Don't think a teacher's pay could have afforded one back then though...
No, it would probably have been a fine camera like this -
http://www.rockymountainfilm.com/equipment/Camerz%20camera.htm
That or a similar Beattie-Coleman, in either case the cameraman would have been a pro, the lens would have been excellent, and the film format would have been equivalent to a 6x6 medium-format, all in all nearly Hasselblad-quality.
These were specially made high-volume portrait cameras using 70mm bulk fim, these were standard for the usual “picture day” portraits.
As for the “teacher camera”, in those days the odds would have favored a 126 Instamatic, not the 110 (much smaller film format), as the 110’s didn’t come in until a few years later (1970’s). In any case, this is almost certainly not an Instamatic picture. Due to film and flash costs (bulbs or flashcubes then) it would have been cheaper to call in the pro with the Camerz.
B&W used in child portraiture, odd that it’s not color. This would be an economy move.
Tight cropping, too. That’s not easily done using a viewfinder.
Taking both into account, this suggests a shutterbug hobbyist of the era, with a home darkroom.
Not necessarily. Brownie cameras could produce pretty nice prints:
LOL I still have one of those! I got it for Christmas when I was 12.
Are you sure those cheap Kodak cams took professional pictures like this one ? this picture looks like it was taken with a better cam than a Kodak...