The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1903-02-22
The Text Book Bill.


In your issue of last Friday YOU have
chosen to take to task the attitude of ne
three members of the board of education
of Birmingham who differ with you on
the question of the adoption Of the Uni
form Textbook bill Being a member of
said board and being opposed to the adop-
tion of the bill as 1t is now before the
general assembly, | beg the indulgence
of your columns to give you my reasons
for opposing said bill.
Permit me to state at the outset that
appreciate the disadvantage of taking Is
sue with the editor of paper and recog-
nizing the fact that he always has the
opportunity of having the last word
shall ask at your hands the same credit
for honesty of purpose to serve the peo-
pie that | am ready to yield to you In
your opposition to my views. which l
Shall be as brief as possible in submitting
am especially opposed to the present
BILL because 1t Is not the bill that was
submitted by General Johnston, nor thu
one approved by the governor himself.
either of which | could endorse. The
original bill did not contemplate includ-
ing the cities in said bill. My reason for
opposing 1t are
The average city mas term Of nine
months, while the average country school
does not last more than four months
iitilCCf boMtNtlt competent ana honest
any commission may be. with whom shall
lie the authority of selecting a set of
textbooks, they could not under these
conditions make them apply to all of
these schools and serve their best Inter-
ests.
2. I'M opposed to the bill as 1t now
stands, also, because it provides for Meth
er music, nor drawing nor a right of ini-
tiative upon any line, and restricts the
course to that which is particularly au :.
thorized In the bill. Birmingham partic-
ularly, and most of our cities, as a rule
are as stated owing to the advantages
offered their children on account of these
extra long sessions justified in making
Auditors to the curriculum as they may
find necessary.
3 l am opposed to the bill as 1t now
stands, because the amount appropriated
by the state is not more than possibly
one-fifth Of the total cost of the MAIN
terance Of our schools, not a cent bene
contributed by the state towards the cree.
tion OF equipment of buildings.
Next, / am opposed to the bill because
after years of eXperenc we have been
tested in competition with other schools
of the CT untry. AT the Atlanta axposi.
uon and there, as you may know, the
birminghe m public schools received the
fl st prize geld medal for the best sys-
tenn and methods, against tho best schools
of tho country, We should be SLOW t.
consent TO change a system that has been
ranifestly superior in so many respects
to others. and that has Satisfied our peo-
PIE so we'll, without knowing what we are
to accept in its place.
In asking for Birmingham to be ex-
empted from the operation of this bill,
we will not be prevented from accepting
the new list If 1t suits our purposes and
conditions 1t would thus give us the
option which we think we are entitled to
exercise for the reasons already stated
| opposed to the bill as it now
stands because nearly every teacher is
opposed to 1t. The teachers are. in my
opinion, the best judges Of the suitability
cf textbooks particularly as 1t applies to
this locality. Our superintendent and
principals and most of the teachers who
have been with us for years. and thos
whose integrity OF purpose and loyalty
to duty we have never had cause TO
question, are all opposed TO the present
Dill; therefore, | hold this the very best
reason why the board Of education should
hesitate to adopt the views of those who
give us opinions without reasons.
But you have laid great stress on the
Uniform Textbook bill because of the
money that would he saved 10 the
children of the state. and of course. ~
the ehld1 en- OF Birmingham citing the
Tennessee Textbook bill an object les
sen. have before me copy of the
Louisville Satui day lines of November
1. 1902 which contains an article by the
superintendent eff the public schools of
Louisville. comparing the cost of text
books as used in the public schools of
Louisville with those used in Memphis
and Nashville Louisville is not under a
state law, while Memphis and Nashville
are under the Tennes see law so often
quoted The total cost in Memphis by
grades in the first seven years, is s19. 81;
in Louisville. 1854. This is based on thu
cost of readers, arithmetics, Biographies.
grammars, and language lessons, his
tories snG physiologies. This gives dif-
ference of $3.50 in favor of The Louisville
child. in the purchase of books in these
studies. II Nashville. the difference Is