LB 
 
 3047 
 
 .5 
 
 C2 
 
 A76 
 
 1911 
 
 MAIN 
 
2if m\ 
 
 The California Textbook System 
 
 By L. E. ARMSTRONG 
 Secretary California Teachers' Association 
 
 An indictment of a plan that bars free 
 textbooks, that prevents a democratic 
 system of local adoptions, that interferes 
 with our educational development, and 
 that costs the people unreasonable prices 
 for poorly dressed books. 
 
 Reprint from 
 
 Sierra Educational Nervs 
 
 October and November^ 19 f I 
 
1 
 
 
 Bolte & Br»dea Co. 
 San Fr 
 
 ^ 
 
 

 THE CALIFORNIA TEXTBOOK SYSTEM 
 
 mi 
 
 Ni 
 
 At the last session of the Legislature* the Senate appointed a com- 
 mittee of five of its members to investigate the general question of text- 
 books for our elementary schools. This committee has made a promising 
 beginning. Its recent hearings in San Francisco have fully sustained the 
 charges made by the State Board of Control that for years there has been 
 shameful mismanagement of the State Printing Office. It was shown 
 that if a business-like administration of that office could be secured, the 
 price of our textbooks would be materially reduced. 
 
 INTEREST IN THE TEXTBOOK INVESTIGATION 
 
 The investigation has attracted wide attention. The people of Cal- 
 ifornia are vitally interested in the question of textbooks, especially in the 
 cost feature. The press of the State has commented freely on the investi- 
 gation. An editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle is especially stim- 
 ulating : 
 
 "The investigators of the State Printing Office are merely finding 
 out the details of what all those familiar with such business have 
 always known must exist there. 
 
 "Any State Printing Office is, and will remain, a State scandal. 
 TTiere may be a temporary spurt of purification such as is now going 
 on, but unless himian nature has suddenly experienced a revolutionary 
 change the office will speedily drift back into its old rut. 
 
 "For, frankly, that is precisely what the office is intended for. It 
 was not and could not have been to promote any public interest. It 
 was organized with the deliberate intent to find easy jobs for a few 
 scores of people at the expense of the taxpayers and school children, 
 and to enable the State Printer to do politics or worse with 
 contractors. 
 
 "Nor will any installation of a cost-keeping system prevent it. It 
 is perfectly easy to beat any cost system when those in control so 
 desire, and the very existence of such a system will make it safer by 
 allaying public suspicion. 
 
 "TTie Chronicle will not, and the people should not, prejudge 
 the personal conduct of the State Printer. TTiat will be justified or 
 otherwise by the facts as they appear. 
 
 3 
 
 3G2025 
 
"But we shall none of us err if, without further knowledge than 
 we already have, we make up our minds that the system itself is rotten.** 
 
 AN EXPERIMENT IN TEXTBOOKS 
 
 This editorial in the Chronicle would seem to indicate that the 
 people of California are about to come out of a twenty-six-year trance. 
 Back in 1885 California ventured upon an experiment that no other 
 state had ever tried, and one that no other state since then has deemed 
 wise to try. Through specious argument and gross misrepresentation, 
 the people of California voted in 1 885 to compile and publish their own 
 textbooks. It was loudly proclaimed and fondly believed that such a 
 system would yield superior books, at a reduced cost, to those offered 
 by the several publishing firms — denominated for political purposes as 
 "the book trust.** Thus the people enthusiastically created a real 
 monopoly in the authorship, manufacture and sale of textbooks. Alf 
 competition was eliminated. The grave responsibility of compiling the 
 books was entrusted to the State Board of Education — a board con- 
 taining no members experienced in producing texts. It was cheerfully 
 assumed, however, that successful authors of textbooks were indigenous 
 to California even as the giant redwoods. The serious task of man- 
 aging the business end of the undertaking — the manufacture of the 
 books — was placed in the hands of a politician selected, in nearly every 
 instance, by big business interests which hoped to profit from favorable 
 contracts. Truly a promising combination of politics and business to 
 handle free from competition an enterprise running well toward a quarter 
 million dollars a year! And this combination could not lose because it 
 had the big purse of the State to fall back upon. The cheerful confidence 
 of the people in 1 885 in establishing this system seems pathetic to us now. 
 
 FRUITS OF THE SYSTEM 
 
 Was not the plan in both its features an invitation to disaster? On 
 the authorship side we deliberately turned our backs on books that had 
 been tested in the fierce heat of competition all over the United States. 
 Surely it was a provincial, short-sighted pride that refused the best 
 the country at large had to offer, in favor of the work of unknown, 
 untried California authors! On the business end we provided an 
 unholy combination of politics and business, thereby laying a sure 
 foundation for faulty service and grave scandals. With such a plan, 
 
 4 
 
what could we expect? Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of 
 thistles? 
 
