would make the diplo-
ma state certificate ab initiO, and thus
make unnecessary the probative year and
counter-signature which the law requires.
This avenue is not open for the reason
that the law prescribes different course.
Granted, that the state dlscredits the
work OF its own institutions by requiring
| an examination OF their graduates before
permitting them to teach, though tested
before graduation to determine this abil-
| ity, and the whole course of training has
| special reference 10 this end, the inconsis-
| tency does not change the law.
Mr.. Austln's opinion would give a first
| grade county certificate the full effect of
an unlimited state certificate as it is a
certificate of ability to teach and we have
no reason to believe, in the absence Of
evidence to the contrary, that the exani-
ner did not fully comply with the law.
| Limited state certificates would become
unlimited without question as they are
| issued by the same officer on the recon-
mendation of the same committee and
co-equal in their authorization to teacn
within period of five years.
When Mr. Austin says that a teacher
of any foreign language in a public
| school is exempt from the examination
| required of teachers OF English branches
| heinterprets law without warrant. Where
| does the law give authority to test the
teachers knowledge of a foreign Ian
guage? Must the teacher hold certifi-
cate attesting his competency? IF SO
how does Mr. Austin escape the provision
that ''no person shall receive any certii-
cate who does not write and speak the
English language with facility and cor
rectness?" For less than this the law is
peremptory in its refusal. The examiner
has some option as to the standing of
the applicant in the branches enumerat-
ed for certificate, but none SO far as
ignorance of the English Language is con-
| cerned. No teacher can legally be paid
from the school treasury unless he holds
valid certificate. Whom does the law
recognize as competent teacher2" One
unfamiliar with the English language?
Would not the law state competent
teacher in the foreign language to be
| taught" if competel cy in the foreign
language is the desideratum? Where is
the linguist who is to determine the COM
potency of the Turk or Arabian? No one
ever before interpreted this provision
otherwise than that the teacher of for
eign language In public sc;iCol should
have the qualifications of a public school
teacher. The necessity for this provision
is apparent to every one who has had
anything to do with public schools in
which the patrons desire some instruc-
ton given in foreign language. The
purpose is to prevent a subordination of
the English branches to the foreign
language and the law was evidently franz