The commercial. (Union City, Tenn.) 190?-193?, 1921-04-01
Critics and Criticisms.

derStandlng OF current issues. we
often read his editorial writings with
profit. There is a frankness about
them one can hardly help admiring.
But his Impotence with what he
conceives to be the dalliance of our
Legislature makes him at times bit
choleric. He, along with many other
citizens, believes that not enough at
tention is given, at Nashville, to the
interests of the taxpayers. The tax
for State fairs and the issue of bonds
for soldiers memorial arouse the
Commercials bitter antagonism.
Doubt is even expressed of the pro-
priety of having the State conduct a
university for the promotion of high
er education. The Commercial fur
ther declares that we once had the
best teacher training school in the
South in the Peabody Normal
college at Nashville, and wants to
know why it was abandoned in order
to substitute three State normals at
a heavy expense to the taxpayers. 1t
is demanded that the number of these
normals shall be reduced to one and
that it's work be strictly limited to
the education and training of teach
ers.
We have condensed this statement
from the Commercial as a sort of
starting point for an observation or
two Before proceeding, however, we
shall note expressions from another
accomplished editor whose criticisms
do not run exactly parallel with those
of the Commercial. The Columbia
Herald, for instance, insists that we
have not abandoned Peabody col
lege, but thinks we ought to since the
State is providing for normal training
in schools of it's own. The Herald also
calls attention to a proposed appro-
priation now pending for the pur-
chase of additional land for Peabody
it opposes. The Herald says,
in part:
"The State owns, controls and lib
orally supports great university,
one of the best in the country. That
university owns and controls three
great agricultural experiment sta
tions, one in each division of the
State. In the aggregate these expert
ment stations contain nearly 1900
acres of land, practically all of which
was given to the State for expert
mental purposes.
Nov with a situation like this is
the State justified in making an ap-
preparation to buy land for Peabody
college for agricultural experimental
purposes? Should not the funds Of
the State be concentrated upon its
own institutions? Is there really
any need for any experimental work
in agriculture outside of the work be-
ing done by the division of extension
and the university of the State? Is
this not a duplication of effort and
money that could be avoided?"
There is perhaps justification for
the criticisms from both of the papers
referred to, for they are not entirely
dissimilar In view of the liberal
provision made for the University of
Tennessee by the current session of
the Legislature, however, we are in
clined to agree with the Herald that
the State ought not to be asked to
contribute money for agricultural
experimentation by.a private institu-
ton. And the same may be said of the
training of teachers. The State has
made rather elaborate preparations
to meet this need-perhaps too elab-
orate-and should not be expected to
support institutions which 1t does not
control, however elaborate they may
be.
AS the Herald observes and as this
paper has frequently indicated, the
educational system in Tennessee is
the product of an irregular growth.
1t lacks coordination and articula-
ton. Unnecessary duplication and
elaboration should be eliminated in
the interest of greater efficiency and
economy. Whether either of the
three normals should be abandoned
may, be debatable but, except for the
purpose of practice teaching, their
work should be confined to grades be-
yond the high school curriculum. We
are also inclined to believe that the
Tennessee Polytechnic" school,
which is costing the State considera-
BILE money, performs no commensu-
rate service in our educational sys-
tenn. It was not established in re-
Spouse to any recognized general
need.
President Gilbreath, of the East
Tennessee normal. has recently de-