Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial., 1920-12-09
WOULD NOT REPEAL
NEW SCHOOL LAW,
BUT WOULD AMEND
Interesting Discussion of Question
by Committee Named by
Hold-Over Senators.
VARIOUS OBJECTIONS
RAISED AND EXPLAINED
Special Correspondence to Every Evening

Spcclai correspondence TO Every Evening
Dover, Dec. 9.-The general commit
tee appointed by the hold-ovcr State
Senators prior to the election, % frame n
new School law or redraft the present law,
by amendments or otherwise met here
yesterday. thirteen of the thirty-five
members attending as follows:
New Castle county, Mrs. Ill. l.. Scott,
DR. r. W. Cooper, Mr. Roeblin.
Kent county, Mrs. Cummins Speallman
Elijah Melvin David s Clark, James H.
Hughes. William Sharp
Sussex county, DIR. Hopkins, Mrs
Adkins, Mrs. Eta Gray Jones, Robert g.
Houston, Mr. Cannon
The report of the New Castle county
conference was read by DR.. r. W. Cooper
IL included the report OF the meeting held
in that county recently. The report for
Kent county was verbal made hv Chair
man Elijah Melvin, and at the afternoon
session, the full report was read by County
Superintendent II. Y. Holloway The
report for Sussex county was read by DIR.
Robert Hopkins of Milton. IL showed
that more than hundred persons were
present and that there were no bitter
feelings in the discussion, all heartily seek
ing ali light possible on the features Of the
law which appeared objectionable
Dr. Hopkins advanced the idea that if
the overhead expenses could be eliminated
70 some extent, II would lessen the oh
iections 10 the present law.
1crvey p Hall n member Of the State
Board Of Education, said the state board
had not taken up the question of changes
in the present law. but realized that some
change must be made because Of the
apparent objections to some Of the features
OF the law He advanced the opinion that
II some plan could be devised To eliminate
the objectionable features, including the
increased cost in taxation, the people IN
general would he satisfied.
Chairman Houston said II was his inn
precision. and he believed that Of q majority
Of the people of the State, was, that the
present law should be repealed. and he
said that with n majority of the members
Of the Legislature elected in Kent aud Sus-
sex counties pledged TO repeal the
present law, it would be repealed
Mr. Cannon did not believe all Of the
members elected in the two lower counties
were in favor Of absolute repeal, giving
one instance in Sussex county where he
knew that member elected To the House,
while being credited with favorlng repeal
would not so vote.
Chairman Houston thought the present
law had been tamperea with long enough,
and that there was danger IN the propo-
tion of making amendments.
Mrs. H. T. Scott expressed the belief
that the main opposition to ehe law was IN
respect Of taxation, that one thing seeming
70 appeal more than anything else to the
masses She said II was the duty Of the
parent to send the child to school and II
WAS up 10 the parent solely 10 see to IT
that the child attended school
(Nnot,xsr ath-1lf4tsafa 81 q a Irs showing
the present enrolment of children in the
Delaware schools, the number tn daily
attendance, the perfect attendance those
kept home for various reasons.
Mr. Clark moved that the committee
is persuaded that IL must draft new
school law The motion was lost.
MIR. Cannon made motion that the
present school law be amended SO as 10
meet conditions as the committee under
stands them. Before the motion was
voted on adjournment was taken
At the afternoon session there was
general discussion as to some Of the
things in the law which had been declared
unnecessary, among them. Was the
state Board of Education necessary for
the good of education" The opinion Of
the committee was in favor of retaining
the State board in the drafting Of the new
law.
WAS the office Of State commissioner
Of education necessary To this, DIR.
Cooper expressed the belief that he could
not see how they could set along without
this official.
DR.. Hopkins asked how the State got
along without Commissioner Of Educa-
ton before that office was created?
The answer was made that increased
responsibilities III educational matters
seemed TO warrant such an officer.
The advisabihty Of maintaining the
county Boards Of Education and the
county superintendent also came in 70
share of discussion, some asking why
could not these offices be eliminated. The
feeling, however, was that both county
superintendents and county boards were
necessary for the best interests Of educa-
ton.
After the discussion on practically all Of
the so-called Objectionable features Of the
Code, q vote was then taken on the
motion offered by MIR. Cannon prior to
the close of the morning session, that the
committee amend the present school
law so as to meet conditions as the com
mittee understands them, was put 10 q
vote and carried by ten to one.
The work of preparing the amendments /
10 the school law viii be performed by the
committee.