 We were not slow in harvesting the natural crop. We saddled the 
 children of California with books that were worse than disappointments. 
 As a whole they were a crime against helpless childhood. Competent 
 students of education bear witness that of the eighteen books prepared by 
 local authors and published at the State Printing Office from 1885 to 
 1903, not one book could be considered a thoroughly satisfactory text; 
 not one could bear comparison with books issued by the regular pub- 
 lishers. As the new State texts gradually replaced the former and 
 better books, the situation grew worse, and finally became intolerable. 
 Evasions and violations of the law were every-day occurrences. The law 
 requiring children to use the State texts was evaded through the purchase 
 by the districts of large numbers of supplementary books, which were 
 quietly used in place of the State texts. In many instances children 
 bought these other and better books in place of the State texts — a clear 
 violation of the law — while those in authority winked at it. Teachers 
 and principals talked learnedly of the advantages of the topical method, 
 and under its mantle brought in supplementary books galore. Thus, 
 for the sake of the children, did we circumvent a bad law. The habit 
 of supplementary books became so strong that when a happier day 
 dawned, in 1 903, it required a firm crusade to place reasonable restric- 
 tions on the use of supplementary books. Hundreds of thousands of 
 dollars were spent by parents and districts for supplementary books 
 as a direct result of the rotten series of State texts. And yet the plan 
 of state publication was adc^ted as an economy measure I 
 
 REFORMING THE AUTHORSHIP FEATURE 
 
 Finally the storm of complaint against the State texts became so 
 fierce and continuous from teachers and parents alike, that the Attorney 
 General came to the rescue. In 1903 he rendered an opinion that the 
 constitutional provision requiring state compilation and publication of 
 textbooks would be complied with if the books were actually printed at 
 the State Printing Office. A statute was framed accordingly, enabling 
 the State Board of Education to adopt the best books from the open 
 market, leasing the plates from the original publishers and paying a roy- 
 alty on each book sold. By this legal legerdemain we managed after 
 eighteen years to squirm out of one-half of a bad plan. But the other 
 
 5 
 
half — the manufacture of the books in the State Printing Office — is still 
 with us. For several valid reasons, this feature also must go before we 
 shall have a system worthy of California. 
 
 MISLEADING COMPARISON OF PRICES 
 
 In the first place, the character of the work done in the State Print- 
 ing Office confirms the belief that the fundamental plan is inherently 
 wrong, as pointed out in the editorial in the Chronicle. We can not 
 reasonably expect a clean, businesslike administration of that office. A 
 strong, efficient Governor, an alert Board of Control, and a determined 
 Senate committee may force a temporary reform. But so long as the 
 product of that office, freed by law from competition, is accepted by the 
 State, just so long will the office remain a political one, whether elective 
 or appointive. For it will remain an asylum for political henchmen, 
 who will determine for themselves what constitutes a fair day's work. 
 A few illustrations of the character of the work done may prove illumi- 
 native of the contention that the State Printing Office must go. 
 
 The State Prmting Office recognizes only one fundamental problem 
 — that of publishing the books adopted by the State Board at a few 
 cents less than the list prices of these same books as sold by the pub- 
 lishers. Now a book is a book to some people, just as a horse is a horse 
 to others. But a lover of books recognizes a difference in books just 
 as a lover of horses recognizes a difference in horses. Two men may 
 both have a set of Shakespeare, but one set may be worth ten times the 
 other. Since the plan of leasing plates was adopted in 1903, the State 
 Printing Office has not issued one book equal in binding and paper to the 
 same book as published regularly. To bring this point home with its 
 attendant implications, compare our present State text in history with the 
 same book (McMaster's Brief History of the United States) as sold 
 in the open market. In the State text we find paper so poor that the 
 illustrations are not clear; the margins have been reduced, evidencing 
 skimpiness and stinginess ; and, worst of all, the leaves are merely pasted 
 to the back, while the regular publishers* edition is strongly mounted with 
 a reinforced linen back to which the leaves are securely stitched. Any 
 competent bookbinder will testify that the book from the publisher will 
 easily last twice as long as the book from the State Printing Office. 
 What is true of the history is true of the other books. Compare the 
 geographies published by the State with the same books issued by the 
 regular publishers. But why multiply instances? 
 
 6 
 
TTie State Printer claims with pride that he can undersell the regu- 
 lar publishers. Can he really undersell them, quality for quality? His 
 one great advantage is a ready market — safely his by law. With no 
 expense for establishing a demand for his goods, such as all regular 
 publishers must meet, he issues books that no reputable publisher would 
 dare offer the public. In each case the State Printer prepares for the 
 use of our children an illegitimate brother of a well-bom book, a coun- 
 terfeit presentment of few days and full of trouble for the children. 
 When the State Printer can produce books equal in paper and binding 
 to the regular editions of these books, we shall listen to a comparison of 
 prices. A comparison of prices that does not take varying qualities into 
 consideration is worthless. TTiis comparison at the present time on a 
 false assumption of equal paper and binding is thoroughly reprehensible 
 because its deliberate intent is to mislead. It is unfair to the publishers 
 and also to the children. For have we not vaunted ourselves, saying 
 that the best is none too good for our children? But we continue a 
 system that places in the hands of these children books that are decidedly 
 inferior in paper and binding to those used in any of the other states 
 of the rank of California. 
 
