In comparing the education of America with that of Germany and

England, Sadler

([78], p. 457) says: There is a wonderful keenness and "go" in American education. Germany can not rival America in vigor and enthusiasm. It is the atmosphere of American life which permeates American schools and makes men and boys more adaptable than they are here (in England). We get into grooves more than the Americans do and stick there. * * * The German has methodical perseverance, scientific precision, and patient forethought; the American, unresting activity, brilliant dash, and intellectual ingenuity.

They

Some of our critics think that we have too much energy. see a tendency toward hurrying which is objectionable. Mark ([65], p. 258) believes that American educators should infuse all the pulsesteadying influences which they command into the schools as an offset to the restless individuality. Papillon ([66], p. 246) sees an American inventiveness and energy which England does not possess, but calls attention to the danger of hurry and overpressure.

Rowley ([66], p. 345) thinks that solid education and workmanship are suffering from the same cause.

As a result, the products in the arts and crafts lack real originality in design, in ornament, in anything where the brain and hand and higher emotions work together. Raw utility comes into glaring evidence.

* * *

All of this is but another evidence of the American tendency toward achievement rather than toward meditation. Energy and enterprise are invaluable, but like all other good things they may be overdone. There is always danger that what is gained in speed may be lost in power. One problem of American education is to guard against a misuse of the tremendous power which resides in

our people.

Like all other forces it must be controlled and guided if it is to be useful.

ASSIMILATING THE IMMIGRANT.

One of the most remarkable phases of our education as shown in the criticisms is our success in assimilating the immigrant. All agree that the schools are the great agencies which are achieving this wonderful result. The German critic is particularly interested in this part of our educational achievement. In general the German would much prefer to have the German immigrant keep up his mother tongue and preserve his home traditions. He seems to lament and almost envy our success in the Americanization of the German. His criticism is almost a complaint. Thus Walther ([89] p. 22), who is particularly unsympathetic toward American ideals, says:

It is wonderful that in spite of all the different races which the immigrants represent they are in a short time welded together in the great melting pot into a

unified mass, and very shortly feel themselves to be free Americans. In a correspondingly short time they also come to look upon the English language as

their mother tongue.

Other German critics seem to feel that this process can not be real. Leobner ([58], p. 15) says:

All the hosts

of

polyglot immigrants become welded in a very short tinre into

a people which is, at least outwardly, homogeneous.

Griebsch ([39]. p. 598) wonders if a national consciousness can really be built up in such a conglomerate of races. He is inclined to

think that such a result is possible because

America offers freedom in its business, social, political, and religious sense to the immigrants from every nation. The key to the system is a free people in a free country.

Klemm ([48], p. 40) thinks that the American emphasis on education as nationalization is due to the presence of the immigrants. He believes that the

*

*

Anglo-Americans were not at first conscious of this task. For 200 years the colonists neglected the schools *. Only in the middle of the nineteenth century did they recognize the part which the schools were to play in the as

**

*

similating process The social equality of all the pupils, rich and poor, commended itself to the immigrants, who had been compelled to suffer from the effects of European class prejudice. In short, the schools won the confidence of the immigrant and kept it.

The nationalization process assumes still greater importance when we recall with Buisson ([10], p. 4) that the original Anglo-Saxon stock is disappearing. Thus, if our ideals are to be preserved the task of seeing that this is done will fall upon the children of the

immigrant.

Buisson, with many others, calls attention to the fact that all of our hopes of education as nationalization are endangered by the disturbing influence of politics. His conclusions are that more and more money must be spent upon education if our ideals are to survive

By educating the new generations in the best manner, by giving everywhere the education which is suited to free men to children of the lowest social strata. they will little by little lessen the number of intriguers and dupes. This idea is one form of American patriotism.

On page 15 attention was called to the fact that American ideals are in the process of emerging upon the level of nationalization. Further evidence of this fact appears in connection with the criticism concerning citizenship and nationalization. Griebsch ([39], p. 600), says:

The Americans are in development at the stage of a grown young man in the fullness of his strength, who does not yet know how to use this strength with measure and discretion, who often, in spite of the best purposes, overshoots the mark and throws to the winds the advice of older and more discreet persons. All the powers of the Nation must find a use which will serve the general

welfare. National pride must unite with a consideration of the value of other nations and not degenerate, as is so frequently the case, into rudeness, prejudice, injustice, and superficiality. To offset these things is the chief duty of the American school. The school must make the people capable of acting in acccordance with their claim that they have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The individual must have a clear judgment in order to participate in the government. He must learn to place his powers in the service of society.

