Dakota farmers' leader. (Canton, S.D.) 1890-19??, 1906-08-17
IMPORTANT FOR TEACHERS
A Vexed Question Submitted to
Prominent Educators who
Discuss the Zero Mark
In Glass Work.
Aberdeen, S. D.. July 26, 1906.


Supt. C. G. Lawrence,
G.. 3. Kennedy. Esq, Canton, 5. ID.
Gentlemen: On the 22nd of May,
1906, you submitted to M. NJ. Ramer,
Superintendent of Public Instruction,
and G. W. Nash, President Of the
Northern Normal and Industrial
School, the following questions:
l.. "If a student in a written test
recitation is discovered giving aid to
another pupil taking the same test,
is a teacher justified in not consider
ing his test and in marking him zero
on the teSt?"
2. '.If a pupil dismissed from class
during a recitation because OF his
misconduct, has a teacher the right
work when the probability is that he
would receive a high mark ii he were
allowed to recite?"
The two arbitrator named above,
having failed to agree in their con-
illusions concerning the matter at
issue, selected w. F. Eddy, County
Superintendent Of Brown county, as
a third member Of the board. After
carefully considering the arguments
submitted, a majority of the board
unite in the following opinion.
L. sIf the fact is clearly established
that a student has merely given aid
in a written test, his papers should
be accepted and graded as any other
papers OF the test. The student,
however, should be punished for his
misconduct"
2. TNo student should be marked
zero in class standing unless his reci-
tation. fairly before the teacher, has
been an utter failure. The element
OF punishment cannot properly enter
into a class mark"
Respectfully submitted,
G. w. NASH,
w. F. EDDY.
Pierre, S. D., Aug. IL, 1906.
Supt. G. &. Lawrence,
C. b. Kennedy, Esq, Canton, S. d.
Gentlemen: Referring to the mat
ter in controversy between you. rela.
tive to the following questions:
l. of a pupil in a written test
gives aid to another pupil taking the
same test should the teacher mark
the former pupil Zero on said test?"
2. "If a pupil is dism Used from
class because Of misconduct, would
the teacher be justified In marking
him zero for the work OF that recita'
tionYn
/ note that President G.. w. Nash
and Superintendent W.. F. Eddy, OF
Aberdeen, have passed upon these
questions and answered them mega
lively. / must certainly dissent from
ANY such decision for the following
reasons:
/. '.Any child ought to be willing
to stand on his own ground and re
ccive the results Of his own action
A pupil by giving aid in a written
test, or by misbehaviOr SO as to re-
quire the teacher to dismiss him
from the room, by that act renders q
recitation by him impossible. 1t Ii
not fair to the teacher, nor Just tC
the pupil, nor fair to the other pupils
of his class, to require the teacher tC
go to the additional labor Of granting
an extra test or hearing a pupil recite
outside OF regular class time. The
giving OF a zero to this pupil Is fitting
punishment to the offense, and In my
Judgment, is entirely appropriate"
2. 1.-THE practice OF giving a zero
for misconduct OF this kind is vel
nigh universal among teachers, as my
observation serves me, and ii the pu-
pills OF a school were to realize that
the teacher could not resort to this
legitimate means OF punishment, it
would demoralize discipline and break
a teachers power.
3. sin my travels / have consulted
some twenty educators on this qnes'
ton, and fully ninety per cent OF
them will disagree with the majority
decision as rendered by my co-arbit-
ers-"