The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-02-15
state vs.. Private Schools.

To the Editor OF the indianapolis Journal:
Two commentaries i'm the Journal Of the 10th
claim attention One writer SAYS: IF
dents prefer the State schools it can but argue
that the State institutions are furnishing the
kind of work that is in demand
Students don't prefer the State schools In
spite of the large sums of money appropriated to
these schools. and in spite of the personal in
.uonco of the promoters of the Geeting bill the
tact remains thet there are private schools in
the state that have never received dollar from
church or taxpayers that have larger attend
than any OF the tax-supported schools Why
net. rather, say: IL students prefer the indie
pendent schools. IL can but argue that such
schools are furnishing the kind OF work in de-
mand? This same writer speaks OF the OPPOSE
ton TO the bill as baby sct. This surely
does not apply GO the independent schools by
which / mean schools that have asked
state or church fo- cent OF money. The State
schools stand forever az the gate of the Legls-
amount depending upon present distress. Now,
the self-supporting schools ask. not for money
not for Iaw-enforced dignity but that our
pupils may have fair competitive examinations
along with students Of the unsupported schools
We educate young men and women with no ex-
pense to the State and at less personal expense
than IT is done by the unsupported schools
This Is independence, and not the baby act"
Another writer in the same issue says that IF
the law placed the tax-supported schools on the
level with other schools Ii would practically
abolish the State schools That would be too
bad. Ii would seem. then trat the supporters Of
this bill claim il is not enough to appropriate
vast OF money for the support OF these
by fat Of law label such schools superior. / am
happy in the belief that the able and honorable
gentlemen who conduct these schools make for
themselves such claims. These remarkable
admissions and claims are made by the self
styled progressive teachers Of the State. This
writer states that he favors the original
bill because il will shut out what he is pleased
10 call ''snide institutions" and will add dignity
TO normal schools worthy the name We are
thankful for this bit Of information coming from
the progressive teachers OF the state, who are
the Or1gnators and prom tsrs OF the bill. First.
1t Is to shut out other Institutions second. IL Is
TO add dignity TO the unsupported schools 4,
third. II is to elevate by the state schools
TO a higher level than other schools occupy.
Again | say 4 am sure that the men who con-
duct these State sch pols ask for nothing OF the
kind. | have had correspondence with these able
men. and have sent my students 10 them. and
they have never manifested such an attitude on
the school question.
These sc-caled progressive teachers assume
that the State schools are ruined IL they must
enter upon honorable competition for students.
In the name OF progress, may i ask. what think
is no handsome compliment these prosressives are
giving the State schools. Why should "a State
normal school. with plenty o. money. fear fair
competition with schools without dollar The
men who conduct the State Normal don ask
fer law giving them advantage: they want money
and viii never be satisfied. but IL is another
class OF men progrsssives who believe the
whole scheme OF education be reduced 10
machine. They speak OF cur nj system as
being too sacred 10 be taE.psred with. I be-
this civilization TO be the machine but the ma
chine I speak Of IS the result u the humble AMI
faithful combination Of the unchsnging laws OF
nature. These prcgTessiVes' believe that men
can be reduced 20 machines; may / add that the
present danger IL that may too far our
effort 10 reduce TIE pcople and the teacher 10
Angola. Ind. Feb. Il. L. NJ SNIFF