Motherhood and teaching collided in New York three weeks ago when the
Board of Education refused to grant a year’s leave of absence without
pay to Katherine C. Edgell, a high school teacher, who wanted to bear
and rear a child. The board recorded its opposition by a vote of
thirty-two to five. By a vote of twenty-eight to nine it shut off
discussion because “too much had been published about this affair
already.”
Mrs. Edgell is still on the payroll of the schools, although she has not
been in attendance since February first. Inasmuch as it is the custom of
the board to punish unexcused absence by dismissal for neglect of duty,
it seems to have no alternative but to proceed to that extremity against
Mrs. Edgell. This is just what was done recently in the case of Lily R.
Weeks, who was absent some time on account of the birth of a child,
though the board did not know the nature of her illness. Mrs. Weeks
appealed her case to the state commissioner of education, before whom it
is now pending.
This demand of Mrs. Edgell that she be allowed to continue in her
profession though a mother is, of course, only a symptom of the
world-wide movement of women into the gainful occupations of life. It
reveals how acute has grown the feeling on this subject among some of
the women teachers of New York. Heretofore any married woman teacher who
wanted leave of absence to bear a child carefully concealed the nature
of her illness from the Board of Education. At length, one woman stood
out and asked that, as a matter of right, her position be kept open for
her while she brought a new life into the world. Instantly scores of her
colleagues came to her defense. Women lawyers passed resolutions in
sympathy with her and physicians publicly approved her stand.
The case of Mrs. Edgell is not the first time that the New York Board of
Education has expressed its opinion with regard to married women
teachers. Until 1904 a by-law of the board provided that the marriage of
a woman teacher should automatically cause her instant dismissal without
further action. But the Court of Appeals decided in 1903 that a teacher
could not be dismissed for marrying and the by-law was changed. Since
then the board has apparently not been altogether friendly toward the
married women in its employ. During the discussion that has attended the
Edgell case it has been repeatedly asserted by principals and teachers
that there are hundreds of women in the schools who have kept their
marriages secret because of the well-known policy of the board to make
it almost impossible for married women to secure promotion or increase
in salary.
A physician who is a member of the school board and a member of the
board of superintendents are authorities for the sweeping statement,
that if this ruling is adhered to the board of education is quite likely
to be responsible for 300 cases of deliberate abortion among the public
school teachers of New York every year.
When the board, by its vote of twenty-eight to nine, shut off discussion
because “too much has been published about this affair already,” it did
what was destined to provoke hotter and longer discussion than ever. But
underlying that there is a very general feeling that this subject
presents many phases which should be given profound consideration, not a
snap verdict. Would the distraction of a baby interfere with class room
work, or the absence of the mother and teacher handicap her own
children; or would having children of her own add something to a woman’s
educative powers? What effect would the widespread continuance of
married women in the schools have on men’s salaries? What is there in
the practice and experience of other cities to help New York in deciding
so big a question as the interaction of motherhood and teaching?
What protection should be thrown around the prospective mother is a
question that is only beginning to be raised among professional and
salaried classes. Up to the present nearly all women in these groups
have resigned their positions, if not at marriage then at childbirth. No
general policy of dealing with them seems to have been adopted either by
public or private employers.
With women in the wage-earning class the case is different. In at least
twenty countries or parts of countries in Europe legal protection is
thrown around the working woman who bears a child. In Berne,
Switzerland, all women “employed for purposes of gain” are prohibited
from working for from four to eight weeks after confinement. In Ticino,
Italy, no woman can work for six months after confinement. The
conception underlying this legislation is not that mothers are not
efficient workers, but that earning a livelihood must be made easier for
those who want also to fulfill the other functions of womanhood. In
England the period of prohibition is four weeks after, and in Germany
six weeks. In Servia no woman can work for six weeks before nor six
weeks after. In several of these places the position must be kept open
for the woman while she is bearing her child.
Examples of such protection nearer at home are not lacking. Both
Massachusetts and New York have laws declaring that specified periods of
absence shall be allowed to women in industrial establishments at time
of confinement.
A notable exception to the rule that no such policy has been adopted
toward salaried or professional women is to be had in France. There
boards of education are not permitted to refuse leave of absence to
teachers who want to bear children. Three years ago the government made
imperative the granting of at least two months’ vacation, together with
full treatment, to teachers expecting confinement. And in the following
year this protection was extended to the female staff of the department
of posts, telegraphs and telephones.