tion, "that a committee of five be appointed to obtain by referendum vote at the earliest possible date, the views of all public school teachers and boards of education in the State upon this question; and that said committee be authorized and instructed to formulate a bill which shall express the consensus of the opinions thus obtained, and which shall express the best possible thought upon the subject." In accordance with this resolution, the following questionnaire was submitted to teachers, superintendents and boards of education, throughout the State of Ohio.' With the results of this questionnaire as a basis, a sub-committee of the State Association formulated a bill. Too many propositions were included in this proposed measure, with the consequence that so much objection was offered that the bill was never presented. However, the essential features of the Association bill, with the exception of a clause including superintendents, were embodied in a compromise measure known as the McCoy-Bender Bill. This, in substance, is the latest measure presented to the Ohio General Assembly. Its provisions include: (1) all regular teachers, special teachers, principals and supervisors, who have had ten years of teaching experience; (2) superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals of high schools or consolidated schools are excluded; (3) a three-year probationary period is provided; (4) teachers may be dismissed only after having received written notice with specific charges; (5) provision for appeal to the probate judge of the county whose judgment shall be final; (6) no teacher shall leave the employment of the board of education without the consent of said board, except between June 1 and August 1; violation of this rule brings forfeiture of the right of tenure; (7) no teacher shall suffer reduction in rank nor reduction in salary unless such salary reduction is in proportion to that of all teachers of corresponding grade, and (8) the board of education retains its right to terminate the employment of a teacher when the number of teachers in a given service is reduced, provided that in retention, teachers on indefinite tenure.be given the preference. Owing to the fact that members of the Assembly were impressed with the lack of unity on the part of school people, this bill failed to pass. However, much good was derived from the discussions and there is no doubt that a new bill, backed by practically all the educational forces of Ohio, will be presented early in the Eighty-fifth session.

The features which called forth the most violent opposition were: (1) those providing for the revocation of a teacher's license in case of resignation without the consent of the board; (2) the provision making the probate judge the final court of appeal; (3) the including of superintendents and assistant superintendents in the provisions of the tenure law, and (4) appeal to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction

1 Proceedings, Ohio State Teachers' Association for 1920, pp. 85-87.

"whose judgment is final." Briefly commenting upon these objections, we believe that the revocation of a teacher's license is an unduly severe penalty and should not be included in a tenure law. It is very doubtful whether such a provision is constitutional and even if it were, very few courts would take advantage of it. It discriminates against the teacher within the State and works to the advantage of those outside the State. It discriminates especially against teachers holding life certificates. It arbitrarily threatens deprivation of livelihood and threatens the teacher with loss of right to teach, as a penalty for seeking advancement; winks at involuntary servitude and, in reality, constitutes "blacklisting" of a vicious type. As to the second, we do not approve of making the probate judge the final arbiter. Politics and other dangerous elements would immediately be injected into the proposition. A much better plan, and that which is most widely practiced, is to have matters of difference submitted to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, in case the board of education fails. Inasmuch as superintendents are executive officers with policy-determining powers and, since they already have a form of tenure in the provision for five-year election periods, there does not seem to be any special reason for including them in the provisions of the teachers' tenure law. However, principals of high schools, being administrative officers, should be included.

In conclusion, we wish to say that tenure is not dead in Ohio. We have a teachers' retirement law which we believe to be one of the best in the land. It is almost absolutely necessary that it be supplemented by a properly enacted tenure law; otherwise there is grave danger that a false idea of economy may lead to the dismissal of teachers just prior to the completion of the period provided for retirement on pension. In fact, reports have already reached the Department that certain boards of education have taken advantage of this condition. The one-year contract system of Ohio is autocratic and consequently un-American. It may have served a good purpose but it no longer accords with our ideas of democracy and square-dealing. Teachers should be free to follow. their own initiative in constructive work and only when free can they render the most efficient service. Certainty of tenure will enlarge the teacher's opportunity for community leadership, give greater dignity and stability to the teaching profession, make it more attractive to those considering a life work, and raise the quality of service. Teachers need it, the public needs it, and the larger interests of education will be much better served when adequate protection of the teacher is provided in every State. To this end we bespeak greater activity on the part of teachers, the public press, and all citizens who are exponents of the square-deal.

