Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1910-09-21
PAY Of TEACHERS
Miss Ida N. DAILY Discusses
Legal TangIe Over Law.
PROVISION FOR SALARIES
Injustice to the Local Instructors
Alleged.
ENACTMENT OF MAY 26, 1908
Hope Expressed That the Remedy
for Discrimination Will Not
Be Distracted.
PROVISION FOR SALARIES

To the Editor of The Star:


I was interested to read in last Sun
over the law passed by Congress May
49, 1910 remedying the injustice done the
local high school teachers since 1906.
simple statement of the case may be in
teresting to the readers Of The Star.
When the Davis law was passed in
New York granting a regular increase
for every year of experience in teaching
within certain minimum and maximum
the teachers in New York were placed
in the schedule according to their num-
Der of years of previous teaching ex-
perience. In nearly all cities in the
country laws have been passed similar
in principle to the Davis law, and the
local teachers were placed in the sched-
ule according to the 8umber Of previous
years of experience in teaching. In
Washington when the principle of the
Davis law was recognized in the law ap-
proved June 90 1906, the local teachers
were placed in the schedule only one
year in advance of their salaries at the
time. irrespective of whether they had
taught one, two or twenty years.
Results in Injustice.
The following injustice resulted: Owing
previous to 1906, teachers of recognized
ability of many years experience re-
ceived salaries below the minimum, so
that after 1905 the college graduate with
no experience received the same salary
as the excellent teacher of many years
experience. To illustrate: One such teach
er with nineteen years experience has
received since 1906 the same salary as
the inexperienced college graduate, ap-
pointed after June 20, 1906. The law APP
proved May %, 1908, amended the law of
1906 so that teachers imported from the
outside after that date were accredited
with their previous experience, thus ac-
centuating the injustice to the local
teachers. The law approved May 1S, 1910
was designed to remedy these injustices,
and while it is not retroactive in that it
does not compensate the teachers for
past inequalities 1T provides for a less
unjust Inequality for the future.
The form of the amendment clearly eX-
presses such intent on the part of Con-
greSS, as any one who reads the Hollow
ing will see: Provided, further. That
teachers now employed in group A, class
&, in the normal. high and manual train
ing schools, or hereafter to be appointed
in the said normal, high or manual train
ing schools, may be placed in said group
A. class 6, and receive their longevity
increase according to their experience In
teaching in accredited normal, high or
manual training schools. ="
Previously Decided.
The first question asked the controller
by the auditor as quoted in The Star Of
Sunday, September IS, whether the law
dates from the passage, of the act of May
1s; 1910, was previously decided by the
controller when. under the law. approved
May 26, 1908, creditfng outside teachers
with previous experience, outside teachers
who We're appointed after May &c. but
before July l. the beginning of the fiscal
year. were accredited with previous years
of experience This action, OF the con-
troller would seem to decide that a law
affecting the salary schedule dates from
the passage of the law.
The last question asked of the control
Ter, as to whether the five years of ex-
perience requisite for appointment of a
candidate without college degree should
be deducted from the number Of years
in accrediting the longevity pay, does
not apply to teachers who were teaching
in 1906 as by provision of the law of
1905 this qualification was TO apply only
to new appointees.