 THE COMING OF FREE TEXTBOOKS 
 
 There can be little question that we shall soon have free textbooks 
 in California, Since the State undertakes at great expense the education 
 of her children, it would seem that she must not stop short of providing 
 the necessary tools for doing the work. Well-equipped buildings and 
 competent teachers are provided, but these will fall short of the goal 
 unless supplemented by good books in the hands of all the children. 
 The textbook is an indispensable part in the circle of instruction, second 
 only to the teacher. We endanger the whole edifice of public education 
 when we leave this gap. For many parents are unable to furnish books 
 for their children, but still are unwilling to confess pauperism to secure 
 the books under the present law for indigents. Free textbooks have been 
 tried in other states, and under certain safeguards the plan has worked 
 well. A sentiment in favor of free texts is growing rapidly in Cal- 
 ifornia. Is it not wise to face the situation now and prepare a carefully 
 considered plan against the day of their introduction? 
 
 In maturing this plan we shall find a compelling reason why the State 
 
 7 
 
Printing Office must go. if that office were charged with the duty of 
 furnishing free textbooks, there would be less incentive to keep its work 
 up to a decent standard than at present. For so long as parents pay 
 directly for textbooks, they wilt have an active interest in the quality and 
 cost of the books. But with textbooks furnished at public expense, 
 this critical interest would be materially lessened. To the average man 
 there is a big difference between the iiiisappropriation of a dollar that 
 comes out of his pocket and one that comes out of the public purse. 
 The fierce indignation throughout the State at the shameful mismanage- 
 ment of the State Printing Office is due in cqpsiderable measure to a real- 
 ization of personal loss. Why do we hear so much discussion of the cost 
 of textbooks? On its face it seems strange, when we consider that of all 
 the money spent annually in California for education, not more than four 
 per cent goes for textbooks. And yet ninety-six per cent of all the talk 
 concerns the four per cent spent for books ! Why? Because the ninety- 
 six per cent is raised by taxation, while the four per cent is paid directly 
 from our own individual pockets. Furnish textbooks at public expense, 
 and we shall hear no more criticism of the cost of textbooks than of 
 buildings, desks, supplies and teachers* salaries. 
 
 Is it not clear that before we may safely lessen the public scrutiny 
 by the introduction of free texts, we should reject a plan that has 
 proved conducive of poor books at high prices? Before committing 
 ourselves to free textbooks, we should evolve a plan that will safeguard 
 the securing at reasonable prices of good books, clearly printed and well 
 bound. We believe that we should steadfastly resist free textbooks in 
 California until the State Printing Office is done away with. 
 
 MEETING THE EXPENSE OF FREE TEXTBOOKS 
 
 This position will be further justified by a consideration of the pos- 
 sible methods of inaugurating free textbooks in California under the pres- 
 ent constitutional provision calling for state publication. The expense of 
 free textbooks would have to be met by the State, or the county, or the 
 district, or by combinations of the three. 
 
 The State certainly would not pay the entire cost of free texts. It 
 is a well-established principle that appropriations granted by the State 
 should be supplemented by money raised by local taxation. In no other 
 way can extravagance be prevented and a proper sense of responsibility 
 developed. Furthermore, it seems extremely doubtful whether the 
 
 8 
 
State should pay any portion of the cost of free texts. The State is 
 now paying toward teachers' salaries about one-half the total cost of 
 our elementary schools. We believe that the law should not be changed 
 to include anything else. The State is doing her full share now. The 
 people are paying directly for textbooks to-day. Would it not be better 
 and fairer for them to continue to do so through local taxation? The 
 cost of textbooks seems legitimately a local expense along with other 
 supplies. This plan would have the advantage also of providing a suit- 
 able check on expenditures. For, of course, there can be no such thing 
 as free texts. We believe the best possible plan would be for each city 
 and county, or possibly each district, to decide for itself whether it 
 desires to pay for its books collectively or by the parents individually. We 
 believe that the principle of local option, sharpening responsibility and 
 educating it, should prevail in all cases unless clear reasons can be shown 
 for its suspension. In a democracy questions should be brought home to 
 the people as closely as effective administration will permit. With local 
 option on texts it seems safe to assume that a majority of the units would 
 forthwith decide upon free texts. 
 
