Wright State University Wright State University

CORE Scholar CORE Scholar

Ruth Herr Papers (MS-91) Special Collections and Archives

February 2019

The Married Teacher in the Dayton Schools The Married Teacher in the Dayton Schools

Follow this and additional works at: https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/special_ms91

Part of the Political History Commons, and the Women's History Commons

Repository Citation Repository Citation (2019). The Married Teacher in the Dayton Schools. .

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Special Collections and Archives at CORE Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Ruth Herr Papers (MS-91) by an authorized administrator of CORE Scholar. For more information, please contact library-corescholar@wright.edu.

The Married Teacher in the

Dayton Schools

A Statement By the Committee in Behalf

of the Married Teachers

ITHE MARRIED TEACHER IN THE

DAYTON SCHOOLS

N the years during and following the World War there was a great shortage of teachers in the Dayton schools as in every other system. A

great number of married teachers were invited and urged to come back into the system by school officials. A number of these women consented, rearranged their personal affairs, reordered their lives and undertook the graduate study that would be necessary for them to fill positions in a system that was making rapid progress and constant im­provement of technique.

In the year 1923, as things began to readjust themselves, the Board of Education took cognizance of the situation which they had created by inviting these teachers to return and at the same time using every means to recruit new teachers for the system and decided upon a policy with regard to them. In justice to these married women who had been invited to return to the system the Board decided that those who were then teaching in the system should be retained until they retired or withdrew from the system. In an attempt to be fair to new teachers, young single women, who were ·being recruited for the system,-an attempt which looks as though it was more than fair to them,- the Board decided that no new married women shou ld be hired as teachers and any teacher in its system who married would not be reappointed. This meant that gradually the married teacher was being eliminated from the system. In 1923 when the ruling went into effect there wen• probably a hundred married women in the system. In 1932 there were forty-one.

This policy of the Board has been in operation down to the present time and is still presumably the

3

governing policy of the Board. However during the summer of 1932, eighteen of these teachers, married women who were in the system previous to 1923, were dropped from the system in that they were denied reappointment for the school year of 1932­1933. Subsequently some of them were given ap­pointments as regular substitutes. This however means a loss of their status in the system and their positions as regular substitutes make their relation­ship and tenure exceedingly precarious. Even these have already lost what the 1923 policy of the Board assured them, their tenure as teachers.

Reasons for Action Inadequate

No one will fail to recognize that the Board was confronted with an exceedingly difficult problem in the summer of 1932. The teaching staff of the schools had to be reduced. Departments were abolished. Staff members were reduced to the ranks taking the positions of regular teachers. The prob­lem of the Board was not an easy one. They merit the sympathetic understanding of every citizen of the community in their attempt to solve it. One of the measures adopted was to refuse reappointment to eighteen of the forty-one married women in the system. Our contention is that this measure was unwise, unfair to the teacher and prejudicial to the system.

In the first place in reducing a staff of teachers there is always an adequate yardstick at hand; namely, the efficiency of the teacher. Among this group of married teachers are admittedly some of the best and most indispensible teachers in the Dayton system. However, to_be definite here, there is in the hands of the Dayton school officials an objective and unprejudiced rating of Dayton teachers by the Ohio State school officials. A number

of these married women are rated A-1 by these officials.

It will be well to press this matter of rating a little farther. In all pedagogical ratings it is under­stood that an A-rating means approximately the best eight percent of the group, a B-rating means the next twenty percent, a C-rating means the next forty-four percent (or the great majority level); a D-rating means the next twenty percent and an F-rating means the lower eight perceat. The Dayton system was confronted with the necessity of barely going beyond the F-rating group on any kind of rating system. It could not be anything else but harmful to the system and an injustice to the individual teacher to take from the A-rating group in order to reduce the teaching force. The claim that not enough inefficient teachers could be found in the Dayton system to make the reduction of staff required, is vitiated by the fact that inefficient teachers have been retained in the city schools over the protests of principals directly in contact with and responsible for their efficiency or inefficiency.