DISCUSSION

R. E. LARAMY (Superintendent of Schools, Easton).—We have been too indifferent to the question of tenure in Pennsylvania. In 1913 our General Assembly passed a tenure bill largely on the strength of the cases brought to the attention of the educational committees by the State Teachers' League. This was vetoed by Governor Tener. I was amused a few weeks ago in our meeting of superintendents at Harrisburg to hear a number of the men discuss the question as if everywhere in the State good teachers are secure in their positions. Today some of us are a bit more aware of the real situation.

There are several points upon which we can all agree: 1. Claims for tenure must be based upon the principle of better results for the children in the schools. 2. A tenure bill must include all classes in the profession. 3. The law of balance must be observed. There must be compensatory obligations on the part of those who have tenure. 4. Tenure provisions dare not be such that it becomes impossible to remove teachers who are inefficient. There must remain the necessary spurs toward advancement and maintenance of standards. 5. The best results will be attained if we can secure, as Superintendent Broome has suggested, the idea of continuance embodied in our positions rather than the elements of term and re-election which now color and affect our entire system. 6. The largest difficulty lies in the provision of methods of trial or review of the charges against a person subject to tenure. In my opinion we should consider seriously the fundamental principle in our jury system, that in some manner the professional element shall have a part in the decision.

KATHERINE TOOHEY (English Supervisor of High School, Wilkes-Barre).— I. The need of tenure.-1. To remove the teacher's anxiety over re-election. While fear of removal is in a teacher's mind, she becomes no part of community interests. Teachers need independence of spirit. This would come with a more secure feeling. It would be their school and they would try to make it a worth while school through study and research. They would put the best they could gather into the classroom. 2. To stabilize the teaching force. When the probationary period is over, the teachers should have some assurance of the permanency of their position. 3. To safeguard the interests of the children. It is foolish to talk about schools existing for the children. These children must have teachers. Unless these teachers are high minded and free in spirit, they put nothing into these children and draw nothing out, for half-hearted people accomplish nothing. Teachers would then become a part of a community— one with its needs and interests. Only under such conditions can pupils get what is due them. It will never be a great profession until teachers come into it with the feeling that it is to be their life work. They then come to the community with the feeling that they are a part of it. They can never become a construction part of a community, if they leave it every year or two. They cannot be a part of a community unless they see into the future. If they can, they buy property and make a home with the result that the children have a double interest in them. If fear of removal is there, they become no part of the community life. 4. To induce young teachers to give their best to the schools, to feel they belong to a real profession and the probationary period gives them great opportunity to make good. 5. To give better schools to smaller places that any child in the State may have equal educational opportunities. 6. To give protection to teachers who are compelled to become part of the Pension and Annuity Fund.

II. Why school boards and superintendents should want tenure for teachers?-1. It gives a better teaching force. 2. It really requires them to have some selective process in order to engage the best teachers possible. There must be construction selection in the weeding out process. There must, however, be great humanity and democracy in this selection. 3. This must require a probationary period to make sure that only fit material remains in the profession. During this period there must be definite and intelligent supervision. 4. After the probationary period, it gives supervisors and school boards something definite to say and do. The schools are not charity institutions and if teachers cannot or will not make good, definite charges can be brought and the matter settled. If superintendents, supervisors, and school boards are human and just, they should have the required courage to tell teachers they cannot be re-elected. If teachers are incompetent, disloyal, or immoral, they should be dismissed. This is for the safe interests of the pupils. Many school boards and superintendents in New Jersey and New York feel that tenure has enabled them to get and retain better teachers. It will call more people of high ideals to the profession. The right of a hearing or appeal being given to teachers, it will assure all concerned of the honesty of school boards and superintendents in dealing with teachers.