 Thus it would seem safe to conclude that when we do have free 
 texts in California the expense will be borne locally — probably by the 
 county with the assistance of the district. Under the plan of state pub- 
 lication, however, we should face the necessity of purchasing the books 
 from the State Printer. And that would mean that we should be worse 
 off than we are today. Freed by law from competition, the State Printer 
 could still furnish inferior books. Effective remonstrance would be more 
 difficult to secure because people do not readily respond to public injury. 
 We call a man who steals from us collectively a grafter; him who steals 
 from us individually, a thief. Say what we will, our indignation in the 
 second instance is more apt to lead to action. So long as the State 
 maintains a monopoly of the manufacture of textbooks in the hands of 
 a politician, we believe that the introduction of free textbooks should be 
 postponed. Let us not make a bad matter worse. 
 
 LOCAL ADOPTIONS VS. STATE UNIFORMITY 
 
 We believe that a frank examination of our system of uniform State 
 texts will point to a solution of the problem. State publication and state 
 uniformity go naturally hand in hand. If the reasons for doing away 
 with state publication are valid, we believe that it can be shown that 
 
 9 
 
we should profit educationally by substituting local adoption for state 
 uniformity of texts. While this assertion may seem a little startling in 
 California, it would be considered a truism in every other progressive, 
 well-settled state in the Union with the exception of Indiana. Let us 
 name all the states that have uniform textbooks: Virginia, North Car- 
 olina. South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, 
 Mississippi, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Ne- 
 vada, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Kansas, Indiana and California. 
 This list contains food for thought. With the exception of the last four 
 named, the list falls into two big classes — the Southern States and the 
 Plateau States. In a broad way we see clearly that the two most 
 sparsely settled sections of our country favor state uniformity. Is this 
 merely a happening, or is there a reason for it? We believe that state 
 uniformity in those two big groups of states is a genuine educational 
 adaptation to environment. In a sparsely settled section public education 
 costs far more per capita than in more populous regions. The schools 
 must make humble beginnings and develop with the section. The cost 
 of education is usually so great that only the rudiments can be attempted 
 at first. And to make sure of even a humble beginning, the power and 
 assistance of the state are invoked. Until a system gathers headway 
 with the years, it seems necessary for the state to make sure that certain 
 minimum requirements are enforced. State uniformity of texts is a nat- 
 ural means of handling the problem. Thus we should expect to find 
 state uniformity in the South; for the public school systems in those 
 states have been built since the Civil War. There were no public 
 schools in the South in 1860. We should also expect to find state 
 uniformity in all new states, as evidenced by the Plateau group as a 
 whole. 
 
 Does it not follow conclusively that with the gradual settlement and 
 development of a state, the plan of state uniformity of texts must com- 
 plete its purpose and give way to a system more responsive to the needs 
 of the people? With an effective public school system in full swing, 
 backed by an alert public consciousness of the worth of education, state 
 uniformity is no longer necessary to safeguard minimum requirements. 
 Then the state must have a system that recognizes the inevitable differ- 
 entiations among the people; that meets the varying needs of rural and 
 city schools; that bases itself on variety as co-equal with unity in 
 achieving progress; that stimulates progress by permitting ready adjust- 
 ment to organic variations. 
 
 10 
 
TTiis process of educational evolution has been shown clearly in the 
 state of Washington. When it was first made a state, the plan of 
 state uniformity rightly imposed upon it as a territory was continued. 
 But with the rapid settlement of the state, with the growth of great 
 cities, with varying needs among the people, Washington a few years 
 ago set aside its outgrown system of uniform texts in favor of a pro- 
 gressive system of local adoptions. Several other states have done the 
 same. 
 
 Now let us turn to the four states that seem to be out of their pew in 
 favoring state uniformity. Kansas and Oregon may not have developed 
 sufficient educational momentum safely to do away with state uniformity. 
 But how about Indiana and California? At last we understand why 
 Indiana has been called "the Hoosier State.** Even Missouri has been 
 "shown," changing a few years ago from state uniformity to local adop- 
 tions. Why should our own beloved California, progressive as she truly 
 is, stand squarely across the path of educational evolution? Why should 
 California and Indiana have the unenviable distinction of serving as the 
 exceptions that prove the rule? We believe that but for our system 
 of state publication, we should have discarded our plan of uniform texts 
 long ago. May they both soon pass away together and keep themselves 
 company in the limbo of worn-out plans! 
 
 UNITS OF LOCAL ADOPTION 
 
 If we do away with state uniformity of texts in California, what 
 should be made the unit or units of local adoption? The unit of local 
 adoption should always coincide with the unit of supervision. Our 
 supervisory imits in California are the counties and the cities. The same 
 authority that prepares the course of study and supervises its execution 
 in the schools should select the books that will prove most effective in 
 carrying out that course of study. As no two courses of study ought to 
 be alike, the folly of uniform texts for all these courses is apparent. It 
 may safely be assumed that the average county board of education 
 understands the needs of the schools of that county better than does the 
 State Board of Education, none of whose members has direct contact 
 with elementary school work. The selection by the State Board of the 
 books to be used in all the schools of the State is truly an anachronism. 
 The only way to make that function of the Board consistent would 
 be to add another requiring the adoption of a uniform course of study. 
 
