Waterbury evening Democrat., 1904-05-12
THE THEATERS
THE NEEDY sCHooLMA'AM.

Our present laws against the mar riage of school teachers-no, 1 am too gainst the marriage of women schoolteachers, on pain of of fcial decapitatiOn, are historically amusing. We shall laugh at them, a few years hence, as we now laugh at the sumptuary laws of the past. For instance, the worthy Zaleucus, 45O B. O., ordained that no woman should appear in the street attended by more than one laidservant-unless she were drunk Edward III of England stroye to keep his subjects down to a menu of two courses only; and our own more recent forefathers in New England prohibited such personal de- corations as they chose to consider too expensive for common citizens.
 Why should not school teacher have a husband if she chooses? The married state does not detract from the ability of an educator. Indeed, as all teaching originated ill motherhood, and as that experience is understood to hayesa widening and ennobling in fuence, it is hard to see why school children should be deDarred from the advantageous society of the married teacher with her calm happiness, or of the mother teacher, with her new depths of love.
 Are any instances given of a falling off in efficiency in teachers after mar riage? Is it claimed that n happy wife can not give as much attention to her work as hopeful damsel or a re- signed spinster?
 Not at all!
 The contention is that the teacher who marries has got another job, and should give up her former position to one who needs it more than she does.
 It has been wisely and conclusiyely answered that the married woman who elects to continue her school work does so either because of especial de- yotlon to that work, or because she continues to need the salary. So the upholders of spinster schoolma' 'ams are caught on either horn of the di- lemma-if the married teacher wants to teach because of especial interest in the work, she has a right to it on the ground of fitness; if she wants to teach because she needs the money she has right to it on the grounds of nee ess1ty. The essential error in the whole discussion lies in our common misuse of the term ''need,'' which inn plies that the. schools of our country are maintained at great public ex- pense for the purpose of providing food and clothing to a number of sin gle women. A school Is an institution Tor the education of children, and all ts processes and standards are to be Judged and measured as they conSuce to that end.
 It q woman is a good school teacher though married to millionaire We have as much need of her services as We should have if her husband De dependent on her salary for bread
 What the woman does with her mon ey IS no concern of the school board Whether she needs" it or not is no busnesS of theirs.
 The child needs the good teacher and that is the only question of '.need'' which belongs to this subject
 It is the business of the school sys- tenn to select develop, and secure the best possible teachers; not to consti- tute itself an arbitrary court to con demn our children to an endless sue cess1on of inexperienced girl teachers. who only do the work for pay. and drop it as soon as they get a better situation
 The public school is not n youno woman's financial aid society. nor on old ladies home.-Success