French Canadians in New England. In the case of purely foreign-language schools there would seem to be no doubt that the predominant motive is nationalistic or racial. Public opinion as the result of the war has practically driven the foreign-language school out of the country. The chapter on recent legislation will furnish ample evidence of this fact. It is estimated that about fourteen states have prohibited the use or teaching of any foreign language in elementary schools. It would appear that there is a growing disposition in many states to prohibit the continuance of bilingual schools. The propriety of this action on the part of state authorities has been questioned from the general point of view presented in this volume, but the trend of public opinion seems to be in the direction indicated. The reason for the present drastic tendencies is clear enough; the natural reaction from the abuses which have been discovered is toward extremes of regulation.

CREDIT DUE PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS

Let us be fair to the parochial school. In any assessment of the influence of these schools upon the citizenship of the country, great credit is rightly due to them. Particularly in the East, where parochial schools have been long established and the English language is the medium of instruction, there is little difference between their educational status and that of the public school. What parochial school of this

latter character has not its service flag with its many stars, and among them gold stars! In every effort for the successful carrying on of the war these schools gave excellent co-operation. The records of the Junior Red Cross will show for them percentages of participation similar to those of the public schools; in Liberty loans, in War-savings-stamp campaigns, in food conservation, and in the many other enterprises in which the government sought co-operation, these schools maintained at private expense did their full share. We must respect the patriotism of the directors and pupils of these schools; we must respect the religious convictions of those who maintain them and who desire to secure for their children the spiritual and other influences which the public schools cannot give. We must respect the spirit of sacrifice of those who bear the burden of double taxation to maintain schools which better carry out their beliefs and aspirations.

There is much to be said to the credit of the bilingual school for the cause of Americanization. The criticism has often justly been made of the public school that it effects a false Americanization by a too rapid process of change from old landmarks to new. The tragedy of the child of foreign parentage suddenly turning in contempt against the Old World speech and ways of his father and mother has been noted by many commentators. Acquiring the gloss and veneer or smartness of Americanism without an appreciation of its deeper meaning is not true

Americanization. Americanization must be consistent with the commandment, "Honor thy father and thy mother." The sudden breaking away from the old landmarks of race, religion, and custom has never resulted in good citizenship in the new relations.

The bilingual school in many instances has been the bridge in Americanization and made assimilation gradual and consequently sound. We are attempting no praise for the bilingual school that refuses to make concessions or, worse, which inculcates suspicion or distrust of American institutions. The bilingual school which instills the new allegiance without relinquishing old associations can be and usually is an effective institution for the development of citizenship. There is a danger, of course, that the bilingual school will preserve indefinitely something like a dual allegiance. That the bilingual school promises to do this thing is feared by many, but the complaint of the immigrant is that the children break away from traditions of the parents too fast, that they insist on becoming Americans too soon; foreign-born parents attest that their children prefer English to the native tongue in spite of all conserving influences.

In Europe the bilingual school has been accused of maintaining the dual relationship indefinitely. Let us remember, however, that this result has usually followed where the state has sought to obliterate the languages and customs of subject nationalities; where there has been no compulsion, assimilation has usually

taken place. Wherever the nation has attempted to force conformity or assimilation, the coerced races have sullenly resisted and maintained a distinctive individuality: witness Poland under the triple yoke of Germany, Russia, and Austria. May we not take a leaf for ourselves out of Old World experiences?

EXTREMES OF OPINION

There seem to be three distinct positions on the question of the relation of the state to private education; the point of difference is as to the amount of authority which the state should have over private schools. The first position rests on the principle that education is exclusively a state function and may not properly be exercised by any other agent, such as private individuals, parent associations, or the church. Plans of

action based on this conviction are to be found in recently proposed legislation for Nebraska which would abolish all private education, and in Iowa through language regulations. Similar action is proposed in the state of Michigan, where an amendment to the constitution is sought for completely abolishing parochial schools.1

Opposed to this drastic position is the standpoint at the other extreme, that the state has no rights with respect to education. This seems to be the position maintained by a number of directors of private schools who object to any 1 1 This petition failed in 1919, but is still being agitated.

First,

sort of supervision of their institutions on the part of public authorities. Up to the year 1919 few states have made provision for such inspection of private schools; few states have made requirements as to curriculums in private schools, and those that have set up such requirements in their statutes have not enforced them. Now that a policy of regulation or of supervision or inspection is being attempted, objections are beginning to appear. These objections are based on several reasons. the argument is advanced that education is not a state right, but some other sort of right, such as that of the parent, the church, or the society. Those who take this position usually admit that the state has the right to demand that all children receive an education, but not the right to specify as to the character or details of that education. Extreme instances of negation of the right of the state to regulate education are more easily found in Canada than in the United States. A condition of tension exists in Canada at the present moment over the question of the relation of the state to private education. In Le Canada Français for March, 1919, is found a vigorous challenge of the right of the state to exercise any influence over the education of its youth; the article, written by a judge of the superior court, concludes in translation:

The child is not a citizen, he is not the pupil of the state; he is, on the other hand, the object of solicitude of his father and mother. . . . When Solomon wished to discover the real mother, he made the test of feeling, and upon the