 II 
 
Surely the authority that lays out the work should also prescribe the tools. 
 Supervision, course of study, and adoption of texts rightly belong 
 together. Educational evolution in California has brought supervision 
 and the course of study together in their rightful place. One step more — 
 local adoption — and we shall have adjusted the three main factors of 
 effective administration of schools. 
 
 SCANDALS UNDER LOCAL ADOPTIONS 
 
 And now a paragraph or two for the doubting Thomas who admits 
 the educational superiority of optional free texts and local adoptions, 
 but who says frankly that he fears scandals in local boards over 
 adoptions. This honest doubter agrees that state publication must go, 
 but asks would it not be better for the State Board of Education to 
 make contracts directly with publishers for all the schools in the State. 
 The doubter fears that possible scandals in local boards might more 
 than offset the advantages of such adoptions. The doubter admits 
 further that the judgment of county and city boards of education con- 
 cerning books for use in their schools would be superior to the judgment 
 of the State Board in its well-nigh hopeless task of adopting books 
 suitable for all the schools of the State. Thus the doubt comes squarely 
 to a question of probity. 
 
 It would seem that the doubter is taking counsel of his fears 
 rather than of educational experience and present beliefs. We must 
 bear in mind that all county adoptions would be made by school people, 
 and that in all reputable city school systems the boards would ratify 
 pro forma the recommendation of the superintendent and his assistants 
 from the teaching body. Thus local adoptions everywhere would 
 virtually be adoptions by school people. This being clear, we fail to 
 understand why the doubter has more confidence in the probity of the 
 average normal school president than in that of the average city or 
 county superintendent, or the average high school or grammar school 
 principal. 
 
 Practically and theoretically the doubter has the wrong end of 
 the argument. Admitting that all men are human and should pray 
 sincerely to be delivered from temptation, the greater the temptation 
 the greater the danger of falling. Where would the temptation be 
 greater, with a State Board handhng a two hundred thousand 
 contract or with a county board letting a five thousand dollar contract? 
 If a man has a purchase price, on which board would he be most likely 
 
 12 
 
to get it? As a general proposition the plan of state boards far removed 
 from the people and handling large contracts is to be deprecated. 
 The temptation is necessarily increased while the sense of responsibility 
 is lessened. Local adoptions fit in perfectly with the present tendency 
 to favor boards closely responsible to the people and not handling sums 
 approaching the temptation point. 
 
 We believe that our doubter is temperamentally a conservative. If 
 he were accustomed to local adoptions — the plan followed in all the 
 great progressive states — and the proposal were made to substitute 
 uniform adoptions by a State Board, we believe that our doubter 
 would have stronger doubts than at present. And his questions, in that 
 event, would be more difficult of answer. Finally, let it be said to 
 allay the doubts of the doubter, that it was a scandal connected with 
 a member of the State Board of Education that led to the taking from 
 the State Board and vesting in county boards the right to issue teachers' 
 certificates — a legitimate function of the State Board and one that 
 should be returned to it, for the power of certification determines minimum 
 requirements throughout the State. 
 
 THE COST OF TEXTBOOKS 
 
 Since educational experience and educational theory both strongly 
 sanction local adoptions and optional free texts, we might fairly rest 
 the case at this point. But we desire to meet the advocates of state 
 publication on the only point left — cost of books. Some people might 
 be disposed to put up with a confessedly poor system if it could Be 
 shown that such a system is cheaper than the one proposed. A system 
 of local adoptions necessarily involves the purchase of books in the 
 open market. It does away necessarily with state publication. Can 
 books be purchased under local adoptions at prices comparable with 
 those charged under state publication? 
 
 A study of conditions and prices in states having local adoptions 
 will prove instructive. Where boards representing cities or counties 
 deal directly with publishers, the books are laid down to these authorities, 
 or to dealers in non-free-text territory, at 20 per cent off the list price. 
 In several states the books are laid down at the capital at 25 per cent 
 off the list price. The list price of a book is the price fixed by the 
 publisher at which the book should be sold in ordinary trade over 
 the dealer's counter. The list price includes the profits of both the 
 jobber and the retailer. Co-operative buying from publishers direct 
 
 13 
 
cuts out these profits and makes a material reduction in the cost of the 
 book to the pupil. With city and county adoptions in California, the 
 books could easily be delivered to boards of education, or to dealers 
 in non-free-text territory, at 20 per cent off the list price. 
 
