X.-PRIVATE AND PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS.

Questions to be approached slowly.-Superintendent E. E. White, Cincinnati: The imperative need is that the people be educated, no matter where. If the private schools are imperfect they will be improved through the very necessi ties of the case; the parents will not continue long to send their children to inferior schools. I think this compulsory education should be an English education; that American children should be taught the language of the country; and I do not see any difficulty in securing this in all public schools. We have had such a law thirty years in Ohio. I am told that there are localities in some of the Western States where the instruction in the public school is not in English. No one can object to stopping that; but the difficulty is in demanding that instruction in private schools shall be in English. This may be right, but it brings an element into the question that gives trouble. In many private schools the teachers themselves can not speak English, and for that reason English in private schools and the State supervision of private schools are questions that I would like to see approached slowly. The people in most of the States are not yet familiar with the compulsory system.

State authority over private schools.-Governor H. W. Ladd, of Rhode Island: In a State so small and compact as ours it should be the aim to so systematize and correlate all our activities in this line as to be able, each year, to give an accurate and intelligent review of the whole field, and to show exactly what has been expended, what has been accomplished, and what are the various channels through which the work has been carried on, with such details of the plans and methods employed as may be necessary to an intelligent understanding of the whole situ ation. To this end the powers of the State Board should be enlarged to give them a definite connection with each and every educational institution carried on by the State; and they should also be clothed with authority to secure from each and every private school in the State such an annual return as shall show how many children are taught therein, and also what grade of instruction is given. These changes will at once place the board in a position to exercise its supervisory and directory powers with an effectiveness impossible in the present condition of affairs. Then, conclusions and recommendations will be based upon complete and accurate information from every section of the State and from all grades and forms of instruction.

How far the State may take cognizance of private schools.-Superintendent A. P. Marble, of Worcester, Mass.: A compulsory school law, then, implies that the State (which is only an organized form of public opinion) may take cognizance of private schools far enough to see that no child is deprived of that small amount of education on which the State insists; that is, ability to read and write in the English language, and a moderate knowledge of arithmetic and geography, for example.

But so much of oversight is not hostility to private schools, nor any infringement of parental control any more than the law requiring parents to clothe and feed their children. On the contrary, such an oversight is a positive help to a private school; since parents would not patronize it if the children could not receive certificates to entitle them to be employed, or if their children did not receive a fair amount of education, such as the law requires.

The public-school authorities, if wise, would not undertake to inspect private schools in any other than a friendly spirit and for the purpose of learning what is indispensable for them to know. They would be received cheerfully, since all* schools are presumed to aim at good education; and they would soon be welcome in making friendly criticism. And parents would not long patronize a school which refused to allow the public-school authorities to ascertain what is so important for them to know, where the principle is acted on that all children have a right to a moderate amount of education. On any other principle than that outlined above, a compulsory school law-it would be better to call it a law for securing to each child his birthright of intelligence, since compulsion is a harsh term to American ears-on any other principle, such a law would be a dead letter; for if the school authorities can not inquire into the character of any school, then by means of a fictitious school the law might be successfully and easily evaded. Examination of each pupil applying for a certificate is only an indirect and practically very cumbersome way of inspecting the school which he has attended. This is not a merely theoretical question. In my city a private or parochial school for French children has invited with great cordiality an inspection for the purpose indicated above; and in a few instances certificates have been refused to children who had not acquired a knowledge of the English language.

What the private school should be measured by.-F. W. Parker, Cook County Normal School: The work of all private schools of any kind, whether sectarian or secular, should be measured entirely by their direct influence for good upon the common school, into which they will one day all be merged as soon as democratic growth demands that step.

Status of separate schools in Ontario.-Hon. George W. Ross, minister of education: The public schools of Ontario are undenominational. Fifty years ago the Roman Catholics were granted separate schools, and by a more recent act, in settlements where a Roman Catholic population predominated and a Roman Catholic was employed as a teacher in the public schools, Protestants were allowed to form themselves into Protestant separate schools. These classes of schools number as follows: Public schools, 5,380; Catholic separate schools, 243; and Protestant separate schools, 11. The department has not the same authority under the statute over Roman Catholic separate schools as it has over the public schools. Yet in the main features, such as the qualification of teachers, excluding those in religious orders, the selection of text-books, except those required for religious exercises, the authority of the department may be said to be the same.

