1847-1848 School Committee Report

Browse Search

12 has a right to his opinion, of course ; and we have not a word to say, especially after the very remarkable success of the teacher in the North district during the last year, in deroga- tion of the employrnent of females in some of our schools. But after a male teacher has been engaged, and enters upon his duties, it is the duty of all, if he is not entirely acceptable, to acquiesce kindly, and endeavor, instead of fostering and increas- ing dissatisfaction, to quiet objections, and rigidly set their face against all disorder among the scholars. Let him, who has the hardihood, deny this statement. We do not envy the district, in which his baneful influence shall be exerted. In the next place, we would remark, that we trust those per- sons who have seemed to labor under the error, will keep in mind the distinction between tale -bearing, and a manly and hearty cooperation with the teacher, in the preservation of order. A tale -bearer is one, who, for the sake of involving his fellows in difficulty, informs against them, and seeks to bring down up- on them the frown of the teacher, for the smallest fault, which has escaped his notice. There is a meanness in this, that could not be encouraged by any person of a generous heart, and pos- sessed of common sense. It is, however, a very different thing from coming forward at the request of the teacher, to give him information in regard to those who have conspired together to break up the order of the school. Such a conspiracy did actu- ally exist in the South district. There was a spirit of rebellion against the authority of the teacher. He knew it, it was proved to the satisfaction of the Committee, and we instructed him to break it up, to make it his great aim to ferret out the offenders. Now, we do not say, that any of the members of the district directly encouraged any such rebellion ; but it was the obvious, unavoidable effect of their keeping alive the agitation and discon- tent in the district, that the scholars should feel encouraged in repeated acts of disobedience. For the loss of time and money, therefore, of which many complain, they have in a great mea- sure to thank themselves. And, again, as to the ground assumed, that because a large portion of the district were dissatisfied, the school should have been discontinued, this certainly ought not to be the principle in a 13 the management of schools. In the first place, the Committee are bound to consult, as well the interests and opinions of that other portion, who repose entire confidence in the teacher. The welfare of their children should also be kept in view. And still further, though no school should be sacrificed merely for the sake of a teacher, yet no teacher should be sacrificed, unless he is clearly proved to be unfit for his station. He has a repu- tation to maintain, a livelihood to gain; and, if faithful in his work, he deserves the support of the Committee, even if unac- ceptable to some. A petition was drawn up and signed by a majority of the district, requesting the Prudential committee to dismiss the teacher. But this, again, was an illegal proceeding, the Prudential committee having no such power. We confess our surprise, that some, who signed the petition, did not better understand the law. They were led to do so, because of the decision of the legal counsel, to which reference has been made. But if the laws on schools, which are at hand in every district, had been consulted, a different conclusion would have been reached, and the Superintending Committee would not have seemed to be usurping any power. Others signed the petition, we suppose, because, there being so much dissatisfaction, they deemed it best to close the school. Yet, even if that were a pro- per rule for deciding such a question, which we deny, it was the duty of every one to inquire into the grounds of dissatisfac- tion, and go to the proper authority to have them removed. Whatever the motives of the signers to the petition, even if en- tirely correct and justifiable, they asked something that could not be done ; and although the existence of the petition was known to us, we could not regard it. We were not governed by majorities or rninorities on this subject ; though, if by either, we should have felt more sympathy with the minority. This is, we repeat, no ground of action. If all but two or three of a district, were opposed to a teacher, it could not constitute righteous ground of action, unless we were convinced, from an investigation of the facts in the case, that the teacher was in the wrong. From all we could learn and know, such was not the case. The opponents of the teacher did not allow us any opportunity to ascertain any thing different, if it existed.