explanation consistent with good morals and his own professional fidelity.35 Dismissal of teacher for incompetency. 597. After a visitation of A's school, the school board decided that the recitations were poor, deportment bad, scholars lifeless and indifferent in studies, and that the teacher displayed inability to get up any enthusiasm in studies whatever, and that he had no discipline. At the regular meeting of the board, it was decided to dismiss him for incompetency, which was regularly entered upon the minutes. The teacher instituted suit for the amout of salary due, but the court held on the trial that unless he could prove that the members of the board acted corruptly or in bad faith, or that they were guilty of any clear abuse of their powers, he could not recover.36 Dismissal of teacher for refusing to be vaccinated. 598. Judge Arnold said: "As school directors may, in the exercise of a sound discretion, exclude from the public schools pupils who have not been vaccinated, as was decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Duffield vs. The Williamsport School District, 162 Pa. 476 (1894), so may they exclude teachers and other employees for the same reason. The protection which vaccination is believed to afford must be reciprocal; teachers and pupils are alike entitled to protection against contagious disease. Whether vaccination is a preventive of small-pox this court has no power to investigate and decide. The legislature has authorized, and the Supreme Court has sustained regulations requiring vaccination, and therefore a court of the first instance is prohibited from inquiring into the efficacy of vaccination as a preventive of small-pox: Field vs. Robinson, 198 Pa. 638 (1901). The opinion of the plaintiff that vaccination is not a preventive, and that it would be dangerous to her health, is not a sufficient reason to exempt her from obedience to the order of the board of education requiring vaccination. Hence the offer of the plaintiff to 35. Normal School vs. Cooper, 150 Pa. 78, 1892. 36. McCrea vs. School District, 145 Pa. 550, 1891. show that she considered it dangerous to her health was irrelevant and immaterial, and was properly rejected. “The plaintiff having refused to obey the order of the board of education to produce a certificate of successful vaccination within the last five years, the chairman of the girls' high school had full authority to suspend her and report his action to the committee for ratification, which has been done. In all cases of this kind requiring prompt action, authority to act in the first instance resides in the chairman or other visiting member of the committee, subject to the approval or disapproval of the whole committee. "The contention of the plaintiff that she cannot be suspended except for incompetency, cruelty, negligence or immorality, under the act of May 8, 1854, P. L. 622, if that were the only act bearing on the subject, is not sustainable. Under the act of March 3, 1818, 7 Sm. Laws 53, which, by section 50 of the act of 1854, was declared to be concurrent with the provisions of that act, the board of public education of the first school district has the general superintendence over all the schools established under and by virtue of that act in the said district, and may make such rules and regulations for their own government and for the general regulations of the district as may be deemed necessary for carrying the act into complete effect. Even if the act of 1854 were the only statute on the subject, we have no hesitation in saying that disobedience of the reasonable orders of the board of education is an act of negligence. There however, other causes for which a teacher may be suspended' or dismissed. Thus, incurable disease, loss of reason or hearing or sight or limbs may result in the loss of employment by a teacher, yet it is not necessary that these causes should be written in the laws or rules of the school. The law applicable to cases of this kind is the ordinary law of master and servant. If the servant disobeys the reasonable orders of his employer, he may be suspended or discharged. In the present case the plaintiff is "too self-opinionated," as has been said in the books: See Wood on Master and Servant, 116; Cassidy vs. Janauschek, 17 Phila., 325. She has set up her own opinion against that of the board of education. She are, has refused to comply with a lawful regulation of the board. Therefore, she is subject to suspension and dismissal.” 37 Teachers may be dismissed for insubordination and disobedience. 599. Chief Justice Lowrie said: "A schoolmaster was dismissed by the board of school directors for gross insubordination and disobedience; and this seems to have given rise to a partisan division in the township and in the board, and two annual township elections turned upon it. This is very much to be deplored. The encouragement and promotion of official disobedience is a very bad way of correcting the errors of superior officers. How can the people expect good instruction for their children from an insubordinate teacher, perhaps himself the leader of the strife that grew out of this disrespect of the school directors? How can they expect good men to be directors, when their very performance of their duty is made the ground of a general neighborhood quarrel? How can they expect their children to grow up into orderly citizens, when teachers, schoolmasters, and people, refuse to respect the law? No doubt, so bad an example as this may do good to others, by being a warning to them; but surely a good example would have been better for all. A school system under popular control will be no blessing to us, if it be so conducted as to beget among the people habits of disregard for their own law. Society is worthless if it has no abiding rule of order."38 Liability of school directors for the dismissal of a teacher. 