The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-05-28
EFFECT OF NEWLAW
BELIEVED THAT COMMON SCHOOLS
 WILL BE HURT
Other Leaders in school Work Think That the Omission in the Code
 Wfu Net Enjure the 4ah0ola.

There waa more talk in local and State educational circles yesterday about the omission from the new Code of the minimum school term law. There was much speculation as to the effect 1t will have on the public school system. Some say the omission will be : detrimental. others declare II amounts to nothing.
 One of the most prominent figures in State educational circles expressed hts opinion yesterdav that 1t will not ma terfally influence the system of public schools as 1t now exists. On the other hand. an astute observer. of laws ana thetr- effects. predicts that the absence of the minimum term act from inc Code will be handicap to the State Department of Education.
 The force of the argument by eitner side hinges on the character and pos sibie attitude of the County Boards or Eddcation. The State Department has been operating under the law strictly since its approval in March, 1901. They would not approve contracts for teaeh- CTS for less than four months. The Department has essayed to make the length of school term uniform in all parts of the county, and the State. Ever since the adoption of the law there has been an approach to a uniformity or terms. The uniformity aim has been assisted materially by the increase In the to the public schools, z; The Idea of the man who says that the omission of the act of 1901 Will not hurt is to place enough confidence in the system that has been built up to believe that the communities will not brook a term of less than, four or hve months. The State Constitution en. joins all educational authorities to make the terms as uniform as posst- a.I~ AM Mhal1 nn discrimination in favor of one school at the expense of the other and per haps less influential school.
 IT. perforce. the local pride of com munities or districts has been so crysta1ized that the County Boards dare not contract for less than four or i've months terms. it Is argued that mum term statute. The purpose Of the State educational system has been to bring the terms of all country schools up as near as possible to that of the longest and best in the coun try. Having enjoyed already the bene fits of growth and education under the advanced terms, 1t is said that sen timent will mot permit of retrogres' sion.
 But there Is the argument of the other observer. While he does not in- sist on any serious damage to the sys- tenn. he points to the gap and shows that the gap provided by the laws omission presents the possibility. un- der the law as 1t existed, the State Su- pcrirtendent of Education had the dis erection to approve or disapprove a teachers contract for four months, notwithstanding that five months were set down as the minimum. It Is a matter of record that upwards of a hundred or more applications for less than the five months term have been turned down by the State Department in a single year. It is pointed out that there is sometimes a tendency to en- force a shorter term than five months and it is argued that 1t is possible. by the omission of the law from the now Code for terms to be shortened with the result that the same teachers gei the same pay.
 Yet the fact remains that the per capita school appropriation is calculat- ed to be sufficient to bring about a uni form length of school term equal to, if not more than. five months. It will take the operation of the system itself to determine whether the absence of the minimum term act will cause a backward step or not.