twenty-five years of good work, however, there are fewer than 350 Winthrop graduates now teaching in South Carolina. This is less than half the present student body. The explanation is easy. The average Winthrop graduate marries before she has spent as much time in the schools as she spent in the college walls. Her training course is by no means wasted, but this fact does not simplify the problem of those who are endeavoring to find trained teachers for the country schools of the State. The same is true of the graduates of other colleges. . . . Most of our country teachers are at best high school graduates, and we must meet the condition which actually presents itself. If they are to have any special preparation for teaching it must be given in connection with the high school. In my opinion the situation imperatively demands a short training course for rural teachers in connection with selected four-year high schools of the State. In proportion to the expenditure, this would give the largest immediate returns for the country schools.

The average teaching life of a South Carolina teacher is four years. We cannot afford to let her spend even one year of this time in painful groping or hopeless inefficiency. It may be urged that a teacher should complete a college course before taking up professional work. This may be true, but we must remember that we are dealing with conditions and not with theories. As long as our country schools are taught by people who have had only a high school training or less, it is nonsense to argue that preparation should be delayed till the completion of a college course. If our country boys and girls are to have satisfactory_educational opportunities, something must be done. At present, because of lack of preparation, most of our country boys and girls are debarred from college scholarships, and consequently many who because of their country experience would make good rural teachers have no opportunity for preparation. A girl reared in the city cannot enter into full sympathy with country conditions, and is naturally not inclined to submit to the inconveniences which fall to the lot of the country teacher. The result tends to perpetuate and accentuate differences which are already too great. The high school training course will give a measure of relief.

CHAPTER XXIII

THE CERTIFICATION OF TEACHERS

THE first article reproduced describes the history of nearly a century of effort in Indiana in the evolution of a state system for the certification of teachers for the schools of the state, and with the process as yet incomplete. The history of the struggle in Indiana is typical of the experience in many other states. The second article points out the chief defects still existing in our certification laws, and the remedies still needed. The third constitutes the recommendations of the Illinois Educational Commission with regard to the matter, and the arguments there advanced for a state system, as opposed to a series of local systems, are fundamentally sound.

I. THE LICENSING OF TEACHERS IN INDIANA

[From Rawles, W. A., The Centralization of Administration in Indiana, pp. 85–92.]

From the first attempt to establish a school system, it was recognized in theory that some special test of the fitness of teachers should be required. The law of 1824 gave the sub-trustees of the school district authority to employ a teacher, who was required "to produce the certificate of the township trustees that they have examined him touching his qualifications and particularly as respects his knowledge of the English language [reading and spelling], writing and arithmetic." Although this provision was mandatory, the practical operations of the law could scarcely be called a test. The officers who passed upon the qualifications of teachers seldom had qualifications sufficient to apply the law. Incapacity to earn a living in any other way seemed often the chief recommendation of the teacher. State Superintendent B. C. Hobbs said: "The pioneer teachers were generally adventurers from the East or from England, Scotland or Ireland, who sought

temporary employment . . . or men unsuccessful in trade, or who were lame or otherwise disabled."

In 1833 it was provided that no teacher should be employed unless he should "sustain a satisfactory examination before the district trustees, touching his ability to teach reading, writing and arithmetic." An effort was made in 1834 to give to the examination a more professional nature. The Circuit Court was given power to appoint annually for each county three examiners, whose duty it was" to certify the branches of learning each applicant was qualified to teach." Their authority was not final; for they were only an auxiliary to aid " the district trustees, who still possessed the right to examine the teachers. In other words, a teacher holding a certificate of qualification from the examiners might be refused employment if he had not been examined and approved by the district trustees. A few years later trustees were forbidden to employ any teacher who did not hold a certificate granted by one of the examiners; but the district trustee enjoyed the privilege of subjecting the applicant to further inquiries, to ascertain whether or not he was of good moral character. The following year it was made optional with the district trustees to require any teacher asking for employment to procure a certificate from the school examiners, stating the branches which he was qualified to teach.

In spite of this reactionary provision, there was a growing conviction that the improvement of the schools was dependent upon the elevation of the teacher's calling to the rank of a profession by requiring of him the possession of higher ability, more thorough preparation and finer character. The personnel of the teaching corps was gradually improving. However, it is not to be supposed that in all sections the law was enforced with uniformity and impartiality. Often it was necessary to lower the standard in order to secure any one who was willing to accept the meagre compensation offered.