600. School directors, acting within the scope of their authority in the dismissal of teachers, are not answerable in damages for the consequences of their acts, unless done maliciously and with an intent to injure.39 The action of the board, if it be properly entered upon the minutes in the form and manner required by the statute in the case of a dismissal, is conclusive, unless the board 37. 38. 39. Lyndall vs. Board of Education, 10 D. R. 665, 1901. The Township of Dickinson vs. Linn, 36 Pa. 431, 1860. can be shown to have acted corruptly or in bad faith, or to have clearly abused their powers.4° Power of school board to pass upon the charge of cruelty of a teacher. 601. A was employed by the school district to teach in Byerly School House No 4, for a term of seven months, beginning in September, 1887, at a salary of $40 per month. He performed the duties of a teacher at said school house from September 12, 1887, to December 19, 1887, when he was dismissed and ousted from his school by the board of directors for having inflicted cruel and severe punishment on B, a pupil in the school taught by him. The dismissal was not ordered until after the investigation convinced the directors that the teacher was guilty of cruelty. A brought suit against the district for salary as teacher for the unexpired term. In reviewing the case, Mr. Justice Clark said, in part: "The board of school directors had the power to dismiss this teacher for incompetency, cruelty, negligence, or immorality. This power is expressly given in paragraph V., section 23, Act of May 8, 1854, P. L. 622, and was reserved in the contract. "As a deliberative body, a board of school directors is entrusted with the government of the schools, and by the statute is empowered both to employ teachers, and for the causes stated to dismiss them. The board, therefore, had jurisdiction, under the statute, to pass upon any charge of this character, and in its determination was held merely to the exercise of good faith, and was answerable only for an abuse of its powers. By the mere fact of his employment as a teacher, the plaintiff submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the board in respect of the matters mentioned in the statute, and the action of the board, if it be entered upon the minutes in the form required by the statute, is conclusive. But the action of the board in effecting the dismissal 40. Whitehead vs. School District, 145 Pa. 418, 1891. Custer vs. School District, 12 Pa. Superior Ct. 102, 1899. of a teacher must be set forth upon the minutes, as required by the statute. The minutes are, therefore, the best evidence of the teacher's dismissal, and are conclusive, unless the board may be shown to have acted corruptly or in bad faith, and to have clearly abused its powers."41 Teachers have the right to use corporal punishment. 602. This is an application for the discharge of the defendants, who are teachers in one of our public schools, who are accused with an assault and battery by the unreasonable correction of one of their pupils. And the simple question for decision is, whether from the facts disclosed, they have been guilty of a violation of the law. In this city and county, where we are annually expending nearly $350,000.00 for the purpose of common school education, where our schools number more than 50,000 children, with the appropriate number of teachers for their instruction, it is important that the law as to the rights of each, should be correctly understood; and as it is feared it is not, a few moments will be occupied in giving what I conceive to be the settled principles of the common law upon this subject. The right of a parent to correct his minor child is understood. It is one of the first rules in our domestic relations; and yet it is equally clear that the parent may be held responsible for the cruel or barbarous treatment of his child. The school teacher, while a child is placed by the parent or guardian in school, or under charge of the teacher, is in loco parentis, and can exercise the same authority as the parent, and is responsible in the same manner, and the rules of law which are applicable to the parental control, are also to be applied to the school teacher. An able and accomplished American law writer, has now given us a plain and intelligent rule, which I will quote at length. When writing upon this subject, he says: "The parent has a right to govern his minor child, and as incident to this, he must have power to correct him. The maxim is, that he has power to chastise him mod 41. Whitehead vs. School District, 145 Pa. 418, 1891. |