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.

This is the case in Indiana, where night schools must be established in cities of over 3000 inhabitants upon the petition of 20 or more inhabitants having children between the ages of 14 and 21 years, necessarily employed during the day, who will attend such evening schools. Practically the same requirement affects Baltimore County, Maryland, except that the petition must be signed by 20 persons over 12 years of age who desire to attend evening school. In Pennsylvania, the provision is mandatory in second, third, and fourth class school districts upon the application of 25 parents of pupils above the age of 14 years who are residents of the school district.

On the other hand, legislative provisions making the establishment of evening schools entirely optional on the part of local boards of education have been passed in several of the principal immigration States, such as California, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin. In fact, this seems to be the standard adopted by most legislatures. The result is that evening school facilities are not maintained in a large number of communities where a genuine demand and need exists. Even in those cities were facilities are established they are usually considered merely adjuncts to the day school system, rather than an integral part of the educational system. Thus in the principal immigration States above specifically mentioned the number of communities maintaining evening schools is surprisingly low. In New York, with a foreign-born white population of 2,729,272, the largest in the entire country, a State having 148 urban centers with over 2500 inhabitants, and 71 urban centers with over 1000 foreignborn whites, the number of cities maintaining evening schools is only 41. In Pennsylvania, the number is slightly higher, 42, but is really lower when taken in connection with the fact that this State has 263 urban centers with 2500 inhabitants and 127 such centers with 1000 foreign-born whites. New Jersey has only 30 communities with evening schools, as against 61 urban centers with over 1000 foreign-born whites; Ohio, 20 as against 40; California, 9 as against 30; Wisconsin, 19 as against 38. On the other hand, Massachusetts, owing to the operation of its mandatory evening school law, has 65.communities with evening schools, as against 117 communities with over 1000 foreign-born whites. In Connecticut, every city over 10,000, with the exception of

one, a wealthy suburban community which has no reason to comply with the State law, maintains evening schools pursuant to the mandatory provision above referred to. No State during the past two years has passed any legislation making the establishment of evening schools mandatory.

In commenting upon legislative standards, mention should be made of the fact that during the last year a method of securing the establishment of evening schools has come into common use although not required by law in any considerable number of States; namely, petition by immigrants desiring evening school instruction in English and civics. The Bureau of Education is in receipt of a number of such petitions requesting it to use its influence with local boards of education in securing evening school facilities. It was also advised of several instances where similar petitions have been made directly to local school authorities as a means of securing action by them. This suggests a very definite scheme of securing evening schools in States where these facilities are authorized by law, but are not required to be maintained. As interest in acquiring the common language of the country develops among the foreign-born whites, the tendency seems more and more to be in the direction of making formal petitions for instruction through evening schools. This is quite likely to be adopted by legislatures as a standard condition precedent to requiring evening schools, for the purpose of ascertaining the desire on the part of immigrant residents for training in English and civics.

A most significant law was passed by the California Legislature last year, setting a high standard for other States. This legislation provides for the appointment of "domestic educators" by local boards of education, upon the basis of one appointee to each 500 units of attendance in the day schools. These educators are to go from house to house, especially in the foreign sections, for the purpose of training the mothers and children in the rules of health, sanitation, and hygiene, the principles of buying food and clothing, the English language and civics, and other appropriate subjects. The Commission of Immigration and Housing of California, the Federation of Women's Clubs, and the Daughters of the American Revolution have united in developing facilities authorized by this new law.