THE SCHOOL AS THE INSTRUMENT FOR NATIONAL

IZATION HERE, AND ELSEWHERE

FRANK V. THOMPSON, SUPERINTENDENT BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS

AMERICA is looking forward with anxious hope to the

school as the chief instrument for Americanization. It may be proper for one whose thesis is favorable to the importance of the school as an agent for Americanization to point to the danger of regarding the school as the sole factor or as an isolated instrument apart from other forces. As the result of the application of scientific tests for determining and testing the abilities of school children, we are recognizing and even measuring the influence of outside school experiences in the attainment of school standards. Children often make better scores in arithmetic at the end of the summer vacation than at the end of the preceding school term. The child grows in the power to perform arithmetical operations by making purchases at the store, by handling change, by buying war savings stamps. Ability to read, that is, ability to interpret ideas from printed words, is often obtained from the disapproved paper covered tale of adventure as well as from the carefully expurgated models of literature proffered by the school. We no longer doubt the forces, good and bad, of the moving-picture show. The graduate of the elementary school at fourteen who has followed the customary school procedure has an accumulation of ideas, habits, and impulses which are the result of quite complex forces. One would hesitate to say definitely how much of the good should be credited to the school or how much of the good and bad to outside school influences. We are assuming too much, consequently, when we conclude that the formal schooling of the immigrant will automatically solve the problem of Americanization. Not only the school, but the home, the church, the street, the playground, the moving picture, the job, are factors which determine the character and tendencies of the citizen.

An analysis of the figures of the ability to speak our tongue among foreign-born will indicate that the school has not been the controlling factor. Of the 13,345,000 immigrants in our country in 1910, 3,000,000 were found to be non-English-speaking. Of the whole number of immigrants 9,981,000 were not acquainted with English at the time of arrival. Only a small proportion (729,000) of the 9,981,000 were young enough to come under the compulsory school attendance laws of the various States. About 7,000,000 non-English-speaking immigrants had learned our language sufficiently well to be recorded as English speaking in the census of 1910 and must have acquired this knowledge largely outside the schools, for we may not conclude that the knowledge of English was acquired in the evening schools, as the figures of attendance at this agency are quite negligible. Let us recognize the fact that the majority of our immigrants of non-English-speaking origin have learned to speak English, but have acquired this accomplishment outside the schools. It is also true that there were three million immigrants, a minority, who had failed to learn English either in or outside the schools, and this latter fact is one of the significant reasons for the subsequent discussion.

In spite of the seeming deprecation of the influence of the school upon the immigrant, it remains true that the school can be the most important force in reducing materially the large amount of failure among the foreign-born to speak our tongue. Progressive nations and states are able to reduce illiteracy among the native born and children of foreign parentage to a fraction of one per cent. Extension of compulsory attendance to include higher ages for non-English-speaking immigrants necessarily would reduce the comparatively high figures of illiteracy of this group. The school is always an effective agent when its resources are used, and is an institution under public control and, consequently, the most effective means for exercising definite influence. The objection may be raised that the conscious control of the school extends only to public schools and that the numerous pupils attending private institutions may miss the intended ends. The spirit of democratic institutions always has given freedom of action respecting the education of the young, and very likely will continue to maintain this freedom with probably

some greater assurances that certain matters respecting the integrity of a common citizenship will be the uniform result of all private school instruction. To illustrate: Private schools with instruction given solely or in too large a measure in a foreign tongue will probably be required by law to teach sufficient English to guarantee a competent knowledge of English.

To many the guarantees respecting freedom of religious worship have been involved in the educational process. Many native-born Americans fail to understand the close connection between language and religion in the alien's mind. There is a close connection between these forces even for English-speaking peoples; founders, leaders and authorities of English religious sects were uniformly English in blood and taught and wrote their convictions in that tongue. The English Bible is in effect a particular covenant for the majority of the English-speaking peoples. With the foreigner, however, the connection is even more intimate; religious devotion and feeling are inextricably bound up with the native language, so that in spite of any lack of intention on our part, when we begin to propose compulsion about language we probably seem to the foreigner to infringe upon religious rights. This fact is what has caused religious leaders of foreign peoples to oppose language compulsions. We may have assumed that these religious leaders were opponents of loyalty when in effect they were striving primarily to conserve religious rights and heritages.

