•Panas

paradox seems involved in estimating the advantages of either method: to democratize our newer brethren we must resort to autocratic procedure; the democratic method does not promise to democratize. But the democratic method at least has permitted the immigrant to Americanize himself. There has been going on an automatic process of Americanization which our democratic method has permitted and encouraged; while it is regrettable that there is so large a number of non-English-speaking immigrants among us, it is also surprising and pleasing that the greater proportion of our foreign born have sought and acquired that which we have not forced upon them.

CITIZENSHIP TRAINING Vlive schleus All the preceding discussion concerns the procedure adopted or proposed for adult immigrants, those who might resort to evening schools, factory classes, home instruction, or to other forms of part-time schooling. Immigrant children and the children of immigrants come under the compulsory-education law, a compulsion of another nature than that discussed for the adult. If some degree of amalgamation has taken place in this country, if the kind of Americanism we now find may be likened to a stream with varying and unequal currents and not to a series of parallel water courses, then the school must be given credit for a considerable part in the achievement.)

An astonishing fact about the work of the

common schools is that Americanization has scarcely been a conscious motive. Americanization has taken place through the schools, but it has been an unconscious by-product; Americanization has been in the background among the objectives of the teachers' efforts, but specifically the teacher has been more concerned with the fundamental processes of education and with the fine and industrial arts. There is very seldom designated in the elementary-school weekly program of 1,500 minutes any subject entitled citizenship. The study of civics is often assigned a place in the program of the upper grades, but the study of civics we know may not be estimated as equivalent to a training in citizenship. Training and promotion for teachers involve a multitude of requirements, but nowhere among these is there a test of acquaintanceship with the problem of Americanization.

And yet Americanization and citizenship are usual resultants of all school training. The child receives impressions, inspirations, and impulses from the picture he sees in the classroom, from the stories he reads in his history, from the exercises he attends in the assembly hall, from the celebration of patriotic anniversaries and the salute of the flag. We furnish special classes sometimes for non-English-speaking children, but we do so merely for the purpose of enabling these children to enter the regular grades withjout delay. We have no special course of study (except in rare instances), or other exceptional

provision for immigrant children, designed for purposes of Americanization. We do not have anything of this kind even when immigrant children constitute the major portion of, or, as sometimes happens, comprise entirely, the school group. Perhaps this situation is not defensible, but as yet no one has called attention to a condition of neglect.

Unlike the day school, our evening schools as now established, and likewise the proposed extensions of evening schools on some more comprehensive basis, strive to secure results in Americanization by means of specific effort. The subject of citizenship is much more emphasized in evening-school courses of study than in the day schools, and in fact is largely required in all such classes. Material for reading is quite generally patriotic in character and the instruction in the rights and duties of citizenship is made very specific, answering to the standards of citizenship set up by the requirements of the naturalization process. Citizenship is an immediate and pressing problem with the adult immigrant, and may properly be made a motivation of work in evening-school classes. A similar objective is too sophisticated and too remote to make as strong an appeal to the pupils in the day school.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER COUNTRIES

Turning our attention again to the practices of other nations in using the schools, more particularly the day school, as an instrument for

nationalization, we may refer to conditions in England, France, Germany, and Japan. England, like our own nation, has made no effort to set up nationalization as a conscious objective. England, like America, has had the ideal of educating the individual child primarily for his own welfare and secondarily for the welfare of the state. English education has emphasized conventional knowledge which enables the individual child to deal with other individuals, has endeavored to give the child some power of æsthetic appreciation for his own personal enjoyment, and more recently has begun to give vocational training, again primarily for the well-being of the child in his after-career as a producer. England, as well as America, has placed its hope in an educational principle which is the reverse of the German doctrinenamely, that collectively strong individuals will constitute a strong state, as against the German idea that the strong state must be composed of efficient individuals.

German programs of study show that the motive of nationalization is in no way incidental. Whereas English and American courses of study are based on the hope that the well-trained individual may fit somewhere into economic and political society, the German courses of study take care that that end shall be attained. The individual in Germany has been regarded as valuable only as an economic or military unit. It has been previously pointed out that the background of American school influence is na

tionalistic, while the courses of study are not. In Germany both background and formal courses of study are nationalistic. In all German courses of study, whatever the social classification of the pupils for whom they are designed, is found a substantial provision of time devoted to religion. While the study of religion would seem to have little to do with nationalization, all experience has shown that religion and nationality are closely interwoven. Experience in this country with private religious schools maintained by racial groups which are not Englishspeaking has aroused the suspicion that the emphasis upon religious teaching, combined with use of the foreign tongue, has tended not toward nationalization, but toward intro-nationalization. Besides religion as a formal nationalizing principle, we find emphasized in German elementary courses of study the mother tongue, geography, primarily of Germany and of her colonies and dependencies, and history, chiefly of Germany. On the surface it may not appear that the common-school education of Germany is more nationalistic than that of most other countries. The difference is largely one of spirit, not of form. The viciousness of the spirit of the German school system has lain in the inculcation of the "superior race" obsession, together with the notion that Germany was beset by enemies seeking her destruction. No one has doubted either the intensely nationalistic spirit of Germany nor the part that the German school system has had in building this spirit.