The law of 1843, designating the Treasurer of State ex officio Superintendent of Common Schools, instituted no connection between that officer and the county examiners, and required no report from them. The lack of system and uniformity is well illustrated by the special laws for sixteen different counties, permitting their boards of county commissioners to appoint one or more persons in each civil township of their respective counties as examiners of common school teachers.

In 1847 the standard was raised somewhat by the requirement that teachers should be qualified to teach orthography, reading, writing, arithmetic, English grammar and geography; but the

last two requirements might be waived by a request of a majority of the voters at a district meeting. Four years later a still greater concession to the wishes of individual neighborhoods was given, by making it lawful for a majority of the voters at a school district meeting to dispense with such legal qualifications of school teachers as they might deem proper.

In 1852 a decided step towards centralization was taken. The office of examiner was abolished and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction was given power, either by himself or his deputy,1 to examine all applicants for license and to grant certificates for one or two years. Such licenses could be revoked by him if the teachers should prove incompetent. No officer could employ a teacher who had not procured a license. The law did not require the deputy to use questions prepared by the State Superintendent, and but few deputies were appointed under this act.

There is little doubt that this centralization of authority was unpopular, for in the next year the office of county examiner? was revived. The examiners were required to forward an annual report to the State Superintendent, showing the dates of issuance and expiration of all licenses granted by them. The terms varied from three to twenty-four months. The State Superintendent still had authority to license teachers at his pleasure. As this law applied to all counties and districts without exception, it assured a greater degree of uniformity. At the same time, its flexibility made it adaptable to the needs of all communities and thus, in a a measure, silenced objections. The purpose of having a graduated scale was to set a high standard of qualification at which all persons proposing to teach should aim, and at the same time to provide for the existing emergencies, owing to the scarcity of teachers, by authorizing a short-term license to persons who might not be able to pass a rigid examination. From the subsequent reports of examiners, this seemed a wise and necessary expedient.

The regulation of the issuing of teachers' licenses was far from satisfactory. A license granted in one county under a lenient examiner was legal in any other county where a more exacting test was required. There was no authority for the revocation of a license issued by an examiner. There were serious charges of partiality where private examinations were permitted. There was no uniform standard in the examinations even within a single county. He who was most lenient and superficial was most patronized. A teacher failing to pass with one examiner frequently applied to another and received a license." With the

66

He was authorized to appoint one deputy in each county. 2 From one to three in each county.

increase of the powers and duties of the examiners in 1861, there went a corresponding centralization of authority over examinations. Licenses were limited in their authority to the county in which they were issued. The examiner was required to report to the State Superintendent the names of the persons to whom he had granted licenses. He had discretion to omit from the test any of the six required branches if requested to do so by the proper trustee. The mischievous effects of this clause were abated by the proviso, that such a license should be limited to the particular school in which the holder wished to teach, could not exceed six months, and could not be repeated to the same person. He had power to revoke licenses for incompetency, immorality, cruelty or general neglect of school business, the defendant having the right to appeal to the State Superintendent. That officer still had authority to issue licenses at pleasure and could revoke certificates which he had granted. These changes resulted in the elevation of the standard of the scholarship of the teachers at least fifty per cent. In some quarters there were at first considerable feeling and opposition, but in a short time the law proved eminently satisfactory to teachers and school officers alike. The State Superintendent expressed the belief that but few "special" or "limited" licenses were issued.

A tendency in the opposite direction was shown in the law enacted in 1865. It provided that if the school meeting should designate the teaching of other subjects or a less number of branches than those required by law, the teacher was to be examined in only those branches. This change received the almost universal disapproval of teachers and examiners; and the provision was in a short time repealed.

The practical questions of the best methods to raise the standard of qualification and to provide for the issuing of licenses were annually discussed by school officials and associations of teachers and of school officers. There was a feeling that suitable provision should be made for the issuing of a teacher's license that should be good in any part of the State and for the lifetime of the holder. The difficulty of finding a suitable board to conduct the examination was solved satisfactorily in 1865, by giving the State Board of Education power to grant "State Certificates of Qualification to such teachers as may, upon a thorough and critical examination, be found to possess eminent scholarship and professional ability and shall furnish satisfactory evidence of good moral character." Such a certificate entitled the holder to teach in any

1 Orthography, reading, writing, geography, arithmetic and English grammar.