Transfer of parochial schools to school boards in Minnesota.-Circular of State Superintendent D. L. Kiehle (October 20, 1891): The transfer of parochial schools to the control of a board of education has deservedly attracted much attention. It is important as an experiment in uniting all American children in the system of state schools; satisfactory to a large class of our fellow-citizens who have hitherto expressed great distrust of the influence of the public schools upon the religious character of their children; and also important in the possible danger of putting the public school administration in compromising relations with a religious body. Therefore such an experiment requires on all sides a spirit of intelligent confidence and entire frankness. It is in this interest and in answer to many questions that I call attention to such matters as may be helpful in studying and directing this experiment.

I. The State has made ample provision fort he education of her youth. It is her policy to make them satisfactory to her best citizens and helpful to them in their highest ambition in training their children for the duties of life. She therefore requires all the people to share the expense and desires above all else that all the youth of the State enjoy the advantages afforded.

2. The attitude of the State is one of entire organic separation from religion as represented in denominations; and she therefore requires that the distinctive work of the churches be entirely excluded from the public schools. The language of the constitution is very explicit, and is as follows: "But in no case shall the moneys derived as aforesaid, or any portion thereof, or any public moneys or property be appropriated or used for the support of schools wherein the distinctive doctrines, creeds, or tenets of any particular Christian or other religious sect are promulgated or taught." (Article VIII, sec. 3.)

To take this as showing indifference, or still more, opposition of the state to matters and institutions religious, is farthest from the truth, for in every way possible the state expresses the greatest interest in those religious bodies whose purpose, with that of the family, is to elevate and purify the character of the people. While the state must forego the exercise of authority in matters religious, in order to protect the rights of all religious bodies, she speaks in no uncertain sound requiring that the principles of the purest type of morality be carefully inculcated in the minds and habits of youth. It is her purpose in the administration of her public schools to express the spirit of the ordinance of 1787 for the government of the territory of the Northwest: Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged."

So decided is this attitude of the state as the superior importance of character building that she allows to those of her teachers who fully appreciate their high calling all possible liberty in their choice of methods.

With this preface I proceed to define the limitations within which the public schools must be conducted.

LIMITATIONS BY STATUTE.

A board of education may not lawfully bind themselves to require or apply any religious test in the selection of teachers; neither may they distribute or classify pupils in departments, grades or classes, according to their religious

faith. To do so could have no other explanation than the purpose to propagate the tenets of a distinctive Christian sect. And what may not be done directly may not be done by indirection; that is, the board may not occupy the apartments of a parochial school and have control of it with an implied or unexpressed understanding that the teachers shall be selected from those of a particular religious body, or that the children of a particular sect shall be sent there. Such an understanding must be regarded as sacredly binding by all honorable persons, and in the eye of the law and its enforcement at the bar of public sentiment would be condemned as a violation of the law, and would therefore work a forfeiture of all rights to any share in the public funds. The board of educa tion must be absolutely free in the exercise of its authority for the organization and conduct of a good public school; and if the results are not satisfactory, the board must not be able to say that they were limited by implied conditions which the public understood and approved.

QUESTIONS OF EXPEDIENCY.

Beyond limitations and duties determined by statute, there are many other questions which must be determined by the judgment of the board consistently with the purposes for which the school is maintained. Some of these have religious elements and others have not. For example:

1. The Bible is a religious book, and as such it has no place in the public schools to promulgate religious doctrines; but, having merit of great historical, moral, and literary value, it may be used for these qualities. If, however, to any class of persons this is obnoxious, the board should require the discontin

uance of its use.

2. Sisters of Charity are religious persons, and as such have no place in the public school to propagate religious doctrine; but if they be women of educa tion and teaching ability, it lies wholly within the authority of the board of education to employ them to do the legitimate work of the school. If, how ever, to any class of patrons their presence is obnoxious or unacceptable by rea son of the significance of their religious garb, the board must either retire them or require them to wear the usual garb of teachers in the schoolroom.

3. The same principle requires that in case the color, or nationality, or per sonal peculiarities of a teacher, otherwise well qualified, make him so unaccept able to patrons as to interfere with the purposes of the school, his employment must be discontinued.

