Milford chronicle., 1920-12-17
WOULD NOT REPEAL new
SCHOOL LAW BUT AMEND
INTERESTING DISCUSSION OF QUESTION
BY COMMITTEE NAMED BY THE
H0LD-0VER SENATORS.

Inc general committee appointed by
the hold-over State Senators prior to
the election. to frame a new School
! law or redraft the present law. by
amendments or otherwise met at Dow
er last week. thirteen of the thirty-fiye
members attending as follows:
New Castle county-Mrs. H. p.
Scott, DR.. r. w. Cooper. Mr.. Roeblin.
Kent county-Mrs. Cummins Speak
man, Elijah Melvin, David S. Clark,
James II. Hughes. William Sharp.
Sussex cOunty-Dr. Hopkins. Mrs.
Adkins. Mrs. Eta Gray Jones. Robert
G. Houston, Mr.. Cannon.
The report of the New Castle cOun-
ty conference was read by DR.. r. w.
Cooper. It included the report of the
meeting held in that county recently
The report for Kent county was YER
bal. made by Chairman Elijah Melvin,
and at the afternoon session, the full
report was read by County Superin-
/ tendent II. V. Holloway. The report
/ for Sussex county was read by DR..
/ Robert Hopkins of Milton. 1t showed
that more than a hundred persons
were present and that there were no
bitter feelings in the discussion, all
heartily seeking all light possible on
the features of the law which appear
ed Objectionable.
DR.. Hopkins advanced the idea that |
if the overhead expenses could be 1
eliminated to some extent, it would (
lessen the objections TO the present
law.
Hervey p. Hall. a 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 appar- ,
ent objections to some of the features
of the law. He advanced the opinion !
that if some plan could be devised to /
eliminate the Objectionable features, I
including the increased cost in taxa Z
tion. the people in general would be
satisfied. /
Chairman Houston said il was his I
and he believed that of a r
of the people of the State, +
was, that the present law should be /,
repealed, and he said that with a ma q
jority of the members of the Legisla- Il
-ure elected in Kent and Sussex coun- s
lies pledged to repeal the present law, v
I would be repealed h
Mr. Cannon did not believe all of the T,
members elected in the two lower n
counties were in favor of absolute re- m
)eal. giving one instance in Sussex r
county where he knew that a mem n,
,er elected 10 the House, while be-
ng credited with fayoring repeal.
would not so vote. u
Chairman Houston thought the pres
mt law had been tampered with long
nOugh, and that there was danger
4 the propotiOn of making amend 70
rents. -,
Mrs. II. p. Scott expressed the be- 90
eff that the main opposition TO the of
Nv was in respect of taxation, that 90
ne thing seeming to appeal more 80
ian anything else to the masses. She "a
lid il was the duty of the parent to =
md the child to school and il was =,
p to the parent solely to see to il M a-'
at the child attended school. %
DR.. Cooper submitted statistics ~
lowing the present enrolment of a., Sn'
lildren in the Delaware schools. the uu
Imber in daily attendance. the per- 0o
ct attendance. those kept home for ro'
rious reasons. 60
Mr.. Clark moved that the committee ~
persuaded that it must draft a new -. -
hool law. The motion was lost. % sU'
Mr. Cannon made a motion that the IN. IN
esent school law be amended so as Ia Ia
meet conditions as the committee ne v
derstands them. Before the motion pI,
Is voted on adjournment was taken "n'
Al the afternoon session there was i Eo'
general discussion as to some of the 'iy
ings in the law which had been de- 49,.
tred unnecessary, among them: ~
"a fuf nd ar
cessary for the good of education?"
e opinion of the committee was in he
-Or of retaining the State Board in ne
E drafting of the new law.
Was the Office Of State commiss- ~
Ter of education necessary" To 40. n
s. Dr. Cooper expressed the belief
II he could not see how they could ~, ~
along without this official. i. e.lit
Dr.. Hopkins asked how the State ~
along without a Commissioner of lO 81,
ucation before that office was ere an
d? ---
The answer was made that increas-
responsibilities in educational mat
S seemed TO warrant such an Of
he adyisability of maintaining the
nty Boards of Education and the
nty superintendents also came in
a share of discussion, some asking
Y could not these offices be elimi- a G
ed. The feeling. however. was that ~
county superintendents and cSIn- e'
boards were necessary for the best
srests of education. q.
fter the discussion on practically of n
of the so-called Objectionable fea- rr,-,,-
es of the Code, vote was then lIlll
EN- ON the motion offered by Mr..
non prior to the close of the NOR
3 session. that the committee
lend the present school law so as
meet conditions as the committee s
them" was put TO a vote s$
carried by ten to one. ma
he work of preparing the amend lE%
It's to the school law will be per- S$s M
ned by the executive committee. $8
@essee