It should be remembered that education in this country has uniformly been held, in theory at least, to be, in part, a State function. This theory maintains that when education is intrusted to a private institution the institution is commissioned by the State to perform in some degree a State function, and that certain requirements, educational and civic, deemed essential to the welfare of the State as the equipment of the common citizenship are to be met efficiently. There are communities and perhaps States where this procedure is "more honored in the breach than in the observance," but we may expect that our former indifference to this condition will disappear. Many States now require in private elementary schools the teaching of all fundamental subjects found in the curriculums of public schools. Some States, such as Massachusetts and Connecticut, require

that approved subjects of study be taught in the English language. The prediction may be made that many States will adopt similar requirements and enforce these regulations. The nation itself, through Federal channels, may well require of the several States guarantees respecting the acquisition of the English language. Thus, in theory at least, all elementary schools, public and private, are definitely controlled agencies with an important aim, that of preparation for citizenship. The criticism may not be directed so justly as to the fundamental theory as to the failure of its operation. The school, both public and private, may and we hope will become a powerful influence for a progressive unification in our continually renewed diversity of citizenship.

We may pass on to the consideration of the other countries in dealing with the problem of nationalization through the medium of education. We are not the only or even the most heterogeneous nation; Austro-Hungary was likewise many-peopled, but yet very different in the conditions of her heterogeneity. In this country we find the different races living in more or less segregated provinces where they have lived for long periods. Austro-Hungary was a union or, more properly, a loose confederation of states and provinces which had been brought perforce into an unwilling union, and now have become again autonomous. No serious attempt was made to nationalize the distinct peoples through the schools by means of learning a common language,1 or by other means such as acquiring a common mode of living, thought, or custom. On the contrary each racial element cherished its own schools with its distinct language, habits, and culture. Austro-Hungary was at best a turbulent and jarring confederacy, not a nation. Few will assume, however, that the reason for disunity was so simple a matter as the lack of a common language.

Switzerland, made up of three racial elements, German, French, and Italian, shows a great national solidarity. The cementing force of democratic institutions has brought a toleration and sympathy among the varied racial groups not found in AustroHungary. But in Switzerland we find in the schools no common

1 An exception to this statement existed in the case of Austrian subjects, Italian in nationality, living in regions formerly known as unredeemed Italy. These Italians were forbidden the use of their tongue in schools.

language nor a definite program for attaining homogeneity with a common language as the instrument. In one part of Switzerland, German is the language of the schools; in another section, French is the official language of the schools; and in yet another area Italian is the medium of instruction. In the Swiss Parliament all three languages are officially recognized. Germany, too, has had her language problem, particularly in the Polish and French provinces. Germany, contrary to the example of Austro-Hungary and Switzerland, has attempted to Germanize her subject peoples by means of enforcing a common language, instanced in her dealings with Alsace-Lorraine and GermanPoland. While Germany may have successfully imposed her language, she has not achieved the intended result of nationalization. The German procedure shows conclusively that the mere imposition of language cannot bring about automatically nationalization, a fact which uncompromising advocates of compulsion in this country should note.

We are counseled that history contains nothing but warnings. There is apparently no successful precedent of nationalization either by means of a common language taught in the schools or by other devices for us to follow in our contemplated program for Americanization. There are two reasons, however, why we hope for success where others may have failed. First, is the fact that we have already achieved some measure of success with our inadequate program. As has been stated, the census of 1910 reports about thirteen million foreign-born in our land, and of this number, about three million who were unable to speak English. From figures given above it is evident that the majority of non-English-speaking immigrants in some degree learn our common tongue. These figures relating to non-English-speaking immigrants who become citizens show that a considerable portion obtain sufficient knowledge of English to meet the qualifications for naturalization. We have seen that our non-English-speaking immigrants have not acquired English as the result of formal school procedure, for statistics show that in one scholastic year

1 Census of 1910-5,000,000 non-English-speaking immigrants had become naturalized about three fifths of the whole number who had learned to speak English. Naturalization tests differ in quality in various sections of the United States, and may not be relied upon as evidences of knowledge of English.