In the second place, the Dayton Board of Educa­tion has a manual which governs all the teacher­Board relationships. This manual conforms, first of all, with the Ohio state law which provides as ground for dismissal (Sec. 7701 G.C.) these grounds: inefficiency, neglect of duty, immorality, or im­proper conduct. In the second place this manual conforms to the principles adopted by the National Educational Association through its Committee on Tenure. The Dayton manual puts forward (Sec­tion 118 circa) as the policy of the Dayton schools "principle four" which provides for a probationary period of from three to five years and discharge thereafter only on proved charges of incompetency, insubordination, immorality and similar charges. It would seem that by its own standards and from

4 5

the State Code the only measure available to the Board for reducing the staff was the efficiency of the teacher.

In the third plac~, it has been argued that inves­tigatinn has been made into the personal circum­stances of these teachers and that it had been found that their husbands are well able to support them. It is now admitted by members of the Board and school officials generally that investigation conducted last summer was not reliable then and has been largely vitiated by changing circumstances. lt was no.t equitable as between married teachers retained and those dropped. It was not based on adequate data in the cases affected. ln a "·ord, the Board found from one sally intn this field, that the economic status of the teacher is a yardstick that cannot be applied . It creates more inequities than it solves.

.Moreover if it were a good policy to drop married teachers not absolutely economically dependent upon the school system for a livelihood it would be a.1 equally good policy to drop si.1gle teachers who have members of families economically able to support them and not absolutely dependent on the system for a livelihood. It might be possible to make the school an adjunct of the relief agenc-ies of the city. \Ve hold however that the school is conducted not for the support of teachers but for the benefit of children.

If it were desirable to apply the economic yard­stick it should be applied to single as well as married teachers. But if it were applied it would make the school system a spoils system to be haggled over, instead of a system for the provision of the best kind of instruction that we can possibly give to our children.

In the fourth place the necessity of removing these eighteen teachers is vitiated by the employ­

ment of n:ne new te:ichers or members of the staff in this year of reductions, (three of this number, teacher:; for the oral deaf, obviously cou ld not be supplied by the system), and the proposed advance­ment from probationary to regular status of twcnty­six graduates of the Dayton Junior Teachers College and recu1t college graduates.

l n the fifth place, the pressure of unemployed Dayton teachers could not have forced the retire­ment of these eighteen married women when more than sc,·enty non-resident teachers are employed in the system.

Why the l\larried Teacher Desires to Remain in the System

These eighteen teachers who have been dropped have gi,·cn from fifteen to thirty-five years of service to the system. This has become their profession, their life work. To deprive them of their work is to deprive them of their field of sen·ice. :\side entirely from the question of married women embarking on the profession of teaching, it is quite a different matter and a more elementary injustice to deprive one of a life work to which she has given from fifteen lo thirty years of her life.

During these years of teaching these married women have made investments in their further training required by their positions. These teachers who have been dismissed represent from one to six years of advanced credits over and abo,·e the qualifi­cations required by their positions. l\1eanwhile there are teachers retained in the Dayton system who have not met the requirements of the positions they fill.

Finally some of these married teachers are nearing the place of retirement and all are well on toward that point. The state retirement fund becomes

6 7

available to a teacher after thirty-six years of service. There is at least one teacher in this group who h,1 s taught thirty-five years. All of these teacher· have been required to make investments in this fund oul of their salaries. This money, of course, will be paid back if these teachers are droppc·d, but a teacher who has taught with the prospect before her of assured old age has more than an in\·eslment of money in this plan of retirement provided by the state.

The Worth of the Married Teacher

It will be advisable to ask some elementary questions at this point. Just which is the more economically valuable to a community, a woman of mature years who is helping to support a home, and in some instances the sole support, helping to buy a house, paying taxes, and in some instances con­tributing to the support of parents as well as dependents, or a young woman with little or no economic or social responsibilities lo anyone i11 the community but herself? \Yhich is of most value to the community?

