The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-02-18
Letters to The Editor.
Uniform Book Bill.

V V " " Uniform Book Bill.
 Cottonwood, Ala, February 12. E9ltor The Advertiser:
 Ieei an interest in the school book piiis now pending in the Legislature I
 do not think that State uniformity would tvSs. N. serve the interest of the State but I 1"AnA that County uniformity would and
 | strongly favor a compulsory County SSt.ormlty law. I notice from the latest Ge iaws that could be obtained that
 Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massa-
 cnusetts and Rhode Island, which are tt" Engiand States, have town uniform ny. That Is each town adopts for its use
 a,,u uhliorm series to be used from one to m these States the town unit or system
 district VI i"'ee'
 ,,I, In New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, 1Innois. Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota,
 iowa, North Dakota, Nebraska and Col
 orado district uniformity is in force, for
 ,h most of those States the district unit
 sSsrsey prevails. In all the Eastern
 namsS names ana ma a good many of the others
 rec Hence uniformity in larger areas
 ls not so essential for the books remain
 at the same places.
 m south Dakota Montana Wyoming,
 ifern;' ifeva;oa' washington. oregon, Texas. Cal norma. Tennessee. Indiana and Louis
 ,ana iia they have State uniformity straight
 with Indiana and possibly others furnish
 ing free books.
 Virginia, Arkansas and Ohio recommend nst rom which school or County boards select and adopt a course to be in use
 rom three to rive years So that it will pc seen that only two or three of the
 great states have State uniformity. The
 IT., mos. or the others are the new and thin " populated Northwestern States In New Jersey, Maryland. Kentucky, North carolina. South Carolina Georgia. Flor
 loa, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Kansas and
 pear.ly in MisAouri we find County uni
 ornity; In South Carolina uniformity
 IS elective and in New Jersey they have Iree books. So 1t will be seen that most oI the southern States have County uni Iormity. County uniformity is a. good
 medium between the two extremes of
 town and State uniformity. The one too small and hard to keep up with the other too large and cumbersome
 Snouid State board make an error the
 children and patrons of the entire State
 you'd suffer the result but should a Sounty board err the people of so large
 a district would not be effected. State uhiIormity would produce too much of a Cnlnese Ike sameness and the variety, of mental attainment might be dulled The bread and meat of life Is essential to the weifare of the human family. but if Is not expected that 1t shall be prepared the same way every day for everybody. So
 IL IS with mental food. 1t Is all well not be destroyed.
 For person to oppose uniformity in one form or another in this enlightened gay IS to argue that person wholly unit 70 discuss the question and ignorant of the simplest needs of the common
 schools. He had as well say that schools couid get along as well without any sys- tenn Of discipline, order of study and rec
 itation or indeed, that there is no system or oraer needed to make a common rne best form of uniformity Is the free DOCK system. For then it does not make so much difference If the district hap pens to be small. As an illustration of
 trn fnrn,.Sfa .SGt a great many of our cities are Soutn are rather unable yet so we think , 70 furnish them free to the rural dis
 .rtcts: M Free books usually follow con
 sesteo population and wealth. They will come our way in time to come
 It would never do any way to saddle on
 the State State uniformity and not ex- cept the cities. For a course of studv suitanle for a city graded school would
 oe Sea un1s TOT a country school. We have seen that tried to a demonstration in
 other States As an illustration the city schools nave from six to ten grades in reading and supplementary reading while the country schools have only about four A good deal has been said about the
 saving in State uniformity but the say
 ing IS always stated in dollars and cents and nothing said about the irretrievahIe l JOSS mat the children would suffer with
 ;na ;n inierior ,e ana unsuitable course of stud | ies put upon them. Texas and California potn made, by their own confessions. sad mistakes in the operation of their State
 unliormlty each in being compelled to use inIerior school book material
 l nave been informed that West Vir-
 ginla so greatly felt her mistake that she 1 displaced State uniformity bv Countv uniformity. Three of our sister States
 nave County uniformity and the system
 IS giving general satisfaction. They do
 not want State uniformity. Indeed they
 realize that they are better off without II ana so will we be- Several of our coun- tles already have County uniformity and | heavy expense would be incurred by a We have the system in operation in tnis-Henry-County, and it Is giving ex celent satisfaction. The people are high
 m their praise of the operation of the
 hn, aM nere' The towns of over 1000 in.
 haoltants can make their own adoptions.
 put they must last for five years along with the County, The Legislature ouQhf
 to give us County uniformity, with the city exception, over the entire State and give 1t to us now. For if there ia an
 other State that hasn't uniformitv in
 some form we have failed to find it. We can not afford to be at the very foot of
 the ladder in this respect while our State
 game game IS at the head of 1t. If we had a t,, to -. "OHLu TSquiTe edCn Coun- 10 put Tn force the law that exists in tnls County there would be hut IttIe
 chance to injure anybody and the whole
 state. the children. the patrons and
 teachers in 1t would be incalcuably ben
 And when we come to think of if if would be law that would not carry a
 collars appropriation from the State
 treasury. And since the State appro-
 prlates thousands of dollars for the edu-
 eaton of her children. why withhold a
 law that would do them and the State
 thousands of dollars worth of good and
 yet does not take any thing from the State funds? I am,
 Respectfully yours
 J. w. Kitching