 We are now ready for a specific comparison of prices under our 
 present system of state publication with those that would prevail under 
 local adoptions. California publishes six texts in reading and sells 
 them to the children as follows: primer — 28 cents; first reader — 25 
 cents; second reader — 30 cents; third reader — 45 cents; fourth 
 reader — 60 cents; fifth reader — 60 cents. The total cost of the 
 six books is $2.48. The list prices of the same books as published 
 regularly follow: Aldine primer (Newson & Co.) — 32 cents; Pro- 
 gressive First Reader (Silver, Burdett & Co.) — 32 cents; Brooks' 
 Second Reader (American Book Co.) — 35 cents; Brooks' Third 
 Reader (American Book Co.) — 40 cents; Stepping Stones Fourth 
 Reader (Silver, Burdett & Co.) — 60 cents; Stepping Stones Fifth 
 Reader (Silver, Burdett & Co.) — 60 cents. TTie total list price of 
 the six is $2.59. Deducting 20 per cent we have $2.07, the price 
 at which the books would be delivered to city and county boards, or to 
 dealers in non-free-text territory. Adding 1 per cent of the list price 
 for the cost of handling by superintendents or dealers, we have $2.33 
 as the price to be paid by the children. This is 1 5 cents less than 
 we are paying now for these books on inferior paper and with poor 
 bindings. 
 
 But some one objects that the total cost of $2.48 for the State 
 readers would be materially lessened if all the graft could be squeezed 
 out of the State Printing Office and business-like methods introduced. 
 This is certainly true. Fortunately we have the figures of the secretary 
 of the State Board of Control, an expert accountant, to help us on 
 this point. He furnished the senatorial investigating committee with an 
 estimate of the rightful cost of the primer and the first three readers 
 as follows: primer — 24 cents; first reader — 22 cents; second reader — 
 25 cents; third reader — 33 cents. This estimate makes a total cost 
 of $1.04 for the four books as against the present price of $1.28, the 
 difference of 24 cents representing the extracted graft. Under local 
 adoptions, what would the four books cost our children? The list 
 prices of the four total $1.39. Deducting 20 per cent for county or 
 city adoption, and adding 10 per cent for handling, we have $1.25 
 as against the estimate of $1.04. But let us remember that this 
 
 14 
 
apparent difference of 21 cents is not based on equal values in paper, 
 binding, and workmanship. It means the difference between books 
 properly made and those that readily fall to pieces. It means books 
 that will last twice as long. The difference in quality and lasting 
 power probably more than offsets the 21 cents. Furthermore, be it 
 remembered that the estimate of $1.04 is merely an estimate that rests 
 upon an assumption of a business-like administration of the State 
 Printing Office — an assumption negatived by the experience of twenty- 
 six years. 
 
 EXCHANGE OF TEXTBOOKS 
 
 However, let us be optimistic. Let us assume that the State could 
 sell these four books at $1.04 without calling upon the legislature for 
 a special appropriation for the State Printing Office. Let us also 
 waive the question of qualities in paper, binding, and workmanship. 
 In connection with that apparent difference of 21 cents, there still 
 remains another consideration which knocks the last prop from under 
 a belief in the lower cost of State texts. We refer to the exchange of 
 books granted by publishers under local adoptions. On a four years' 
 adoption, publishers would grant in California an exchange price of 
 40 per cent off on all books sold the first year of the adoption. 
 Figures show that under exchange not less than 40 per cent of all 
 books sold under a four years' contract are sold the first year, and that 
 75 per cent of these purchases are on exchange. This represents an 
 average reduction of 12 per cent on every book sold during the entire 
 period of adoption. Under our plan of state publication there is a 
 total loss whenever a book is changed. Since educational progress 
 makes occasional changes in texts necessary, would it not be far better 
 to have a system that would not leave the old books a dead loss to 
 ipupils and parents? If the book bills of some families could be cut 
 40 per cent through the privilege of exchange, there would be a strong 
 incentive to keep books against the day of exchange. 
 
 EXCHANGE AND THE DEALERS 
 
 Supplementary to the question of exchange lies a question of 
 administration that has worried every school official in California. We 
 refer to the impossibility, under our present system, of getting enough 
 books the first week of school to supply all the children. Practically 
 every teacher, principal and superintendent in California will bear elo- 
 
