after an examination at which the teacher and her counsel were present. There was no charge against her character, but it was claimed that she neglected her classes and was faulty in her methods. But two weeks before the commissioner had visited her school and had written in the register, “I am well pleased with all the school work, and believe that if the teacher had the hearty co-operation and support of the parents, this would be a term of school marked with more progress than any school I ever visited here." The annulment of a license is not to be resorted to for the purpose of removing a teacher from the school because people in the district are dissatisfied with her. Moral delinquency, or a deliberate infraction of school laws, or the wilful defiance of the proper suggestions or directions of supervisory officers, or utter inability to follow them, may be sufficient ground for annulling licenses, but nothing less grave than this is (D. 3572). See pages 124 to 134.

The action of a school commissioner revoking a teacher's license sustained, when the holder while teaching had engaged in other pursuits, and in consequence neglected his work in the school, and where it became apparent that the teacher had lost all interest in his work, had become lax in discipline, and had neglected to preserve order in the school. (D. 3886) Pa. (248); N. D. (60); S. D. (10) ; Ga. (21); Neb. (46); La. (6).

The annulment may be effected without notice, if determined upon at a personal visit, but only when the result of positive observation, Fla. (19), and not through malice and wantonly1.

Inability to maintain order is sufficient cause, but specially adverse circumstances must receive consideration (D. 1982).

Certificates may be annulled for unnecessary and cruel punishment, but not for choking or severe blows where resistance is encountered. But certificates may not be annulled on account of personal ill-will toward the teacher in the district. See above. See also Wis. Jour. of Ed'n, 1876, p. 296.

It appears hardly proper that a highly successful teacher, long believed to be excellently qualified, should be forced to abandon her chosen profession in which she has advantageously labored twenty years on the strength of an opinion based on a fifteen minutes' observation of her school (D. 2480).

Frank F. Gray, teaching the village school of Wellsburg, received on December 7, 1886, a notice from Commissioner Nichols that he should annul

ANNULLING OF LICENSES

103 his certificate December 18 for "want of sufficient ability to teach ". There had been dissensions in the district but "the assurances of prominent citizens of the locality whose credibility is undoubted, go to show that he is a man of sufficient general ability to teach school successfully, and, I have no doubt, will do so if he can have the general good wil! of the community. No one can succeed without this. There is little reason to believe that the work of a teacher who might succeed him would have more cordial or general support than his work has." The order annulling the certificate is revoked (D. 3959.)

Among specifications of other States under this head Ariz. (4, 14), and Cal. (31), name evident unfitness, and Ohio (129), manifest incompetency; which last word is used by Ga. (21), La. (4), Mont. (8), Neb. (45), N. J. (10), Pa. (241, 248), S. D. (10), etc. Fla. (23, 38) says "when the holder proves to be unsuccessful, incompetent;" and R. I. (251), "for failure properly to instruct and govern.'

d. Attendance at institute.-Wilful failure on the part of a teacher to attend a teachers' institute as required, is sufficient cause for the revocation of a teacher's license (x.6).

Most States have a similar provision. La. (33), Neb. (53), Ore. (73), S. D. (10), Utah (12), Vt. (15), Wash. (129), etc.

e. Keeping engagements.-Any failure on the part of a teacher to complete an agreement to teach a term of school without good reason therefor, is deemed sufficient ground for the revocation of the teacher's certificate (vii. 47.9). See page 103.

Mont. (45) suspends the certificate for 6 months, or one year, and Cal. (27) for one year.

In Vt. it has been decided that a teacher who contracts to teach for a definite time and gives up the school without just cause cannot sustain an action for such services as were rendered1.

Various derelictions.-Some offences that have been specified as warranting the annulment of a certificate are as follows:

1 400, 405,

In New York falsification of the register of attendance (D. 3853); in Mont. (50), N. D. (60), refusal to perform his duty; in Va. (93) closing school on a school day; in Kan. (9) failure to pay reasonable attention to the suggestions of the county superintendent.

Va. (88) and R. I. (225) say that certificates will be liable to revocation "for good cause", and N. C. (43, 44) authorizes the county superintendent, with the approval of the chairman of the board of education, to revoke a certificate "for the same cause or other causes damaging to the school interests and satisfactory to himself".

The teacher's defence.—In regard to this as to other acts of school officers by which he feels himself aggrieved, the teacher may appeal to the State superintendent, whose decision is final. See page 135.

CHAPTER II

MAKING THE CONTRACT

Prerequisites. To enter into a legal contract to teach, the applicant must possess the following qualifications:

a. He must hold a valid license to teach.

b. He must be of the required age.

c. He must not be a relative of the trustees.

a. Necessity of a license.-The applicant must hold a valid license to teach1. See pages 33, 89.

This restriction does not apply to superintendents of schools2 (see page 18); though Pa. (224) makes the same requirements of city or borough as of county superintendents.

It applies to teachers of evening schools (Pa. [329]), and to substitutes (W. Va. [26]), though Utah (12) permits substitutes for a day or two to teach without certificates. See page 129.

(1) THE POSSESSION OF THE CERTIFICATE IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF QUALIFICATION; no one has the right to urge against the teacher that his certificate is improperly granted3.

(2) THE TEACHER MUST HOLD THE LICENSE AT THE TIME THE CONTRACT IS MADE (D. 3670).

Some States explicitly require the candidate to exhibit the license to the trustees 4.

It is not sufficient that this certificate be obtained after the contract is made, even if it be antedated, for "a teacher's certificate must bear the same date as the examination, and cannot legally bear any other "5. Ks. (65); Minn. (41).

1 30, 31, 34, 35, 42, 45, 48, 53, 56, 63, 68, 75, 79, 81, 84, 103, 144, 148, 219, 221, 222, 377, 395, 399. But see 255, 309, 331, 408, 418, 419,

2 216.

3 33, 47, 70, 251, 350, 397, 414,

4 5, 30, 31, 35, 48, 53, 56.

5 16, 31, 48, 53, 79, 81, 145. 219, 221, 309. But see 69, 397, 402, 406, 418,

Of course this restriction as to dating does not apply to the subsequent dating of certificates in New York. See p. 90.

In Vt. it has been held that wages could be collected for teaching under an antedated certificate 1. Compare on page 107.

In some States, this does not render invalid a contract of employment entered into with a teacher before he obtains a certificate, provided he obtains it before he begins to teach. Ariz. (25); Col. (43); Fla. (59); Neb. (38); Ohio (130); R. I. (222). An Ohio court

ruled:

The law forbids the employment of a teacher who has not a certificate. The teacher is not employed within the meaning and intent of this provision until he engages in the discharge of his duties as teacher. The mischief intended to be guarded against was the teaching of a school by an incompetent person, and not the making of a contract by an incompetent person. In Iowa, the State superintendent decided, Dec. 21, 1887, that a teacher may legally contract with a board before receiving a certificate of qualification. However, she may not begin teaching without said certificate.S. B. xiv. 83.

In Vt. it has even been held that the law is satisfied if the teacher obtains a contract on the evening of the first day of school4; and that if a person begins to teach without a certificate and continues to teach after obtaining one, he is considered to have made a new contract, beginning at the time when the certificate was obtained, and having the same terms as the one under which teaching was begun 5.

In Minn. a person began teaching under a contract. He taught three weeks; then obtained a certificate and made a written contract to run three months from the time he began teaching. Held that he was entitled to wages after the certificate was obtained, but to no pay for the previous three weeks 6.

In Ill., a certificate was not obtained till the middle of the term. A new contract was entered into at that time to pay the teacher double wages for the rest of the term. This was considered an attempt to do indirectly what there was no power to do directly; and therefore the contract was held void 7.

In Mo. it has been held that under a statute requiring the teacher to produce a license before employment, the spirit of the law was complied with if the commissioner did not renew an expired license in presence of the trustees, in writing, but declared the teacher competent and gave his sanction to his going on with the school. 8

(3) THE LICENSE MUST EXTEND OVER THE WHOLE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE CONTRACT IS MADE. Ga. (21), Ia. (55), Minn. (41), (D. 4002, 3734).