Morris on Norris: Teacher rules reaction

Mary Dueland

In case you missed it, I thought I better start off by telling you about the “Rules For Teachers — 1914” column which appeared in the McCook Gazette’s October 6, 2018, Weekend Edition.

The reason for bringing you up to date is that the old-timey teacher rules were so puritanical that they made the McCook school board president, two retired teachers and me shake our heads in disbelief that what society expects of teachers is so drastically different today from what it was a century-plus-four years ago.

To review, briefly, the 1914 teacher “rules” included 11 things that teachers, who were predominantly female at the time, could NOT do, including these forbidden actions and activities: (1) Marrying; (2) Keeping company with men; (3) Being away from home between the hours of 6 p.m. and 6 a.m.; (4) Loitering in ice cream stores; (5) Traveling beyond the city limits unless they had the permission of the school board chairman; (6) Riding in carriages with any man except their fathers or brothers; (7) Smoking cigarettes; (8) Dressing in bright colors; (9) Dyeing their hair; (10) Wearing fewer than two petticoats; and (11) Cavorting around in a dress shorter than two inches above the ankle.

Sharon Bohling

To add even more agony to the long-ago teachers’ burden, the strict school board demanded in “Rule Number 12” that the school marms “keep the classroom neat and clean, sweep the floor once a day, scrub the floor with soapy water once a week, clean the blackboard once a day, and start the fire at 7 a.m. to have the school warm by 8 a.m. when the scholars arrive.”

“So,” I asked Mr. Tom Bredvick, Miss Sharon Bohling and Mrs. Mary Dueland, “What do you think about teacher rules like that?”

Mrs. Dueland was the first to reply: “Obviously, teaching was a female career back then. Standards were set for high moral character to the point of suppressing basic rights as a citizen.”

Tom Bredvick

Mrs. Dueland continued, “Times have DEFINITELY changed! Teaching is a noble profession open to men and women. Of course, high standards are still important and sought in character, skills, and work ethic. But, unlike 1914, other than illegal activities, what a teacher does in his/her ‘off time’ is personal and separate from the job and isn’t under the same scrutiny as those early days. Today, you can use the experiences prohibited in 1914 to enhance your instruction and provide enriched classroom experiences and academic opportunities for your students.”

Then, to conclude, Mrs. Dueland exclaimed in emphatic fashion: “ Thank GOODNESS times have changed!”

Next, Miss Bohling gave her reaction to the teacher rules laid down 104 years ago: “The 1914 rules were for single, female teachers only. After a while, married females were allowed to teach, but had to leave the classroom as soon as any evidence of being pregnant was apparent. Today, teachers may continue to teach until delivery if they so choose. By law, maternity/paternity leave must be provided to either parent.”

Miss Bohling went on to say: “The 1914 rules talked of ice cream stores. In the methods’ classes I attended in the 1970s, education majors were cautioned about loitering in bars. This ‘rule’ depends largely on the community, however, as the local establishment in the first town where I taught was a gathering place for students and parents after football games or concerts.”

Turning to the 1914 teacher taboos, Miss Bohling referred to the rules which specified “no bright colors, at least two petticoats and dresses not any shorter that two inches above the ankle” as being very restrictive. She goes on to recall that, “Early in my 38-year career professional attire (dresses and nylons for women and suit coats and ties for men) was expected. Eventually, pantsuits for women and polo style shirts for men became acceptable. By the time I left teaching in 2012, casual days, jeans and t-shirts were common in almost all classrooms.”

Mrs. Bohling then turned her attention to the clean-up chores required of educators, declaring that, “For the most part, teachers are no longer required to perform janitorial or maintenance chores. Each contract today does allow for ‘other duties as assigned.’ While contracts have long allowed for dismissal due to incidents of ‘moral turpitude’ or ‘immorality,’ the exact definition of those terms remains an ongoing topic of debate.”

The second generation teacher spoke about challenges faced by her mother in contracts she signed in the mid-1960s. The contractual agreements from more than a half century ago required the signees “to be cheerfully governed by the rules and regulations of the Board of Education,” the younger of the Bohlings stated. “ In reviewing those agreements, the retired teacher from McCook observed, “Her 1963-64 contract required membership in local, state and national education associations.” However, Miss Bohling adds, “This was crossed out in her 1964-65 contract. I’m not sure if the law changed or she was expressing her own opinion.”

Concluding her remarks, Miss Bohling explained, “By 2008-09, fraud and failure to give evidence of professional growth had been added to the list of reasons for contract termination. In addition, teachers of today can be terminated for just cause if they are found to be in violation of rules for: incompetency, neglect of duty, unprofessional conduct, insubordination and physical or mental incapacity.”

To complete the look back at the long-ago teacher rules, I called upon Tom Bredvick, who is the current president of the McCook Board of Education.

Tom opened by talking about the trouble he encountered in contrasting the teacher rules of 1914 with the expectations faced by educators in 2018. “For me to understand the nature of these rules independently,” the school board leader pointed out, “is difficult considering the time and place they were written, especially given my love for ice cream!”

Despite his misgivings, Tom pushed forward, saying, “One key message I gained from reading these rules is how important the teacher’s purpose in the community was to the development of the students, the community and the overall welfare of the area. Each of these rules, during that period, reminded the teacher of the importance of her role in the community and that her only focus should be that of educating her students.”

In his overview of the 1914 expectations for teachers, Bredvick declared, “The rule I most believe still holds true today is ‘educational environment’ Rule Number 12. In 1914, the environment was focused on a clean, warm and inviting learning environment for the students. Today, the educational environment is just as important as it was then, but today the teacher influences that environment with rich lesson plans, an inspiring tone, passion and dedication to his or her students.”

Then, to wrap up the discussion, Tom added a postscript: “If the truth be told, society’s expectations for teachers today is probably even more difficult to attain.”