The Prince George's enquirer and southern Maryland advertiser. (Upper Marlborough, Md.) 1882-1925, 1914-03-13

trail location. You can not take point
IN the rural districts and run a circle
around it and obtain a common center
of popu alton. Ardmore and Seabrook
are at the rim of the wheel of their
population, while it is argued that Lam
ham or its vicinity is the hub. IT Ian
ham and its immediate neighbor hood
have not enough population to afford a
graded or high school. it should wait
until it reaches such a condition and
not try to play the part of the octopus
with our school for the purpose of get
ting what they have not sufficient school
children to support alone.
The bone of contention by those IN
favor of this consolidation is that It
will work for the mutual good OF all
concerned AS we see it through our
glasses, it looks like real estate boom
tor Lanham at our loss of school, and
extra taxes for the people OF the coun-
ty. 1t has been stated that this system
would be followed by buses to take
children back and forth to school.
This is fine. but why not make 1t by
trolley car and avoid the unpassable
road question of winter
There are now four schools within
mile or so of each other. | gamble to
say there are few places in Prince
George S county which can boast of any
more in such close proximity to one an
other. These schools as now located are
at their centers of population do not
believe there was ever set OF ott1clals
at the helm of affairs who would will
fully go out and locate school away
from such a center purposely. ALI
houses then existing are now in the
exact location. as when the county
selected the various locations for the
schools. Lanham has a school now.
and goes to prove my contention that
Ardmore and Seabrook are also cente S
of their own population and not in any
way related to Lanham as common
center.
Gentleman, don't do away with any
of the schools They are all O. K. as
best suited to the needs of their own
places. If Lanham has enough chill
dren to support graded school, then
/ ask that they deal with you and leave
out the school question of Ardmore
and Seabrook. We have no objection
to their progress if they sail upon their
own bottom.
If Lanham or its vicinity is not 60
ing to get high school, then the whole
question resolves itself into a mere
farce. Any one can see that to close
up two schools, which meet all de-
mands, and build another in order that
those who have not enough children
may be benefited, is quite an expen
sive proposition. There will be the
BUSES to operate and the expense to
defray: If these schools go to Lanham,
this will be necessary, as the school
will then be further away from each
community. If the only purpose of
this change is for graded school, why
not authorize the various teachers in
the schools, as now located. to include
in their courses, as it becomes neces-
sary, higher instruction. This would
result in four teachers doing the work
of what it would require eight to- do
under the graded system.
In my early life attended the public
schools of Southern MARYLAND and know
by experience that observing children are
helped by all grades being in one room.
The systenl-of a teacher for each grade
can be carried out in the cites because
of the large number of children for
each grade, bu', in the country dis
tricts. where such is not the case, it
will hardly pay to initiate its customs,
when the cost of the unnecessary ex-
pense must fall on a county where a
large part of its citizens have to dig
their money our of the soil by hard
knocks.
Mr.. Commissioners, this question
concerning. as it does. all of the poo.
pie of our county is too large a pro-
position to pass on at this time, either
for or against. The logical way. in
our opinion. would be for the county
to vote on the proposition of whether
they are in favor of larger burdens of
taxation for schools. ] he bui ding of
school houses is a question in which
every citizen is interested, as thew have
to share in the payment of debts in
Cured.
In view of the fact that there are now
pending before the Legislature bills
amounting to ST. 900 for the purpose of
school buildings, it would appear prop
er for the contenders to lay the ques.
ton Of this expenditure before that
body in order to bring it in the cata-
CORY of your resolution of February
18TH.
We most respectfully request that the
whole question be resolved into status
quo. in so far as Seabrook is con-
cerned.