“<cUy@-

I am sure that none of us gave any thought to the matter during our school years but, looking back in later time, one experienced a feeling akin to incredulity that those teachers actually labored so loyally for the pittance doled out to them by a parsimonious government.

Teachera' licenses were of three classes: First, Second, and Third. A male first class teacher was paid three hundred dollars a year; a female teacher holding the same class: of license reteived' two hundred and twenty=! five. A second class male teacher received two hundred and twenty-five and a second class female teacher made one hundred and eighty. What the third class license holders were paid, I do not know, but it was doubtless considerably less than the second class stipends. Just why the lady teachers were so discriminated against was never quite clear; an explanation commonly heard was that they could obtain room and board ata lower figure than could a man!

In some districts there was a small sum in addition to those figures, in the form of a "supplement." This was paid by the individual districts and varied in amount from twenty-five to fifty dollars yearly, depending on the mood of the ratepayers at the annual school meeting. Few districts were in the fifty dollar category. At this point in time, a run-of-mill farm hand . was paid upwards of twenty dollars a month, with room and board thrown in. Teachers had to pay from two and a half to three dollars weekly for board and room. They had to dress in a style befitting their profession. They were also expected to contribute to church and community benefits. They had to pay for materials and publications required in their work. And not a few male teachers were married and supporting families! The pious assumption regarding underpaid clergymen was that the Lord would provide for them. It would appear that the Department of Education made the same

assumption in the matter of teachers.