The Washington times., 1916-01-22
VICTORY IS CLAIMED
BY SCHOOL TEACHERS
Redrafted Bin Offered by New
man Removed Their PrlncI-
pal Objection to Change.
tcontlnued from Flrrt Psrsl

=
Judges Of the Supreme Court OF the Dis
trict, he said he believed the teachers
would favor the latter becauHe OF the
high records made by boards so APP
pointed.
A curious development OF the con-
test between the Board OF Education
and the Commissioners, IL was rotnt-
ed out. lies in the fact that usually
when a board of education 10 under
fre there will be at least small
group of school employees to Join In
the attack. So far as they organized
at all, tho teachers were unanimous
in their support of the board during
the present contest.
THE High School Teachers Aegocia-
tlon concerned itself only with the
way in which the change would affect
teachers" said Mr.. Wallis, believing
that the larger Issues of financial re-
sponsibility and other questions were
matters that concerned the Board ot
Education primarily.
Various Plans Studied.
1--WE prepared for presentation to
the committee a brief summary of the
various plans under which the Wash
ington schools have been operated.
laying stress upon the improved Geo.
dition of teachers. and. we believe. tie
marked progress in the schools under
the present one. Our other line of
inquiry concerned the practice in
other cities. especially those having
commission forms of government AZ
to the control of school affairs. There
we found only one clear-cut instance
of the commissioners appointing the
Echool board, none where the commits
gioners appointed the teachers and
not a single clear-cut instance whore
they named the superintendent.
These facts, with tables furnished
by the research committee of the
Public Education Association, we in
corporated in our report to Mr.. Lloyds
subcommittee"
tion's report was that dealing with the
defects OF previous plans. Before July
j, 1900, the Commissioners named the
superintendent and a board of trustees.
teachers. A long list of defects under
this plan was listed, Including 'one-
man rule by superintendent as the rep
resentative of the Commissioners in
by arbitrary rule as to details; fear on
part of teachers of uncertainty Of te-
nure of office; alleged unfair methods
Of appointment: friction between super
intendent and teachers.
School Interests Suffered.
Under the second plan, adopted in
1900, there also was no salary schedule
for teachers. The Commissioners sp-
pointed the board, which appointed the
superintendent. Defects charged against
this plan included these: when educa-
tional interests conficted with material
interests fire. police, etc.). the educa-
tional interest always yielded; teachers
po eS1eH drp;n,st sSSHn bo1rd iA nnt 01 eS S,I-
perintendent, seemed to be supreme in
educational matters"
Even after the present school law was
adopted, in which the salary act was
a.
amended to the advantage OF teachers
In 1908. 1910 and 1912, teachers still had
to go to court, II Is asserted, for rights
which they now believe they should be
permitted 70 enjoy. None of the amend
ments changed the fundamental prin-
ciples OF the law of June 20, 1906.
Among the points fought ought In
court by the teachers were the right OF
teachers here to have the same credit
in longevity records as those who came
here from outside the city. 1t was found
that the law was so loosely woTded that
there was question as to whether 4
teacher who. before its enactment. had
taught here for many years. was entitled
to the allowance for a teacher in the
service for that period. while teacher
who came here was clearly entitled to It.
Don't Want Law Disturbed.
TO cite concrete case. a teacher who
was engaged in a high school here re-
ceived $3.50 on the basis of having had
ten years experience elsewhere, while
in the same high school were many who
could not claim credit for ten years
service in the Washington schools.
Another anomaly OF the law which
was straightened out bv the courts was
! in the ruling made bv the District off,
cials that teachers nay, like that Of Gov
ernment employees. should be on a per
diem basis of S65 days in the year.
Thus. If teacher were absent from
school Friday and Monday. she lost four
days pay. that for Saturday and Sun
day. One teacher absent five days in
| June. when the schools closed about
June Is. lost a half months pay. An
other absent Just before and Just after
the Christmas holidays lost nearly n
months pay. The teachers paid for
| fighting this point in the courts.
"These are a few of the troubles
| teachers have had. even under the pres
ent law" said Mr.. Wallis. land that
is why they are anxious not to have It
disturbed again.
--------------------