4. While public funds and public property may not be used to propagate religious doctrine, the interest which the state has in all voluntary organization of a benevolent and philanthropic nature, has always disposed to allow such bodies any use of its buildings that would in no wise interfere with their public use. In country districts it has been customary from time immemorial to allow the use of schoolhouses for religious worship and Sabbath schools as well as other meetings. This practice is one of expediency and propriety, to be decided by the judgment of the board.

THE FARIBAULT SCHOOLS.

In view of the public importance of the action at Faribault, I have visited the schools there, and by the courtesy of the board of education and the city superintendent, have become acquainted with the plan and purpose of the board in accepting the pupils of the parochial schools under their supervision. I feel warranted in expressing to the public my entire confidence that the board have acted intelligently and in no way comprise their authority as public officers; that they have used their independent and best judgment in the choice of teachers, in grading and promoting pupils, and that they are determined to give the children in these grades advantages equal to others of the city.

This experiment, for such it is, is being conducted in such a spirit of consider ation that if at the end of the year the Catholics conclude to resume the educa tion of their own childrren it will be done without disturbing the friendly relations of mutual respect that now prevail.-St. Paul, October 20, 1891.

XI.-PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

Relation of the State to public education.-From the message of Governor R. P. Flower to the New York legislature, January 5, 1892: Reports received by the Superintendent of Public Instruction indicate that the number of children in the State of school age (i. e., between 5 and 21 years) in 1891 was 1,821,773.

The number of children attending the common schools in the same year was 1,054,044. More than 767,000 children of school age therefore were either not in school at all or received instruction elsewhere than at the public schools. The proportion of public school children in 1891 consequently was about 57 per cent of the total number between the ages of 5 and 21. The total cost of supplying this education to somewhat more than half the children of school age in the State was $20,269,118.29. The greater part of this amount was raised by State and local taxation.

Considered with other statistics these figures suggest some serious reflections. In 1851, forty years ago, 75 per cent of the entire school population attended the public schools. During these forty years the State has done much to improve and strengthen its common schools, to increase their efficiency and to compel attendance, yet during all that time there has been a steady decrease of attendance in proportion to the school population, and nearly 20 per cent fewer children, proportionately, attend the public schools now thah attended them forty years ago. In the same interval the expense has increased from $1,884,826 to $20,269,118. For each pupil who attended the public schools any part of the year in 1851 the average cost was $2.26; in 1891 it was $19.22-the increase being 750 per cent.

If these figures are accurate, and they are based upon official statements and reports, they are startingly suggestive. If true, they mean retrograding influences and greatly increasing extravagance in management. Much of the increased cost per capita is undoubtedly explained by the erection of new school buildings, possessing greater facilities, better accommodations, and more attractive surroundings. But the surprising thing is that this sort of expenditure has not increased the proportion of children who avail themselves of these privileges, but has been accompanied by an actual diminution. Should the same ratio of decrease in numbers and the same ratio of increase in expense be maintained, the State in a few years will be actually taxing its citizens many millions of dollars each year-more than is ne ded now for all other purposes of governmentto supply an education to a minority of its children.

This is neither democratic nor right. The State must, for its own protection and interests, see that the opportunities for a common-school education are offered to its children, but it will not be justified in raising large sums of money by taxation for this purpose without accomplishing a corresponding amount of good. If there is waste in the present lavish expenditure it should be discovered and checked. If the present compulsory education law is not effective, and the evidence is clear that it is not, it should be strengthened by wise amendment. Certainly the State can not afford to permit thousands of its children to grow up in ignorance, only to increase that population which crowds our jails, our reformatories, and our poor-houses, and menace the integrity of our public service and our institutions with the weapon of an unintelligent ballot.

