The Waterbury Democrat., 1934-01-17

night. George Beach was chosen vice -r,resident. William A. Bartlett, secretary, and Randolph Betts'
 Charles F. Hungerford, Mrs coIin Barrett, William A. Bartlett and Dr M. Heminway Merriman were chosen members of the boarn of directors for three years.
 The treasurer's report as sup nitted bv MT Beach showed the organization in sound condition win A bank balance of $lll.Il' The report of the nurses commit fee of which Mrs Mary Heminway Ia chairlady, showed that the com munity nurse made 3,b68 vlsits III the past year and treated l.o4I pn- tients. One hundred and tourteen babies were born and six chlio "e'- fare conferences held. =,
 The school survey report io'' lows:
 To the President and Directors of the Watertown Civic Union-
 Ata ,eeting of the board of d. rectors held in June. 1933, your now activities committe was lh- structed to make survey or thc Watertown public school system and report to the directors. Ine objective was to determlne now Watertown schools ranked Wltn others in the state, and to eiVe an impartial unprejudiced report rpm the standpoint of tn eaveraSe citi- zen. ,y
 Your committee talked to many people. heard many conflicting reports. and soon realized what q difficult task 1t faced. None of yol1r committee members nave been qualified by training or ex- perience to make such q report and at fl later meteing Of the CIVIC Union recommended that such report be made by the state Board of Education.
 If was later learned that such special state examinations are only made at the request or the local school board. The school board not having made such re- quest, and the annual meetlng oI tho Civic Union being at hand, the committee feels 1t should make report and include in 1t any COT atructive suggestions that they have.
 Your committee. has no personal issues at stake. They have ap- preached their task impersonally, impartially, and without any at 1ennt to defend or attack. IT It's report can be dealt with on this Losis. and without regard to the personalities involved, we believe II may be helpful.
 Standard of Comparison
 In order to make any intelligent comments on the public school system in Watertown, 1t is first necessary to establish basis or comparison. Watcrtown is known as Il private school" town. Taft school and the Watertown Country Day school are both private schools. It is unfair to compare them with public schools for they are basical" ly quite different. Public Schools and Private Schools
 The public school IS required by law to accept children of school age, to retain and educate them until they are 16 years old. Wheth- CT the child is bright, or stupid, cooperative, or disobedient, the public school must continue to teach him.
 The private school can select only those students that it desires. If they are not satisfactory. q pri- yate school can get rid of them. 1T they are stupid, or disobedient, or q bad influence in the school, the private school can drop them. Pri- Vate school scholars, therefore, the private school can make us standards and its results very high.
 In Watertown, as in practically every town and city, there are al- ways some children who are 50 slow and below average that they should be given special help. There are state institutions to help In carrying this burden, but they are over burdened at the present time. Mansfield" for example, is said to have a waiting list or almost a thousand, and until the state appropriates more money for new buildings, these waiting stu dents cannot be admitted. In the meantime some of the them are in our Watertown schools, as they are in other schools of the state, where they make the work or the teacher very difficult.
 While the private schools with highly paid teachers, smaller class cs, and q picked body of students. can do excellent work; while they can suggest improved methods of education, and teach public schools many things; they should not be used as q standard of comparison by which to measure public schools, because their problem is 50 differ- ont.
 Your committee has gone into this in detail, because we. believe that such comparisons are not fair, and yet have been careless ly made in discussing Watertown public schools. We have found flat a far better basis of compari- son of Watertown school with other schools is to consider them only In relation to other public schools of the state, and of the country.
 Rnm0rs and Facts
 Naturally your committee has heard many complaints. and re- ccivod many suggestions. we have divided these for discussion into theree separate groups yas fol- lows:
 i. Expense of public schools.
 2. Comparative rating of Water town schools with other schools, towns and cities.
 3. Miscellaneous complaints and suggestions.
 i. We have examined in detail tho expenses of the schools. Tho Wntert0wn schools ht present cost the town about 31fS,00O. which is m Iitle loss than One-haIf of tho total expenses of the town. Nat lrnlly every taxpayer IS in- terestod to sec thnt not only this oxpendituro is Justified, but that it is carefully and well spent. This 9tts,O09 ia used to educate f,6bf boys and girls. This expense would Do larger if tho town had 10 educnio the children now going 10 DnroGhial and private schools, SC Johns paroohlal school, which was eraei0d, ana is mniniaInod by bt Johns Roman Catholic parish, has mn average nf goo children who arc bclng educated without cost 70 the .