 15 
 
quent testimony that never have the children under his charge been 
 able to secure all the necessary books the first week of school. At 
 such times the newspapers all over the State are voicing the complaints 
 of superintendents. The reason for this state of affairs is not far to 
 seek. Usually the State Printing Office is partly at fault; but even 
 when its skirts are clean, the trouble persists owing to the unwillingness 
 of local dealers to order freely for school opening. With cash accom- 
 panying all orders for State books, with no return privileges, and 
 with only a small margin of profit, the dealers dare not take the chance 
 of being "stuck." Hence they invariably order light and continue to 
 re-order for two or three months. Experience has shown the dealers 
 that this is the only safe way. Meanwhile the schools suffer. Many 
 parents who naturally expect to buy books for their children at the time 
 of school opening object strenuously later on. Local adoptions (with 
 or without free texts) would enable every school in California to be 
 fully equipped the first week. How so? Whenever a book is dis- 
 placed under local adoptions, the publishers of the new book take from 
 the dealers at dollar for dollar all the stock on hand. Thus protected 
 against loss, dealers have no hesitancy to order freely on the estimate 
 which the superintendent or principal is always glad to furnish. In 
 free-text territory the problem of securing books on time solves itself. 
 To encourage boards to order adequately for prospective needs, pub- 
 lishers grant a return privilege on the books up to 20 per cent of the 
 original order. 
 
 TWO PAYMENTS UNDER STATE PUBLICATION 
 
 There still remains another important factor in the cost of text- 
 books that usually is lost sight of completely. Under state publication 
 the people of California have been called upon to make an indirect 
 second payment for textbooks in addition to the sums paid directly by 
 parents. From the inception of state publication to June 30, 1910, the 
 parents in this State paid $2,553,824.29 directly for textbooks. No 
 doubt the great majority of these parents believed they were paying 
 the entire cost of the books. Far from it. During the time mentioned 
 the legislature made special appropriations aggregating $607,600 to 
 further the work of state publication. Thus in addition to the sums 
 paid directly by parents for books, we were obliged to add from the 
 State treasury 23 per cent more. However, the man who paid four 
 dollars for his children's books did not realize that he was adding 
 
 16 
 
nearly another dollar for books in his taxes. If he had realized it, 
 we should have heard from him. That realization would have shaken 
 his loyalty to a professedly independent system that needs 23 per cent 
 of coddling from the State to make it go. If this parent were a 
 business man, his loyalty to the system would probably have been 
 completely destroyed by the consideration that if these special appro- 
 priations of $607,600 had been placed at interest at 5 per cent, they 
 would now amount to at least $1,250,000, or approximately 50 per 
 cent of the amount paid by the parents. Any comparison of the cost 
 of books under state publication with the cost under local adoptions 
 that does not take these special appropriations into account is mani- 
 festly incomplete and unfair. For, waiving the question of interest, 
 these appropriations aggregating 23 per cent of the sums paid directly 
 for the books loom up in any honest discussion of the subject. Though 
 usually overlooked in textbook discussions, these appropriations are as 
 big and significant as the Fairmont Hotel on the skyline of San Fran- 
 cisco. They are significant, first, in removing the last reasonable doubt 
 as to relative costs under state publication and local adoptions. Sec- 
 ondly, because of the ease with which we lose sight of these appro- 
 priations — the money of all the people rather than of individuals — 
 they are significant in enforcing the necessity of a system of publication 
 and adoption close to the people and responsive to their varying needs, 
 before we dare commit ourselves to free texts. No more serious 
 educational blunder could be made than free texts under state publica- 
 tion. Since free texts are right and desirable, it is evident that our 
 rigid, cost-concealing system of state publication must give way for 
 the introduction of free texts under an open, elastic, less expensive and 
 more democratic plan. 
 
 SUMMING UP THE ECONOMIC ARGUMENT 
 
 In summing up the economic points disclosed in this comparison 
 of state publication and local adoptions, we believe that the facts 
 clearly confirm the belief that state publication is the more expensive 
 plan. Under local adoptions our children would have books strongly 
 and artistically dressed. TTiis fundamental right of California child- 
 hood has been persistently denied under state publication. If the State 
 Printing Office could produce books equal in paper, binding, and 
 workmanship to the books issued by regular publishers, it is highly 
 probable that the cost of these books would equal, if not exceed, the 
 
 17 
 
list prices of the publishers. Under county and city adoptions, however, 
 these list prices would be materially reduced through eliminating the 
 profits of jobbers and retailers. Under local adoptions a generous 
 allowance of 40 per cent would be made for the exchange of books. 
 Under state publication every change means a dead loss. Under local 
 adoptions our schools would be supplied on time, for boards of education, 
 and dealers in non-free-text territory, would both be protected against 
 loss. Under state publication we can not hope to have books enough 
 on opening day, for dealers are wary of a plan that carries high risks 
 and small profits. Finally, under local adoptions we should be obliged 
 to pay only once for our books. Under state publication we have 
 added 23 per cent to the sums paid directly by parents. In view 
 of all these economic factors, who can honestly doubt that state publi- 
 cation is the more expensive plan? 
 