In similar vein, Shadwell ([83], p. 383) says:

I do not find evidence of any clear or general conception of what education

*

*

*

should be in the United States tunity. education.

beyond the general principle of equality of opporThere is a lack of uniformity even in the provision of free (The length of the school sessions varies so that some children get better opportunities than others.) Beyond this the only general conception is a vague idea that school is necessary for producing good American citizens. It is doubtless true that American education has shown some "adolescent" characteristics, and doubtless some national ideals are still almost entirely in the subconscious stage. The fact of most transcendent importance is that growth is taking place and that the avenues for growth are open. The growth of our pedagogical literature and of the great educational and popular self-consciousness is necessarily slow and is still far from complete. Such growth in regard to the ideals of citizenship and nationalization has doubtless been greatly accelerated by the late war. Hippeau pointed out in

1870 ([44], p. 3):

Before a citizen puts his talents into the service of his country, the country on its part must furnish to the children the means of acquiring the greatest amount of talents and aptitudes in order to be able to accomplish this duty. The American Constitution, seeing in public education a great national interest, has taken care to assure to the central government the right of protection and guardianship over the schools by means of funds for their maintenance.* Public education conforms to democratic principles to which everything is subordinated in this most free country in the world. Its purpose is training in citizenship. The minimum of education can not be less than the instruction which every man must possess in order to fulfill his duties toward society and to the State as juryman, witness, and citizen * *; intelligent participation in everything which is of interest in municipal or national affairs and the ability to acquit himself in the obligations which are imposed upon one who possesses a portion of the national sovereignty.

Laveleye ([56], p. 337) says:

The American believes that the safety of society and the future of democracy depends upon the diffusion of instruction in all the ranks of the people.

The English critics note the same tendency and point out the fact that America has abandoned the older laissez-faire policy. Sadler ([78], p. 218) points out the early conflict between the New England

The American Constitution does not provide a school fund. Such funds have been established by congressional enactments.

educational policy and the Virginia policy. That conflict terminated in the victory for the former. Therefore those who study American

education must look to New England for the sources of the movement.

EXTENT OF EDUCATION.

A great amount of comment centers around the fact that education has been extended to all. There is no greater attraction for our visitors than the sight of the children of the "rich and poor sitting on the same school benches."

The cause of such an unheard-of practice is clearly due, at least in part, to the constantly growing feeling that universal education is necessary to the perpetuation of the Nation.

Some critics, however, think that universal education has its draw

backs. Brereton ([8], p. 29) believes that equality of opportunity may possibly become undesirable in that it does not provide sufficiently for the elimination of the unfit.

Should America persist in her splendid endeavor to give each child that stays in her schools a general education, the question naturally arises, Is she not in the long run likely to raise up that undesirable hybrid that other nations have produced, a literary proletariat?

*

*

*

This criticism was written at a time when the openings for educated people in France were rather restricted, particularly in commerce and industry, and Brereton fears that the schools may produce more liberally educated people than are needed in life outside of the school. One can hardly imagine such a condition in the United States.

Some of the German critics see a danger of mediocrity in this

connection. Thus Dunker ([29], p. 42) says:

The Americans become patriotic citizens and captains of industry, but they must call on the Germans to do the skilled workmanship.

In another place ([29], p. 35) he intimates that the American type of universal education produces a sort of superficiality:

There is a devout optimism, harmless diletantism, and generous good will, but a lack of solidarity of detail. The German ideal is higher and therefore

aristocratic, since only a few can attain it.

Böttger, another German ([5], p. 21), says:

In America they look upon the raising of the ability of the average man as their aim, while in Germany the main purpose is to enable the best to come to a full development. The American system involves unsuspected dangers. For example, if the measure of requirements is set too low it will favor the invasion of the learned callings by those who are less able.

These two criticisms emphasize a fundamental difference between the ideals of democracy and those of aristocracy. Both recognize

that growth and progress are not to be had without a price. They

must always be paid for in terms of sacrifice. Disagreement, however, arises as to who should make the sacrifice. America considers education as the inalienable right of every child. Germany prefers the higher education of the few only. In America the original ideal was that of equality-a doctrine which is invariably opposed by those whose ideals are an outgrowth of the class system. This is an old and fundamental difference of opinion, and will in all probability persist for an indefinite time to come. Stated in the terms of modern science the question becomes: Shall a nation sacrifice the interests of the lower fourths of the intelligence distribution to the interests of the upper quartile, or should the upper and lower portions each be neglected for the welfare of the larger middle portion? Democracy prefers the welfare of the greatest number even at the risk of superficiality and mediocrity. This is not to admit that leadership and genius are impossible in a democracy. It only means that they may be neglected. While it is true that America did call upon Germany for skilled workmen and that our talented pupils have been neglected, this is only an evidence of the fact that the interests of the majority must take precedence over those of the minority in point of time. As soon as the majority are taken care of, attention will turn toward the needs and rights of the minority. In fact, there are evidences at hand to show that this adjustment is actually occurring and that the Americans are becoming increasingly conscious of the existence and needs of both the subnormal and the supernormal. Democracy, and the education which makes it possible, are worth all that they cost. America is right in insisting upon a free liberal education for all, since each person is to be a citizen and a voter.

INDIVIDUALISM OF AMERICA.

Thus far the criticism of American education has dealt mainly with the point of view of social welfare. But there is another side. America is a land of strong individualism. This has resulted partly from the doctrine of equality and partly from the environment. The first has already been discussed (p. 2 ff.). As to the second, it is evident that the pioneer who lives far from the haunts of other men must develop strongly those qualities which lead to survival when such survival depends largely upon one's own initiative, resourcefulness, and courage. Quick decision and resolute action often won the day when the pioneer was compelled to fight for his life against savage animals and men. It was natural, therefore, that he should wish his children to develop the qualities that were of