French programs of study, strangely enough, are quite similar in form to those found in Germany. In place of religion, however, we find the term morale, which means an ethical code not associated with any one form of religion. In French schools, the emphasis upon nationalistic training is marked, especially since religious control of education has been displaced by state pre-eminence. We may all admit that while France in building up a strong state has not had in view the domination of other states, she has had the aim of building a state strong enough to resist the domination of strong enemy states.

Japanese programs of study have frequently been thought to be imitative of German practice. They may be more accurately associated with the French type, in that morale is featured instead of religious teaching. The Japanese school is designedly nationalistic in character, and educational forces and instruments are used formally and specifically to this end.

The English and American viewpoint and procedure in education have been international in tendency. The fancied national security of the two nations has made this course easy. It is probable, however, that Americans have never clearly analyzed their motives in this respect, and that our practice has been instinctive, our tendencies native unconscious virtues, if virtues they be in fact. It is likewise probable that America would have continued to go on indefinitely, with no concern about a nationalizing principle in education, had not the war revealed

some of the dangers of her situation. The issues of the war threatened the continuance of the freedom of thought and action which had made us heedless of the need of nationalization. We suddenly found ourselves in the situation which France has long faced-we must have a national solidarity, not to dominate, but to escape domination.

It seems clear that the principle of nationalization can be good or bad in accordance with the motives which lead to it. No nation can be secure in peace or competent in war without guaranties as to the loyalty and unity of its citizens, and these matters cannot be taken for granted, as we have taken them in the past. Even with its greater homogeneity of population, England in the future may be expected to do much more toward nationalization through her schools. America, with its diversified population, will surely be alert to the need of nationalization through the schools, as perhaps the strongest lesson which the war has taught us.

A FEDERAL FUNCTION

In a peculiar way the problem of immigrant education is essentially a Federal one. The first homes of immigrants are established within a few states. Thus they are initiated into American life at the expense of the few states, though later they may scatter through the others. While the states and communities may actually carry out the program of education, it is the business

of the Federal government to see that the work is done, furnishing the means if necessary. The Federal government sets up the conditions under which the immigrant may enter the country, and assumes a guardianship, in theory, over the immigrant after he is here. The Federal government sets up the standards for naturalization, tests applicants, and admits to citizenship those deemed worthy. Our accumulating experience with the problems of self-government shows that democracy is conditioned by the degree of education, enlightenment, and virtue of its people. We may assume that the Federal government admits the immigrant primarily that he may participate in its citizenship, and not purely for the purpose of securing cheap labor for our industries. We will not admit that we deliberately wish to set up in the midst of our national life a large nonparticipating group, aliens in tongue, habit, and aspiration. If, therefore, we are sincere in our professions regarding the purposes of citizenship, then the educational obligation is manifest. Yet there is enough in the history of our indifference to the education of the immigrant to justify the accusation that we have sought workers, not citizens. Let us trust that it will not take another war or recurrence of national menace to arouse us to a proper sense of obligation in the education of the immigrant.

The campaign for Americanization began in 1915, and it was at this time that our official bureaus began to formulate programs and to

seek funds and authority. The Bureau of Naturalization, as well as the Bureau of Education, gave vigorous attention to the problem, though the Bureau of Naturalization before 1915 was not conspicuous for aggressive action looking toward the creation of new citizens from our immigrant population by means of education. It must be confessed that in spite of our official pride in our democratic institutions and our conditions of freedom and opportunity for the oppressed, we have needed gross and utilitarian incentives like those of fear, "safety first," and "it pays," to start us toward the paths of justice and humanity with respect to the immigrant. Now that our fears because of a foreign foe have been allayed, and we have escaped those dangers which we believed imminent, it is unthinkable that we should lapse into our former attitude of indifference.

The war itself has generated and universalized higher and nobler motives. That which we have begun to do from fear we shall continue and enlarge from motives of justice and humanity. We shall not be so much concerned that the immigrant should, by reason of a knowledge of our tongue, be able to avoid accidents and be content to remain at his work or even be able to read food regulations. Rather, we will be concerned that he may be able to share in our citizenship, learn our ideals, contribute his share to the thinking and action of the nation. The opportunity at least for all immigrants to learn our language will be provided by com

petent public agencies-whether primarily from Federal, state, or community funds is a question which may be reserved for subsequent discussion. The opportunity will not, as heretofore, be provided, if at all, largely by employer, settlement house, religious or political organization, or by inadequate evening-school facilities.

DEMOCRACY USES ITS SCHOOLS

As in the case of the native born, we place our greatest hope for the improvement of the race in the education of the children, so we must hope and shape our plans with respect to the immigrant. Educational compulsion for the mature cannot overcome the laws of nature; the change or reformation of the adult has its limitations both for native and foreign born. There are those who seem to expect that the immigrant can be made over, although it is recognized that the attempt is futile in the case of the native a high compliment to the immigrant, but an undeserved one. We may expect, consequently, that results in Americanization will be possible in proportion to the maturity or immaturity of the immigrant at the time of his arrival. For the mature we should not neglect the development of any potentiality for readjustment to American thought and customs. The freest opportunity should be furnished all immigrants, however mature; but our surest hope for uniform and competent results must rest upon the children of the immigrant, who must be provided