The daily sentinel., 1909-12-01
DEFEAT FOR
CONSOLIDATION EA---REV|EW
Of CAMPAIGN BY DR.. 0YLER

The election which was held in the
Pear Park district Tuesday, Nov. 80,
upon the question of consolidation or
the three districts. viz Pear Park,
Allen and Fruitvale, resulted in a
defeat OF the proTosition; the vote
standing 25 for consolidation, and
127 against.
apprehend the wiseacres and
boosters will henceforth refer to US
as the "old fogy district, where they
raise razor-back hogs and live on SOW
belly and Johnny cake" However,
before general Judgment is pronounc-
ed against us, ] desire to present, for
the consideration of the public. few
of the reasons for the position taken
: by us. In the first place. we main
tain that the matter of consolidation
of school districts is purely local
mater, not to be determined by any
general rule, of universal application,
but solely by the conditions OF the
district to be affected and only appll-
cable under certain conditions. That
il is an emergency remedy, TO De ap-
piled where the exigency OF the case
reuires. Our legislators, as also those
of all the different states that nave
enacted laws, making consoildation
possible, have all recognized that tact'
hence in every case. have left it op-
tional with the voters of each district,
for them to determine, each case Tor
itself whether their conditions Were
such as to warrant the adoption OF
the remedy. They could have made
if peremptory, and had they regarded
it a remedy of universal application
they would have done so, but knowing
that IL was only of local application
they made it elective.
Recognizing this principle. the peo-
ple of Pear Park wanted TO know
what conditions in this district de-
manded the application of this rem
edy. We asked for this information,
we waited and expected that those
who sought TO instruct us in the mat
ter. would point out to US wherein
our schools were poor, point out 10 us
our defects, and show to us how ana
in what manner consolidation would
helm us. This they failed to do, or
even attempted to do.
They pointed us to the possibilities
of large buildings, many scholars ana
teachers, but never in any instance
did they point out to us wherein we
would have more efficient schools ior
our children up to and including the
eighth grade.
During this campaign there ap-
pesred. almost daily, in some of the
daily papers, articles written by ar
ferent persons upon the subject Oh
consolidation, but all treated the SUD
iect in a general and abstract man
ner as though the small matter Oh
conditions precedent cut no tlBure'
but they gave us no light, nothing
snecifically applicable to our case.
The only argument seemed to be that
We should adopt II because 1t was new
and up to date. and that 1t had Deeh
tried elsewhere and proven success,
: ful. and that it had been endorsed
and recommended by able educators.
/, governors. senators, etc. They cited
ms ,o n number of states where IT hao
been adopted. and was now In sue
cessful operation, among the NUMBER
was Indiana. 49,,
we took the pains TO look up the
school conditions of that state 10 see
what the conditions were before con- con-
soIidation. and found that over f'oVu
schools had an average attendance OF
less than 90. and that by consolidat-
inp four or five districts, they had IN
The majority of the consolidated dis
tricts an attendance of only 50 10
? 10O each. Iowa was cited TO us as
another state where wonderful re-
snIts had been achieved by consolida-
tion We found that in Iowa 2.5oo
dist ricts reported an average attend
ance OF less than 10. and over 9,oOo
dist ricts. less than 90 each out OF a