2. Accepting the teaching of related subjects in other than segregated classes.

3. Accepting the same organization from all school districts, irrespective of size.

Heretofore the State board was obliged to require a much stiffer organization in the "full-time classes" in high schools in school districts of over 25,000 population than was required in the smaller school district. For this reason few of the high schools in the larger cities were able to handle the work. This inequality has been abolished. Beginning September, 1920, the State board will accept the same organization from all districts, irrespective of size.

The organization in Vocational Home Economics is easily harmonized with the general high school program, the requirement being:

1.

That not less than 90 minutes per day be devoted to the study of
Home Economics by each pupil in Home Economics class.

2. That each pupil in the Home Economics classes also enroll for a so-called "related subjects."

3.

That the preparation of the teacher of Home Economics be approved by the State board.

4. That equipment and maintenance be approved by the State board.

TEACHERAGES IN ILLINOIS.

The county superintendents' reports for the school year 1919-20 have an item of information relative to homes for teachers owned or rented by school districts. A table, showing the progress this movement is making in the entire State, will not be available for some time. The report from Clinton County shows seven such homes, owned, respectively, by the following districts: Aviston, No. 21; Albers, No. 62; Germantown, No. 60; Kalmer, No. 55; Linden Grove, No. 23; Merscher, No. 59, and Woodlane, No. 23.

THE FULL-TIME CLASSES IN VOCATIONAL HOME ECONOMICS.

THE FULL-TIME CLASSES IN VOCATIONAL HOME ECONOMICS-Concluded.

The following tables show for the year ending June 30, 1920:

1. The cities having Industrial Schools and classes working under the State Board for Vocational Education;

2. The types of Industrial Schools conducted in those cities;

3.

The amount of reimbursement for those cities;

4. The number of pupils and the number of teachers in the Industrial Schools and classes.

SUPREME COURT DECISION ON TEXTBOOK LAW.

As was very generally known, a textbook publishing house sought, through a petition, to mandamus the Superintendent of Public Instruction into accepting a re-listing of its books at higher prices than those printed in the official textbook price list. The publishing house secured the best possible legal assistance. They prepared an extended and detailed brief and presented it to the Supreme Court. Assistant Attorney General C. N. Board prepared the brief for the Superintendent of Public Instruction, stating the grounds on which the petition for mandamus should be denied by the court. On February 18 the court handed down a unanimous opinion denying the petition of the publishing house. This sustains the position taken by the Superintendent of Public Instruction and by the Attorney General that publishing houses can not, under the law, re-list their books with advanced prices at any time during the five years immediately succeeding the original listing.

THE TEXTBOOK SITUATION.

School officers and retail dealers have felt much annoyance over the unsettled textbook situation. Briefly stated, it is as follows:

In the General Assembly of 1917 a textbook law was introduced which got the name of the publishers' textbook law. Just who were its authors and backers nobody seemed at the time to know, but it was generally believed that it was presented by publishing houses who had secured similar legislation in other states. Several textbook bills were in the committees on education in the House and Senate. For many days and weeks it seemed that the fight between the proponents of these various bills would make it impossible for any bill to be recommended favorably by the committees. At last there was an agreement reached between those who were behind the publishers' bill and the representatives of the State Teachers' Association who were standing for free textbooks. A section for free textbooks was placed in the publishers' textbook bill and it was voted out with the recommendation that it pass. It did pass the Senate. In the House committee, however, the free textbook provision was stricken out. The bill was then recommended for passage and did pass the House. It went to a conference committee, where the Senate representatives accepted the amendment and the textbook bill became a law,

It provided that publishing houses should list with the Superintendent of Public Instruction the books which they intended to offer for sale in Illinois at the lowest wholesale and retail prices, these prices in no case to be higher than the prices for which such textbooks were selling in other states in the Union. This law went into effect July 1, 1917. Publishers voluntarily listed their books and gave bond to guarantee that they would abide by the provisions of the law. The World War had been going on for three years; prices of materials and labor had advanced when the textbook firms filed their list of prices. However, in a few months after they had listed their books an agitation began to have the administrative officers relax the law so that these publishing houses might relist their books at advanced prices. The Attorney General of Illinois gave an opinion that the law plainly and clearly required a publishing house to sell a book once listed for that price for five years succeeding the time such book was listed. The publishing houses arranged through the National Commissioner of Education for a conference in Chicago. To this conference were invited the attorney generals and the head educational officers of all the states where such textbook listing laws were in force. The publishing houses presented expert opinion concerning the great advance in the cost of materials and labor, showing that they could not continue to sell books at the prices which they had listed them in the various states. They again asked that these states join in some effort to relax these laws. They were told by the legal authorities that it was impossible for administrative officers to set aside the plain provisions of a law; that their remedy lay either in the courts or in the legislative bodies. They could go into the courts seeking to have the law set aside, or they could go before the legislatures and have the law amended. In Illinois, the General Assembly convened in January of 1919. The publishers made no effort to secure a modification of the textbook law, so far as we know. Shortly after the adjournment of the legislature in June of 1919 the rumor began to go the rounds that the textbook firms were going to attempt to relist their books at advanced prices and would refuse to sell them to retailers unless these retailers paid these advanced prices. When evidence of this plan was brought to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, he sent letters to boards of education, retail dealers and publishers, setting forth the law and the penalties for its violation. Most of the book publishing firms continued to obey the law. A few firms, however, seemed to be anxious to have the law taken into the courts and to force such legal procedure upon the Superintendent of Public Instruction. They would list their books to the retailers at prices in advance of the official list prices. These retailers were advised by the Superintendent of Public Instruction to compute the amount which they should pay these publishers upon the official price lists and let the publishing houses try to collect the difference, which attempt would be evidence to be used by the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the Attorney General for securing the forfeiture of the bond of such publishing houses.

Unfortunately the law has not been popular with the retailers, and some of them have been disposed to play into the hands of those publishing houses which were seeking to evade the law. Certain school men have also exhibited great sympathy for the publishing houses and have urged some action which would increase the cost of books to the children of the State in order to increase the income of the publishing houses. Some school journals have come courageously and nobly into the open on the side of the publishing houses. One of these papers, published in Illinois, has in its January number published an editorial in which it asks with great warmth: "What reason or justice can there be in compelling a school book publishing house to sell its books at the old price, when it is expected that everything else under the sun is right in commanding a much higher price than in former years?" And then enters into a long argument to have the laws set aside by the courts, repealed by the legislature or modified by administrative officers. All of which argument loses a great deal of its strength and validity when you turn to the advertising pages of this magazine and find that over a dozen of these hard hit and endangered publishing houses are carrying advertisements in this educational magazine. There is no doubt