BY H. H. WHEATON, SPECIALIST IN IMMIGRANT EDUCATION, BUREAU OF EDUCATION

I. GENERAL

N 1914, when the Bureau of Education began a national investigation of facilities for the education of aliens, chaos existed in this important phase of education. Few established and wellapproved standards existed, and practically all methods were in the experimental stage. Policies, except that of Federal noninterference, were known only to cities and States where evening schools for immigrants had been long maintained. Public agencies of various kinds were endeavoring to treat the problem each in its own way, without definite endeavor to coöperate with other agencies, and with no fixed policies. Immigrant education was considered at this time primarily a matter for local attention and jurisdiction. The spectacle of cities working out methods independently and adopting fads in immigrant education without the coördinating influence of even a clearing house of information was so common as hardly to excite comment. State supervision, and especially state aid, had not at this time been seriously considered. Only one State, New Jersey, had specified financial aid for the encouragement of immigrant classes. Only one other State, Massachusetts, had legislative provisions requiring the school attendance of illiterates up to 21 years of age. Federal interest was considered in some quarters both inopportune and improper. Establishment and maintenance of educational facilities had, by established precedent, and constitutional and legislative provisions, been left primarily to State governments and municipal and district school jurisdictions. The same policy was applied to the education of

immigrants. Such Federal interest as existed derived its impetus largely from the national attempt to remove illiteracy, since the foreign-born whites contributed in large numbers to the body of illiterates. The establishment of fundamental principles and policies in the education of immigrants was, so far as the Federal Government was concerned, agitated chiefly by reformers and social workers who came into more direct contact with the problem than governmental officials.

In contrast to State and Federal agencies, numerous private agencies and organizations — city, State, and National; civic, patriotic, and educational - were exploiting the field of immigrant education extensively. Frequently this was due to ulterior motives, among which may be cited the desire to secure financial support. Owing to the general, and, in some cases unintelligent, public interest in the immigrant, appealing instances of his condition were described for the purpose of securing contributions. Again, the creation and maintenance of English and civics classes were utilized as a means of building up the schools of private agencies, many of which, if investigated, would not have received full public sanction. The efforts of some private agencies, furthermore, were well meaning, but directed through the wrong channels. Types of educational facilities and instruction were provided wholly unsuited to the immigrant type, need, and condition, with the result that immigrant men and women were induced to attend classes of no practical value either to them in their life in America or to the country as an Americanizing influence. While the activities of the various private agencies so far mentioned were excusable, their general intentions being good, the exploitation of immigrants by political organizations and fellow countrymen, who maintained classes of instruction either for the purpose of securing excessive fees or for the purpose of making partisans politically of the immigrants who were being trained, was peculiarly harmful and a common occurrence. In several States, particularly California, through the investigation of the Commission of Immigration and Housing, instances were found where immigrants paid from $25 to $50 for a two weeks' course in English and civil government that they might be equipped to pass their naturalization examinations. So-called political clubs were formed in many localities by foreign-born

citizens, who were hirelings of petty political leaders, and who, under the guise of giving civic training, promoted the interests of such politicians or of some political party.

LACK OF COÖPERATION

Further accentuating the chaos existing in immigrant education, public agencies failed to coöperate among themselves or to call for the coöperation of private organizations, while, on the other hand, private organizations not only failed to coöperate among themselves, but actually competed with public agencies in providing facilities and instruction for immigrant residents. This lack of mutual assistance had three results: First, decentralization of all educational work among immigrants; second, a positive diminution of public activity; and, third, rivalry among private agencies both to secure the bulk of financial support and to build up powerful organizations. Such were the conditions in immigrant education which confronted school officials and social workers at the beginning of the national investigation by the bureau in 1914.

PROGRESS SINCE 1914

Progress in every way has been rapid, definite, and extensive. Governmental authorities everywhere, city, State, and Federal, have expressed serious interest in the problem, and have taken definite steps to provide adequate facilities. Municipalities have seen that the education of the immigrant, especially through the provision of evening classes, is to be treated as a fundamental part of the educational system, rather than as an incident or adjunct to the day school system to be maintained or not at will, or according to the amount of money in the school treasury. Many of the States, such as California, Michigan, and New York, and particularly the State departments of education, have come to appreciate the fact that the immigrant is not merely a local problem. The transitory nature of his employment, and hence residence, have been increasingly appreciated in their bearing upon his education. While the primary obligation of the city has been acknowledged, both officials and citizens have grown to see that the secondary obligation of the State to assist the city and the local school district in this particular type of education

is one of such imperative nature as to demand financial assistance and state supervision and coördination of activities. The Federal Government, especially the Bureau of Education, as a result of an investigation of facilities, has come to take the stand that inasmuch as admission of an immigrant to the United States, together with his admission to citizenship, are both Federal matters, then, equally, is interest in his training for life and citizenship in this country a Federal matter. With immigrants moving from city to city and from State to State, with different nationalities in each State, and with the necessity of a clearing house of information becoming more and more apparent, this Federal interest has been increasingly directed toward the establishment of fundamental principles, policies, and standards, together with approved practices in this form of education.

On the other hand, private agencies have seen the futility of competition among themselves and with public agencies and institutions. Hence they have increasingly adopted the practice of establishing facilities only where they do not exist, or where public facilities cannot, for financial reasons, be made to meet the local problem. The practice has become more and more established of placing private facilities under the supervision of appropriate public school officials, and of turning over to the latter such facilities as rapidly as financial and other reasons will permit. The result is to-day that, while conditions are far from satisfactory, the evolution of education has forced a larger measure of coöperation on the part of all agencies and individuals interested in the training of immigrants for citizenship in America. Although this is the transition period, yet principles, policies, standards, and methods are now more clearly delineated than ever before, while the most effective procedure of all-coöperation is daily teaching those interested its potency in the Americanization movement.

II. CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL STANDARDS

Some of the standards virtually established by State constitutions are unfortunate. In effect, the provisions in many State constitutions operate against the establishment and extension of evening school facilities, through which, primarily, the

non-English-speaking foreigner must be reached. Such is the case in the States of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wyoming. In these States the constitutions, in most instances, authorize the legislature to provide for establishment and organization of free schools only for children within the ages of 6 and 21 years. Some of these States restrict the division of State school funds so that only children 21 years of age or under are the beneficiaries. In only one constitution, that of California, are evening schools specifically mentioned by name, and their establishment authorized. While it is true that, under existing rules of legal construction, constitutional provisions in the other States enumerated do not prohibit legislatures appropriating money from general State funds for the support of evening schools and do not make impossible the maintenance of evening schools by local communities, yet the fact that State school moneys cannot be used except for children below the ages of 18 or 21 years discourages legislatures from separate appropriation for evening-school purposes, and operates to discourage local communities from maintaining such facilities on their own financial responsibility without State aid.

EVENING SCHOOL LEGISLATION

Most legislative provisions applicable to evening schools are permissive in nature so far as establishment of evening schools by local communities is concerned. Massachusetts and Connecticut are exceptions to the rule. They require, under certain conditions, that evening schools must be maintained. In Massachusetts, every city or town in which labor certificates are granted within the year to 20 or more persons to whom the literacy law applies must maintain an evening school during the following year. In Connecticut, every town having a population of 10,000 or more is required to establish and maintain such schools for the instruction of persons over 14 years of age. In other States, evening schools must be established by local communities, provided a stipulated number of residents present a formal petition.