Which is of most value to the school? Which is most likely to be most loyal to the system and most cooperatively constructive toward principal, supervisor and superintendent?

Which is likely to be of most value to the child, \\'hat is the opinion of educators on this matter?

The married woman makes the best teacher, her life is more rounded, her ex­perience completer, her understanding of children deeper. Out of all these superior­ities, a superior teacher is created.

)nsica Garretson Cosgrm•e, lzead of th e Finch School, N. J".

8

?llarried women teachers usually arc more capable than unmarried ones and should be retained in the schools... It re­mains to be decided whether we wish the teachers of our children to be selected on the basis of giving employment to needy girls or whether we wish to fill the positions with those best qualified.

- Sum mer Session Times of Columbia University, reprinted i11 the /\'ew

York Times, March 1932

In the schools the present prejudice against married women seems to me espe­cially fantastic. Mothers and wives, pre­sumably are not the right persons to deal with sons and daughters! Doesn't it sound idiotic, on the very face of it? Unmarried women, who are yet completely inexperi­enced in the deeper relationships of life, preferred over the women who have been educated for that- for the job of helping the children to live wisely.

- Kathleen Norris, Dayton Daily Xews, April 16, 1932

One piece of careful research has been made on this subject. Careful charts and tests were pre­pared and widely circulated and employed through Ohio schools and among Ohio teachers. Dr. l:ogan A. \\'aits in his doctor's dissertation upon the results says:

\ Vhen married and single women teachers are comparable on the basis of age, training and experience, and are teaching in like social-economic situations, trained school administrators rate and evaluate their social life and teaching efficiency approxi­mately the same.

9

This answers, of course, the claim that home responsibilities detract from teaching efficiency. But it docs more. It points out that the "social­economic situation" is a factor. It will be the rare single teacher who can boast not only the age and experience, hut particularly the well-rounded "social­economic" experience of the married teacher. This is the most careful, scientific approach to the ques­tion that has yet been made and may be taken as the most trustworthy pronouncement on the sub­ject available.

\Ve stand squarely for the principle of giv­ingemploymentduring a period of emergen­cy to those whose need is greatest, but we believe that principles should operate irrespective of sex. If those who have other means of support are to be eliminated from salaried positions the regulation should apply to men and women alike.

-President of the Xatio11al Federation of Business and Professio11al

/Vomen's Clubs

What Have Other Boards Done?

Cle,·cland, Columbus, Toledo, and Akron boards of education ha,·e refused to ban married women teachers. Both Cleveland and Columbus have to gi,·e employment in the school system to husband and wife.

- Ohio Schools, Sept. 1932

(\\'e have been given to understand that Colunr bus has since given one year's leaYe of absence with­out pay to married women in the system.)

The Toledo board of education has adopted a ruling which requires teachers in that city to be residents of Lucas County. An opportunity has been provided for

10

. ; '

!

teachers now li,·ing outside the county to ch:rnge their rcside11C'C to conform to this regulation. The Toledo board refused to adopt a rule banning married women teachers.

- Ohio Schools, Sept. 1932

The Wellington Board of Education has decided to rescind it;; decision of last June not lo employ married women as teach ers already on the staff.

- Ohio Schools, January 1932

The Ashtabula board of education today announced that fi,·e married women now on the teaching staff will not be dismissed since the board believes that beca use of their ability and years of experience they arc valuable to the school system.

-Cleoeland Plain Dealer, May 18, 1932

Some states hold this to be an invasion of con­stitutional rights to refuse reemployment to married women.

The '.\Iaryland State Board of Education has recently ruled that the marriage of a woman teacher is not a lawful cause for re­quiring her resignation.

-School and Society, July 16, 1932

A:\ewYorkhigher courtwascalled upon to rule upon this. In the ruling the court said:

Attention is called to a fundamental principle. The principle is: that where the state law specifics causes for dismissal, local or subordinate units of control are without authority to enlarge upon the causes for dismissal or to change the manner in which the dismissal can be brought about.

11

Silllilar decisions, according to "School and Society", Oct. 2.+, 1931, haYe been given "in )icw York City, other cities in New York State, Tennes­see, \ ' irginia, and Oregon."

Omaha, Nebraska, schools employ 200 married women teachers in a teaching force of 1200---and some of the best teachers are said by the president of the board of educa­tion to be the married women. "The policy of the Omaha Board of Education at this time is that it is our duty to the children of our schools to employ the very best teachers that we can gel for the money at our disposal. If the applicant happens to be married, we still try to apply that test."

- !Vomen's journal, Jan. 19, 1931

What the Movement in Behalf of the

Married Teacher Asks

This movement initiated in behalf of theo: married women teachers asks that the eighteen dismissed teachers be reinstated in the system as regular teachers and that the remaining twenty-three married women, who have been in the system, be assured that their continuance in the system will not be jeopardized by the fact of their married status.

We ask that if the ruling of the Board in 1923 is changed, it be changed for the benefit of the child and no other; that is, opening the system to the most efficient teacher, without regard of sex or married status. In lieu of this forward step-we recognize that times are hardly propitious for advanc we ask that the ruling of 1923 be left unchanged in these altogether abnormal tillleS through which we are now passing.

12

Appendix A

Farly-four cities were studied by the United States Department of Interior on the question of lllarricd women teachers. From their study we quote:

Cities dropping married teachers of long service in the system: :\fonc so reporting.

Cities making no discrimination against married women in employment: nineteen, including Chicago, Cleveland, Denver, Des Moines, Detroit, Fort Worth, Houston, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Nashville, New I laven, New York City, Oakland, Omaha, San Antonio, Springfield, Mass., Syr:icuse, Washington, D.C., and \Vilminglon, Del.

Appendix B

Bibliography furnished by United States Depart­ment of Interior.

Anderson, Mrs. L. C. The Married Woman in the Schoolroom. Washington Educational Journal, p. 266-67, :V1ay 1925.

Bradford, ;\1rs. Mary D. Married Women as Teachers. Journal of Education, 9.+: 619-22, December 22, 1921.

Argues for the retention of married teachers.

Broom, M. E. Married Teachers. High School Teacher, 5: 228, Sept. 1929.

Brown, W. H. Married Women as Teacher;; in the Fourth Class Districts. Pennsy!Yania School Journal, 78: 603-604, June 1930.

The Celibacy of Teachers. Journal of I leredity, 8: 259-60, June 1917.

Chambers, George Gailey. Married Women as Teachers. Pennsylvania School journal, 76: 404-.+05, March 1928.

13

Summarizes with se,·en points, from which he argues lhal "in Yiew of the;e considera­tions it seems clear that there is no just­ification for a general rule bani hing all married teachers."

Ch:llnbers, :\I. M. :\ Plea for i\Iarried \Volllen Tem·hers. Texas Oullook, 1-!: 9-10, Sept. 1930

Curlis, Henry S. Pedagogy Ver us Matrimony. School and Society, 8: 79-82, July 20, 1918.

Advocates the married woman as a teacher.

Dean, .-\. D. Why Some Teachers Don't ;\-[arry. Journal of Education, 112: 258, October 13, 1930.

Edwards, l. N . Marriage as a Legal ause for Dismissal of \Nomen Teachers. Elementary School Journal, 25: 692-95, i\Iay 1925 .

Says that no court of final jurisdiction has yet passed on the constitutionality of a statute specifically stipulating marriage as a cause for dismissal of women teachers.

Emery, ]allies N. Does i\larriagc Unfit for Teach­ing? American Educational Digest, 46: 21-1-15, January 1927.

Notes some of the inconsistencies of the opponents to the married-women teachers, discusses the acid-test of teacher's character, etc.

Emery, James N. Shall \Ve Bar the Married Teacher? Journal of Education, 113: 35-36, January 12, 1931.

Employing i\1arried \Vomen,in the Schools. Ameri­can Educational Digest, 46: 57-61, October 1926.

Some facts set forth taken from a study of the opinions of 954 school superintendents representing every state. The results show that school executives are widely divided in both judgment and practice. Lists are giYen

14

of school systems where married women are employed, and systems where they are not employed, etc.

Finley, John H. Teacher-Mother Question in New York. Educational Review, 49: 285-94, March 1915.

Grant, Clara Ellon. The Employment of Married Women as Teachers . School Hygiene (London) 1: 639-40, November 1910.

---Married Women in Our Schools. (London, P. and H., typ., 19-7) 31 p.

Hicks, C. R. Sauce for the Gander. School and Society, 31: 537-38, April 19, 1930.

Hornaday, F. The Answer to a Plea for Married Women Teachers. School and Society, 30: 846­47, December 21, 1929.

McCarroll, E. The Married Woman Teacher in Ohio. Educational Research Bulletin (Ohio State University), 8: 169-71, April 17, 1929.

Married Women and Men Teachers in Rural Schools. Pennsylvania School Journal, 79: 112, Oct. 1930.

The Married \Voman Teacher. School and Society, 33: 334, March 7, 1931.

l\Iarried Women Teachers in England. School and Society, 17: 604.

Patterson, Herbert P. Shall Biological Failures Be Our Teachers? School and Society, 2: 297-301, August 28, 1915.

In favor of the majority of teachers being married. See also reply by E. M. Gregory in School and Society, 2: 495-99, Oct. 2, 1915.

Pedagogy Versus Matrimony. School and Society, 8: 200-202, August 17, 1918.

Does not approve of married women teachers.

15

The Peizotte Decision. School Bulletin, 41: 110, February 1915.

Restoring the Family. ew Republic, 1: 8-9, November 28, 1914.

Roberts, M. M . The Married Teacher's Brief. Kadelphian Review, 9: 18-20, November 1929.

Salser, Carl W. Marriage and Teaching. Teach­ing, 1: 11-13, Japuary 15, 1915.

Should Women Teachers Marry? School, 39: 618, April 12, 1928. Editorial.

Singleton, John S. Married Women as Teachers in the Public Schools. Master's Thesis, 1928. Ohio State University, Columbus. 125 p.ms.

Smith, R. R . The Married Woman Teacher. American Schoolmaster, 11: 356-69, Oct. 15, 1918.

Reprinted by permission from The Public, New York City. Issue of June 22, 1918. Arguments in favor of the married-woman teacher.

Snedden, David. A Sociologist Discusses the Problem of the Married W?man Teacher. Nation's Schools, 5: 31-34, May 1929.

Snyder, Edwin R. Married Women as Teachers. California Blue Bulletin, 3: 6-7, March 1917.

Teacher-Mother Question in New York. Educa­tional Review, 49: 285-94, March 1915.

Decision of Commissioner Finley on the so-called teacher-mother question which has arisen in the .New York City schools.

Teacher-Mothers in 1ew York Schools. American Review of Reviews, 51: 369-70, March 1915.

See also Victory for the Teacher-Mother. Literary Digest, 50: 136, January 23, 1915 ; and Reinstatement of a Teacher Dismissed for Bearing a Child. School and Society, l: 85-88, January 16, 1915.

16

Teachers and Marriage. By a married woman teacher. American School Board Journal, 61: 33-34, December 1920.

Discusses some of the reasons that have been advanced against the married woman teaching.

The University of the State of New York, the State Department of Education, before the Commis­sioner in the Matter of the Appeal of Bridget C. Peizotte, School Bulletin, 41: 118-20, Febru­ary 1915.

West , L. S. The Married Teacher Question. Eugenics, 2: 6-11, December 1929.

\Vhere Maternity Does Not End Teacherhood· Survey, 31: 325-26, Dec. 20, 1913.

Winship, A. E. Should Married Women Teach? Journal of Education, 64: 581, ov. 29, 1906.

From Boston Globe, November 11, 1906.

17