The Dangers to our Public School System.

The recent remarks of President Eliot and other educators, have directed fresh attention to religious teaching in public schools. To one who has followed the discussions of this subject for some years past, it is painful to observe that they are taking on a political complexion.

In our country there is great need of public instruction fitted to perpetuate the spirit of American institutions. The spectacle of children of different races, creeds and social classes attending the same school, is too familiar to need notice, and the common school system of the United States stands acknowledged as one of the grandest achievements of civilization. Yet it seems in danger of being crowded out of existence by opposition from two sources, one positive in its antagonism, the other negative.

Two large classes of people, strangely united in this instance, form the opposition. They act from different motives, in the one case social, in the other religious. They are the very wealthy class in every community and the Roman Catholic denomination.

In his report recently published, President Eliot has remarked upon the increasing number of pupils entering Harvard from private schools. But not only are private schools becoming the "feeders" of colleges, they are, especially in large cities, performing the functions of primary and grammar schools. In some places it is not thought "good form," for a wealthy family to send children to a public school. Again, as in Cambridge, a hostile feeling displays itself in regulations which abolish recess to prevent mingling of pupils. This attitude of a portion of our people I have called negative opposition, because, while threatening no attack, it weakens the public school system by withdrawing the interest and sympathy needed to support the common schools.

The real adversary of the public school system, an adversary whose opposition is avowed, positive and usually logical is the Catholic denomination - in its clergy, for left to themselves the laity would be inert in the matter. The Catholic church has put the schools in this dilemma: schools that retain the shadow of religious instruction are denounced as sectarian, while those that leave it out are branded as godless. And to neither kind, the church declares, can it send its children; accordingly, at the late council in Baltimore, it ordered the erection of parochial schools throughout the country.

The policy of the church is to educate its own children. For this purpose it has established all over the United States graded-schools, academies, colleges and seminaries, and it is planning a university. Its line of opposition to public unsectarian institutions of learning is complete at every point. We have, then, two systems of education in our midst, not, however, running in competition, which might benefit both, for the church monopolizes the patronage of its children from the primary school through to the university.

While different theories of education as well as of government are admissable, there seems no more place for two school systems in this country than for two forms of government. Some good reason should exist for a double school system such as the country now possesses. The reason cannot be that the public school is deficient in moral or mental training, for if a tree is to be judged by its fruit, the school system of the state suffers nothing by contrast with the system of any church.

But granting that the two systems are equally good so far as quality goes, the spirit of instruction must be taken into account. The discipline and instruction of sectarian schools is likely to develop men prejudiced in favor of particular church dogmas and creeds. Said a seminarian, who had always attended the schools of his church, in discussing evolution with a gentleman who seemed open to the doctrine, "What, do you want it proved true?" Too often the life of the teachers in parochial schools is so wrapped up in their profession that the education they impart fits one for the church and nothing else.

So far our form of government has succeeded so well, because nationalities and sects have yielded to a certain extent in matters of peculiar customs and belief. If the church segregates its children from the rest of the community, if it causes them to regard this government as protestant and themselves as strangers in a strange land, if it keeps social classes from mingling where is most opportunity for mingling, it destroys one of the safeguards of the republic.

If the school question enters politics, it will most probably be in the shape of a proposal to divide the fund collected for public instruction so as to support parochial schools. To grant a part of the public money to one denomination would entitle all denominations to a share. And sects like the Episcopal church, which talks of building schools of its own, would accept this. But the plan would be greatly to the detriment of the common school system.

It seems most wise, if in this country, Saturday and Sunday do not afford sufficient time for specific religious instruction, and since churches are evidently unwilling to entrust parents with imparting such teaching, that the public school should be made acceptable to all denominations.

This can be done, first, by all classes of citizens uniting in choosing school boards of liberal character, who will see to it that nothing sectarian be admitted into the teaching of any branch or in any regulation, and secondly, by having only one session, closing at one o'clock, so that pupils may devote their afternoons to their catechism or to whatever their parents wish.

This is practically the rule in Germany, and if it could be adopted here, the cloud that now lowers on our political horizon would speedily vanish.

* * *