III. Constructive Policy.—1. Remove from politics the schools that deal with rewards, favoritism, and injustice. 2. Have some definite and fair means of selecting teachers so that the best possible teachers may be put in charge of the children of the State. 3. Make supervision a fact not a name. Make it intelligent but kind and human. Let us dominate not domineer. 4. Have more co-operation. You cannot run schools with one man power. 5. Teachers must have confidence in authority and be obedient to it. 6. Teachers should be willing to have poor teaching material dropped and not criticise authority without real knowledge.. 7. Teachers must be willing to keep ahead in all that stands for progress educationally. 8. Teachers must believe in themselves. 9. They must educate the public into thinking that if the oldest physicians and lawyers are considered most valuable to a community, the oldest teachers should be too. Age with its rich experience should have some compensation for the enthusiasm of youth. 10. School boards and superintendents should feel their offices sacred trusts and believe that if they lead wisely and intelligently, they can make a strong teaching force.

Teaching should be the life work of a teacher and it should be made possible for them to choose this profession as a life work. The thought that good teachers are dropped to make room for political favorites should make more so-called good citizens take an interest in school problems.

Large cities virtually have tenure. It is the smaller places that suffer, where children are most in need of more satisfactory conditions. Let us have good teachers in the State for all the children of the State.

J. H. HALLAM (Chief Officer for Higher Education, County Council, Wakefield, England).—I had not expected, when I entered this room about an hour ago, to be asked to make a speech. During the six weeks I have been in America, however, I have met everywhere with such kindness, indeed with a kindness so overwhelming, that it gives me great pleasure to attempt to make some slight return for it, however inadequate.

It will probably be of most interest to you, if I try to describe in the short time allotted to me, the position as regards tenure in the case of teachers in English public high schools, the schools with which I am best acquainted. Con

tinuous tenure is the rule in England and has been the rule for many years. Indeed, it would be difficult for us to imagine any other system; the appointment of teachers for periods of three, four or five years only, would not for a moment be entertained. It is nevertheless not unusual to appoint teachers in the first place on probation, for a period which generally does not exceed one year. In practice, however, such probationary appointments are only made in the case of teachers who have just left college and are without previous experience; obviously a teacher with experience would not be likely to leave a permanent appointment to accept one on probation.

Some mention has been made this morning of the dangers attached to continuous tenure, particularly of the effect which it may have upon the continued efficiency of the teacher. In England we now have not only continuous tenure, but a national scale of salaries, under which a teacher's salary increases year by year to a maximum figure, subject to satisfactory service. I think a good many people in England fear that the conjunction of these two systems may make it impossible to reward adequately teachers whose work is of high merit as compared with those who are barely efficient. Almost everyone recognized that a scale of salaries was inevitable if suitable persons were to be attracted to and retained in the teaching profession. But at the same time everyone realized the drawbacks attaching to a scale, of which this is the chief. Before a scale existed, the salary of the teachers whose work was not satisfactory was not increased, but, now that there is a scale, principals of high schools, naturally I think, hesitate to recommend the withholding of salary increments unless the teacher is so inefficient that he is in effect incompetent.

As regards dismissals, in the great majority of cases in England the necessity for formal dismissal does not arise. A teacher whose work is unsatisfactory is advised by his principal to resign, perhaps to undergo a period of training, and generally the advice is taken, for a dismissal would make it difficult for the teacher to obtain another appointment, since in England, in addition to qualifications, satisfactory testimonials are a minimum requirement if a post is to be obtained. If, however, there is a dispute between the dismissed teacher and the dismissing body, the final remedy is an appeal to a court of law, whose finding would be entirely unaffected by any political influence whatever. But in extremely few cases is this remedy resorted to.

There are many points which I have not been able to mention, but I find that I have already exceeded the time allowed me. May I, therefore, conclude by expressing my appreciation of the privilege of addressing so important and representative a meeting of American teachers?

Grouping by Abilities in Junior and Senior High Schools PROVIDING FOR INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES BY MEANS OF GROUPING BY ABILITIES

PHILIP W. L. Cox, Headmaster, The Washington School, New York

Children differ from each other in general intelligence to be sure, and they also differ from each other in specific abilities or mind biases; not all are gifted with much linguistic sense, and for some, even shop practice is not a vitalizing experience. The physical differences between children, whether measured on the football field, or in the classroom,