St. Paul daily globe., 1889-06-16
OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
The System, Not the Prlncl-
pie, of Education Under
Discussion.
From a Purely Parental and
Non-Sectarian Point Of
View
The Writer Considers Causes,
and Points to the Rene
dies.
Children Should Be Educated
for Happiness, Temporal
and Eternal.
NO. v.


I have now reviewed five of the prin-
cipal charges brought against "Our
Public School System" The charge of
enormous waste and reckless eXpend-
iture of the peoples money leave to
politicians to discuss. | am viewing
the system from a parental, not po
litical standpoint. How far my readers
have been convinced by the testimony
have adduced to sustain these charges
is for them to decide.
Enough, think, has been said, how
ever. to convice every thoughtful man
that there must be something terribly,
radically wrong i'll system that pro-
duces such frightful results; or, what is
equally as bad, which fails to prevent
them; for the ouly reason for the exist
ence of the system lies in the suppose
ton that diminishes or prevents such
results. The moment has arrived for
me, then. to point out if l can, the
causes which have led to what some of
the keeneSt intellects of the age have
not hesitated to call "The Failure of
Our Public School SYSTEM"
| believe these causes are chiefly
two. Doubtless some of my readers
have already anticipated them. l shall
bring the first one to the surface at
once, however, by boldly propounding
the question:
TO whom belongs the duty to con-
troll the education of the child?" Does
it belong to Ibis sisters, his cousins
and his aunts?" Assuredly not. Must
it be entrusted to every "Tom. Dick
and Harry?" Most certainly not. Is it
to be confided to soulleSS body polite,
called the state. or to the authors of its
existence, the parents who gave it
birth?
If nature fails to answer, a few au-
thorities will throw light on this ques-
ton.
Every standard writer on the subject
of either law OF morals proclaims with
one voice that parents are bound by
the natural law to feed. clothe and ed
ucate their own children. Bouvier says:
"The principal obligations which par
entS owe their children are their main
tenance, their protection, and their edu-
cation" Chancellor Kent says: The
duties of parents to their children, as
being their natural guardians. consists
In maintaining and educating them dur
ing their season of infancy and youth"
Sir William Blackstone says: 1.-The
last duty of parents to their children is
that of giving them an education suita-
BILE to their station in life: a duty
pointed out by reason, and of far the
greatest importance of any. For" con-
tinues the author, ''aS Puffendorf very
well observes, 1T is not easy to imagine
or allow that parent has conferred any
considerable benefit upon his child by
bringing him into the world if he
afterwards entirely neglects his
culture and education. and SUIT
fers him to grow up like
mere beast. to lead life useless to
others and shameful to HIMSELF" DR..
Wayland. in his Elements of Moral
Science. says: 1.-The duty of parents is
generally to educate or to bring up
their children in such manner as they
believe will be most for their future
happiness, both temporal and eternal"
Again: "He (the parent is bound to
inform himself of the peculiar habits
and reflect upon the probable future
situation of his child. and de-
liberateely to consider what sort
duce to his future happiness and useful
ness" Again: 'The duties of parent
are established by God, and God re-
quires US not to violate them" Accord
ing to the laws of nature, says Wayland,
''the teacher Is the only agent: the
parent is the principal" But, under
the present system, as by law eStab-
1iShed. the parent is not recognized as
the principal, nor is the teacher re-
garded as his agent.
In his biennial report for 1864, the
California state superintendent of pub
lie inStruction--quoting from the Judi
dial decisions of some of the Eastern
states. constituting their public school
laws-maintains that 1.-The child should
be taught to consider his instructor, in
many respects, superior to the parent
in point of authority" and ''that the
vulgar impression that parents have
legal right to dictate to teachers, is Ell
tirely erroneous" and, further, that
parents have no remedy as against the
teacher"
Thus the law of nature and natures
God, which Ordalns that it is both the
right and duty of parents to educate
their children sin such manner as they
believe will be most for their future
happiness" is utterly disregarded and
set at naught by the state, which Or
dains that it is neither the right nor the
duty of parents, but of the state, to say
when, where, by whom. and in what
manner our children shall be educated.
Now, it is always possible for either
individuals or states to disregard and
violate natures laws, but it is not pos
Sible to do so without suffering, sooner
or later, penalty, and penalty, too,
corresponding in magnitude with the
importance of the law violated. Hence
it is-and l assert it without the fear of
successful contradiction - that those
communities which have so long and so
glaringly violated natures laws in the
matter of education are now reaping so
heavy and so deadly harvest of crime,
pauperism. insanity and suicides.
DIR. Wayland has well said ''that the
relaxation of parental authority has
always been found one of the surest in
dcations of the decline of social order
and the unfailing precursor of public
turbulence and anarchy" Now, under
the law, as we have already seen,
parental authority is not merely re-
laxed. but it is utterly set at defiance.
What, | would ask. does parental
authority amount to in the mat
ter of educating children, when
a parent is not recognized
as having any remedy, as against the
teacher" for the wrongs he may per-
petrate against his child. and when, as
in California or Illinois to-day, the par
ent is, in the eye of the law, criminal
who ventures to send his own child to
school of his own choice, and at his own
expense, without first going with his
hat under his arm to board of petty
officials to beg their permission to do
SO?
If parents. any longer, have the least
vestige of authority over the all-im-
portant matter of their own children's
education. which is not wholly subordi-
mated to the private interests, preju-