No one believes more thoroughly in our common-school system than do I. It is the great hopper into which the untrained juvenile minds of Irish, English, Italian, German, Swedish, Bohemian, or American parentage, with their hereditary ideas and tendencies, are tumbled together and shaken up to form the substantial qualification of the American citizen. It is to the American ideas implanted in our youth in the common schools that our country owes her prosperity in the past and must look for the preservation of her institutions in the future. Every schoolhouse may be made a stronghold of defense against the spread of Socialistic and un-American ideas. No more worthy task therefore can be undertaken by the legislature than to strengthen and bulwark our common schools and make them centers of widening rather than diminishing influence. It will first be necessary, however, to ascertain the causes of the present unwelcome tendencies which statistical comparisons demonstrate. It may be found that much of the proportionate falling off in general attendance (aside from that which is explained by the increase of private schcols), and certainly the increase in expenditure, arise from the modern tendency to so enlarge the curriculum of the public schools that they attempt too much and involve the State beyond its proper measure of responsibility. Certainly advocates of higher education at State expense can expect little sympathy from lawmakers, when the State, even with liberal appropriations, seems unable to compel merely rudimentary instruction, and thousands of children are growing up without any education whatsoever. Within the past two years the movement known as University Extension" has assumed considerable importance and great popularity in this country. Its nature I understand to be the bringing of means of culture and higher education within the reach of persons who are unable to get a collegiate or university education, or, as it is more authoritatively described by one of its

prominent supporters, "The purpose of the university extension movement is to provide a means of higher education for persons of all classes and of both sexes engaged in the regular occupations of life." Its methods are by lectures, class exercises and examinations, conducted in various "centers" under the supervision of a central head.

The movement has caused great enthusiasm in England and in this country, and seems to have accomplished much good in stimulating intellectual tastes among the people. It has received the cordial support of most leading educators and the generous encouragement of press and pulpit. While those who expect it, when fully developed, to fill the place of actual training in colleges and universities are quite likely to be disappointed, there is every reason for believing that it will raise the intellectual standard of the people and diffuse more broadly the benefits of higher education. With such purposes and aims every good cit izen must be in cordial sympathy.

Heretofore, however, university extension efforts have been carried on under the supervision of some established university, or of some association or society organized for the purpose. For instance, in England there have been four great movements-one under the direction of Oxford University, one under that of Cambridge University, one under that of the Victoria University, and the fourth under that of the London Society for the Extension of University Teaching. In the United States successful movements have been associated with the University of Pennsylvania, later with the American Society for Extension of Univer sity Teaching, with Brown University, with the New York and Brooklyn Soci ety for School and University Extension, and with other educational bodies or associations.

For the first time in the history of the movement, however, direct government aid and encouragement have been given, in the statute which was enacted by the last legislature of this State, authorizing the regents of the university to act as the central head for the promotion of this work and appropriating $10,000 for their expenses.

Inasmuch as this work is quite likely to be still further brought to your attention and another appropriation asked for, I do not hesitate to express my opinion that the assumption of this duty by the State was not only unwise in principle, but that if the movement is as successful here as it has been elsewhere it will involve the State in unreasonable obligations and be a constantly increasing object of public expense.

I am aware that it has been the policy of the State to encourage higher education, and that public moneys have been appropriated for that purpose, but I respectfully submit that before the State should enlarge its field of usefulness in that direction, whatever views we may have as to the propriety of that enlargement, it should first perfect its system of common-school education. The already excessive taxation of the people for this latter purpose and the lamentably inadequate results I have pointed out above.

Reform is necessary before extension.

My fears that the State will eventually find the control and supervision of university extension an enormously expensive undertaking, wrong in principle because it taxes the majority for the benefit of the few, and indefensible as State policy except under the broadest view of public welfare, are based chiefly upon the testimony of those who have been most closely identified with the new movement and upon the tendency of the movement where it has been longest tried. Thus far our State has committed itself merely to the obligation of meeting the expense incurred by the regents under their granted authority "to coöperate with localities, organizations, and associations in this State, where such educa tion shall be desired, and to aid therein by recommending methods therefor, designating suitable persons as instructors, conducting examinations, granting certificates thereupon, and otherwise rendering assistance in such educational work." The statute, moreover, expressly provides that no part of the appropri ation shall be used in paying for the services or expenses of persons designated or appointed as lecturers or instructors, it being the intent of the act that such expenses shall be borne by the localities benefited.

Yet if the State were to stop there the annual expense must be largely in excess of the present appropriation if the movement is to be successful, the tendency of every State commission or bureau being towards an increased expendi ture. But will the State stop there? Experience and testimony in England do not give much encouragement of an affirmative answer to this question. Prof. R. G. Moulton, who is a Cambridge University extension lecturer, and who has been explaining the movement to audiences in this country, says in a published

address: