The discussions in Parliament and throughout the length and breadth of the country on rival education bills, though largely occupied with the differences between religious bodies, have stimulated general interest in the educational system and many minds have been led to consider both its merits and its defects. As a result there has arisen a considerable school, which, tired of the sectarian aspect of the education controversy, seeks to direct public attention to reforms in elementary education and kindred matters which have been too long neglected.

The success of this school is seen in the passing last year of an act making it legal for Education Authorities to provide at the cost of the rates for the provision of meals for underfed children attending public elementary schools in England. Before considering other educational reforms -either proposed or already accomplished-it may be useful to touch briefly upon the English system, which it will be seen is much different from, and perhaps much behind the system of elementary education known in the States. In England the elementary schools founded by the Education authorities, known now as Council Schools but formerly known as Board Schools, are free. But they are not common schools for the children of well-to-do and poor alike in theory it is open to the rich to send their children to such schools, in practice they do not do so. The Council schools are, for the most part, used only by the children of the poor. The middle classes and the rich have their private schools; they use, too, the secondary schools and the great boarding schools. Thus the education of England varies with the different classes of society. The children of the wealthy are kept at school until it is time for them to proceed to the University. The children of the poor have in the majority of cases to be content with the elementary school. They have, moreover, to leave this to go. to work at an age when they are immature in mind and in body; at an age, indeed, when their education has scarcely begun.

The Common school, for rich and poor alike, is as yet not in sight. But it is the dream of many earnest reformers and of its ultimate realization they do not doubt. The division of the rich and the poor has been all to the loss of the poor. Their children have had to be content with a lower standard of education, with all that this implies. This is not said in a spirit of bitterness, or indeed of complaint, for popular education in England is still in its youth and it would be unfair at this stage to expect it to be perfect. Great developments have taken place, and the forces of progress, though subject to temporary checks, will steadily roll forward.

One great reform which we hope to see carried before long is the raising of the age for leaving school. Under the present law children may leave school at the age of 14; in some parts of the country they may leave at 13. The great majority of children at elementary schools leave not later than 14. The boys go, in most cases, to whatever employment first comes to hand. Much of this belongs to the class of unskilled labor. Such boys become messengers, errand boys, shop boys, van boys. All these receive at first higher wages than they would receive if they went to a skilled trade where they would be taught an employment by which later they could earn their living, and the poverty of the parents makes them anxious for the wage which is higher for the moment. But the system is fatal for the boys. At the age of early manhood they are no farther advanced than on the day they left school. They have indeed gone backwards: having ceased to be boys they are not wanted at the unskilled jobs they went to, and having learned no trade they are of no value to the employer who wants skilled adult labor. Thus they drift into the ranks of the unemployed, and ultimately become the unemployable. That, expressed very briefly, is the tragedy of thousands of English children.

To grapple with it we propose first to increase the age at which children may leave school. It should be raised

to 16. The child would then be started in the world with a far greater mental equipment, and fitter, physically, for the battle of life. Possibly it might be wise to grant exemption from school at the age of 14 providing the boy was leaving to be apprenticed to a skilled industry. The boys who remained at school would be given special technical training, possibly in trade schools, which are just beginning to be established.

The proposal to raise the school age raises also the question of the English secondary schools. These roughly correspond to the American High Schools and take children up to the age of 18 or 19. But, unlike the American High School, they are not free and are therefore chiefly used by the middle and upper classes. Except for facilities given in the shape of scholarships, they are largely closed to the children of the poor. In raising the school age, therefore, we want to construct a ladder from the elementary school to the secondary school, along which the children of the poor may pass without charge and continue their education until they are at least 16; in many cases, we hope, until a still later age. This, of course, means a great change in the character of many of the secondary schools. More will be needed, and many of them must take the form of technical and trade schools. The change must come gradually, but the country must certainly face a great increase in the cost of its education. We cannot doubt but that eventually this additional cost will be gladly borne by the nation which is realizing that the brains of its people are its greatest asset, and that these are not to be found in any one class of society.

The new spirit in English education is also to be seen in the importance which is now being given to the development of character and personality in the elementary schools. Many of us greatly lament that so much time has been wasted in the past on bitter discussions as to whether or no questions of religious dogma should be taught to young children. Not a few of us feel that such instruction would

fitly come later, but that in the case of the young children, the most important influence upon them in their school life is the personality of their teacher. Where this personality is great and noble and chivalrous, the character of the children will be influenced in similar directions, and will be further developed by wise religious training suited to the age of the children, and without appeal to questions of dogma which are the subject of sectarian contention.

The importance of organized play for the children of the elementary schools is also being recognized. As is well known the value of games to the great public boarding schools of England has long been recognized. Games have been one of their chief glories and have been a great factor in character building. In the elementary schools, until quite recent years, organized games have been in many cases quite unknown. The teacher's influence over the children has been confined to the hours spent in the schoolroom. The out-of-school life of the children has not been organized. The causes of this were various. The teachers were engaged only for the school hours. The elementary schools were frequently and necessarily built in crowded districts and adequate playing space very rarely existed. The value of organized play for the children of these schools was not sufficiently urged. Now, these conditions are being changed, and the latest code which has been issued by the Government Education department allows organized games to take place during school hours. As a result children from schools in crowded parts of London are now taken regularly to the public parks, or other suitable places, for the playing of games under the supervision, and with the coöperation of their teachers. The movement is only in its infancy but the physical and moral advantages of organized play for all the children of our schools are realized by all serious educationalists and without doubt the movement will steadily develop.

We must not end this paper without speaking of the growing realization of the country that to many of the chil

dren in the elementary schools the State has a parental duty. Attendance at the schools is compulsory and many of the children come from extremely poor homes and from parents having low ideals of responsibility. In such cases the schools have to take the place of the parents and as far as possible to take charge of the whole life of the child. The attempt to carry out this policy is seen in the measure which has already been referred to for the feeding of underfed children. The attempt to organize the outdoor life of the children is another expression of this sense of the nation's responsibility. In the near future we shall probably see powers obtained for the systematic medical inspection of the whole of the children in the elementary schools. Such inspections have already been partially carried out through private enterprise in several parts of the country. The results show how urgently necessary such inspections are and what great good may result therefrom. Another movement is in the direction of teaching a higher standard of personal cleanliness. Much has been done in this connection already, but it is hoped that before long no school will be built in a city which is not fitted with adequate washing baths, where all the children will regularly bathe as a matter of course, and where instruction in the details of personal hygiene will be given.

It has been urged that the assumption of these various duties by the nation must lead to a great weakening of the sense of parental responsibility. The reply of the present writer to that objection is that in many thousands of homes in England the sense of responsibility does not exist, and our problem therefore is so to train the children of the nation, physically, morally, and intellectually, that the parents of the future will be a greater and nobler race. We seek by wiser care of our children to eliminate the criminal the drunkard, the unemployable. We seek to replace them by men and women, capable of living happy and healthy lives in a country whose future must depend upon the nobility not of any one class within it, but of its people as whole.