Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1901-02-14
EDUCATION IN MISSOURI.
Communications From the state su-
perintendent OF Public schools
Invite Consideration.
STATE OF MISSOURI,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.
JEFFERSON CITY, Feb. s, 100

JEFFERSON CITY. Feb. s, 1901.
Mr.. Editor: Since there seems to be some
misunderstanding as to the status of
legislation on the Simmons bill, ] ask
that you Civ your readers the benefit OF
the following:
The parochial school people have justly
been opposing what is generally known
as the compulsory bill. His
first bill No. 30, undertook to regulate
all schools by the public school~ standard;
to place the enforcement of law in the
hands of local public school boards, and
to prosecute before justice courts. These
are, as | understand it, the Objectionable
features.
Mr.. withdrew that bill and in
roduced another known as bill No. 375,
which has been reported favorably by the
house on education. 1t provides
ID that all children between s and Il
shall attend some day school three
fourthS of its school term, also those
from IA to 10 unless legally employed;
() courts of record may excuse those (a)
who nave completed the common school
course, (b) who can not provide proper
clothing, (c) who are either mentally or
physically incapacitated, I'D who live two
and a half miles from any school, (e)
whose services are absolutely necessary
tic support of family, () who are taught
at home; 60 that cities of 5000 or more
population may have attendance officers;
() that cities of IL, COO or more may estab-
l1sh truant or parental schools; () that
children between S and II can not be en-
ployed in mines, factories, workshops and
mercantile establishments during school
hours unless excused from attending
school as above; () parents, guardians,
owners or operators of mines, factories,
workshops and mercantile establishments
who violate the provisions of this act
are subject to small fines, prosecution to
be made in courts OF record having GRIM
1nal jurisdiction. The bill is especially
guarded in that it does not permit dis
examination against any class of schools,
all prosecutions are taken away from To-
cal authorities in rural districts. The bill
adheres strictly to the purposes as ex-
pressed in it's title: AN act to enforce the
constitutional right of every child to an
education and to prohibit the employ
Laent OF children during school hours
1t is we'll known that the present state
superintendent of schools has been very
consistently opposed to Compulsory Ed
ucation," and joined very earnestly in a
hot contest On this subject at the State
Teachers association in 1889.
No one could have been more positively
opposed to No. 210 than he, He was first
to call attention to the Objectionable fea-
lures of 1t. He thinks. however, that
there is a strong, growing demand for
such legislation that will ignorant
selfish parents from depriving their chill
dren of an education. The provisions of
tne Dill VIII not WORK a harGSh1p on any
one. 1t prevents prosecutions before To-
cal, and perhaps, prejudiced courts. The
bill is drawn so as to be more especially
operative in large cities. While it applies
to rural schools, public sentiment alone
must enforce it there.
A compulsory law that will in any way
deprive the parent of that inherent right
to direct the education of his child should
be resisted by every one. Simmons bill
No. 375 does not do this, then why not
pass it and stop this biennial unrest con-
: corning it. Nest respectfully,
w. II. DARLINGTON,
State Superintendent Public chools