 POLITICAL BENEFICIARIES OF STATE PUBLICATION 
 
 When the man who thinks with his brains and not with his 
 prejudices realizes that state publication is not only undesirable educa- 
 tionally but is also more expensive than local adoptions, he begins to 
 understand the textbook situation in California. He grasps the real 
 reason why critics of state publication are persistently accused of being 
 "pliant tools of the book trust.'* From the day years ago when 
 Supt. J. W. Linscott, one of the most highly esteemed schoolmen in 
 California, raised his voice against the evils of state publication, and 
 paid for his temerity by having his political aspirations killed and his 
 personal character assailed; from that day to the present, the honest 
 critic of state publication has been abused and his motives impeached. 
 Why do not the advocates of state publication join battle fairly without 
 abuse and without misrepresentation? Do they not realize that abuse 
 and misrepresentation are always a confession that the system under 
 investigation will not bear the light? As might have been expected, 
 the system of state publication soon developed a well-organized body 
 of beneficiaries. Many a soft job has it furnished for political hench- 
 men! Many a juicy contract has it awarded to big business for timely 
 assistance in political stress! A fine political asset, the machines of the 
 two great parties have fought persistently to control it. What more 
 natural than a fixed policy of both parties to hush criticisms that might 
 possibly lead to the removal of the "plum"? What more natural than 
 for the beneficiaries of the system to resent attacks upon it? And was 
 
 18 
 
not the weapon of defense ready at hand? The critic could be dubbed 
 "an enemy of the peerless school system of California," and a sure 
 means of completing his public discomfiture was to brand him as **an 
 emissary of the book trust." This waving the red rag of "the book 
 trust" was cleverly and persistently done to confuse the great mass of 
 honest voters. Apparently this appeal to prejudice — this little game of 
 stop thief — would have worked forever had it not been for a progressive, 
 honest governor and an inquiring State Board of Control. Even 
 then the comments from a goodly portion of the newspapers of the State 
 on the shake-up in the State Printing Office were singularly interesting. 
 The headlines showed that many an editor somehow felt it incumbent 
 upon himself to blame "the book trust" for the misdeeds of the system 
 designed and established "to free the people from the cruel exactions 
 of the book trust." The editors were honest, too. The habit of making 
 "the book trust" the scapegoat for all our educational ills was so strong 
 upon them that they were simply unable to adjust themselves promptly 
 to the real situation. 
 
 SIGNS OF A BETTER DAY 
 
 Very shrewd have the beneficiaries of state publication been in dis- 
 tracting attention from the educational and economic defects of the 
 system. Their method was the time-honored dodge of an appeal to 
 state pride on the one hand, and to prejudice against publishers on the 
 other. This hoary political ruse worked unfailingly up to the expose 
 of the real inwardness of the State Printing Office. But that revelation 
 opened the eyes of the people and prepared the way for a dispassionate 
 estimate of state publication. There can be little doubt that the people 
 are beginning to realize that state publication is a failure both educa- 
 tionally and financially. It is being made plain to all that state publi- 
 cation is without honor both at home and abroad. Not five prominent 
 school people in California to-day approve of state publication. Several 
 other states through legislative committees have carefully examined the 
 California plan of state publication, and without exception have reported 
 against it These adverse reports were based on the clearly perceived 
 educational and financial shortcomings of the system. These reports 
 now have added confirmation through the scandal in our State Printing 
 Office. 
 
 We are nearly ready for a new day and a better order of things. 
 State publication is seen to be not merely bad in itself but also a 
 
 19 
 
?u 
 
 r"^\ 
 
 barrier to progress. It stands squarely across the path of free textbooks, 
 for the evils incident to state publication would be increased under 
 free texts. Secondly, state publication compels uniform texts through- 
 out the State. Educational evolution demands that California replace 
 her system of uniform texts with a system of local adoptions, so that the 
 varying needs of the several sections of the State may truly be served. 
 California must cast aside the swaddling clothes of state uniformity 
 and don the only dress worthy of a grown-up state — local adoptions. 
 But so long as state publication is continued, local adoptions are impos- 
 sible and no satisfactory system of free texts can be devised. 
 
 To the administration of Governor Johnson we owe the turning of 
 the light upon state publication. Free from demagogic claptrap, the 
 investigation of the State Printing Office is rendering a valuable service. 
 The people are studying the question dispassionately, and there can be 
 no doubt as to their final conclusion. When they once see clearly that 
 state publication is not only bad educationally and financially, but that 
 it is also a real barrier to free texts and local adoptions, the present 
 plan will forthwith be swept aside to make way for a better day. We 
 look to the present administration to complete the work so auspiciously 
 begun. There are now many fair jewels of achievement in the crown 
 of the present administration. None could be fairer than the establish- 
 ment of a system of optional free texts and local adoptions. For such a 
 step would bring California into the enjoyment of her inalienable right 
 to the best. 
 
 20 
 
U. C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES 
 
 Oay»ord Bro» 
 
 M«ker» 
 
 f* V 
 
 Syraeo»e- _ 
 
 y^ 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CAUFORNIA UBRARY