ARTICLE VII.-THE TEACHING OF MORALS IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

A CAREFUL discrimination between morals and religion, as branches of study, must be maintained, in examining this subject. Forty years ago, more or less, evangelical religion was taught in the public schools. This was not desirable or defensible, and reaction culminated in excluding the formal teaching of even morals. The two extremes are each unfortunate, and there is a growing readiness to recover from the present extreme, if the people may be sure that it will not go over into the teaching of theology. There is a system of morals, aside from and independent of the systems of religion. The former is indispensable to the highest style of citizen, and may be taught as a study, separate from any type of religion. While doubtless the system of Christian morals is the highest and noblest, the State may labor morally and successfully for the construction of the best citizen without direct appeal to the Christian system for authority and support. This policy is suggested in view of the different opinions on religion, and in view of the provision in its constitution, that the State may not hurt, molest or restrain one "for his religious profession or sentiments."

The reader will indulge the expressing of an opinion as to the nature and office of law in this matter. Civil law is a stationary and not a progressive power; it is not a reformer, but a conservator, and can only hold and not get. It is as the ratchet on the capstan, when one is heaving the anchor; it cannot gain an inch, but will hold every inch given to it. Under our popular government, the statutes are the finality or last forms of the popular will, as the castings for a machine. In them the people become the government and say: "We propose to work in this way." To obtain a law, therefore, adroitly, or with a concealed intent, or that is openly in advance of the popular will, is as foolish as it is unphilosophical. The people will say: "We did not ask for this law, we do not

like it; we do not propose to enforce it." The people and the government are one and the same power or will, in different but not antagonistic positions. On the question before us, therefore, there is no place for a civil statute or utility in one, unless the people have made up their mind that they want one to define what they wish to do.

The theory and practice of Massachusetts will serve well in illustrating our general topic. The report of the Board of Education for 1877-8 says: "The public schools were established that they might train the youth to be good citizens.". p. 86. The report for 1880 says: "The State holds in its own hands the power to determine what must be the character and extent of that education which its own safety requires all its children to possess." "Whatever may be said of other institutions, it is still true that in our common schools are to be found the sources of those influences that are to mould the character of our Commonwealth."-p. 15. And again: "It is the opinion of many thoughtful men that our schools are not as fruitful in morals as in intellectual results. This ought not to be; for that education is not worthy the name which does not imply a symmetrical training of the whole nature."-p. 118.

The following is a noble passage in the Report of the Secretary for 1877-8: "The omissions of the moral element from the public instruction of the children of a State will soon produce a State not worth preserving."-p. 86. The remark of Macauley in the House of Commons in 1847 is a good companion to this: "The education of the people ought to be the first concern of the State."

And in the Report for 1877-8, the Board themselves say: "If our schools are to be the safeguards of our republic, as we fondly trust, our teachers must feel that upon them rests the responsibility of so training the youth committed to their care that they shall go forth from the schools, imbued with the principles of sound morality."-p. 9. And the Secretary adds: "Moral philosophy is to be added to the course to make it complete." "The children are to be carefully taught what are their moral relations to one another, to their teachers, their parents, to the State, and to God." Superintendents and teachers would do well "to keep constantly in mind in all they do

for the schools," "that one of the two ends sought in a common school education is the complete training of the whole nature of the children." "These children should be kept in the schools until they have acquired a knowledge of their own wants as physical and moral beings, . . of the relations they bear to one another, as members of Society, and of the relations they bear to the State, whose institutions they are to perpetuate." And yet again: "However important may be the knowledge of reading, writing and arithmetic, that knowledge sinks into insignificance in comparison with intellectual and moral training." And it is pleasing to notice that Ohio and Missouri express the same high sentiment. pp. 97, 117, 63, 89.

These are noble conceptions of public education, and worthy this ancient commonwealth; and it is now next in place to enquire what ways and means the State is using to put so good a theory into the most practical use.

As to Law. The fact leads, that the Constitution of Massachusetts makes it the duty of legislators and magistrates “to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and frugality, honesty and punctuality in their dealings, sincerity, good humor and all social affections, and generous sentiments among the people."-Const., Chap. V, Sec. 2.

This is the constitutional warrant and basis for legislation in specific laws. One of these and the principal is this:

"It shall be the duty of the president, professors and tutors of the University of Cambridge and of the several colleges, of all preceptors and teachers of academies, and of all other instructors of youth to exert their best endeavors to impress on the minds of children and youth committed to their care and instruction, the principles of piety and justice and a sacred regard to truth; love of their country, humanity and universal benevolence; sobriety, industry and frugality; chastity, moderation and temperance; and those other virtues which are the ornament of human society and the basis upon which a republican constitution is founded; and it should be the duty of such instructors to endeavor to lead their pupils, as their ages and capacities will admit, into a clear understanding of the tendency of the above mentioned virtues to pre

serve and perfect a republican constitution, and secure the blessings of liberty as well as to promote their future happiness, and also to point out to them the evil tendency of the opposite vices."-General Statutes, Chap. 38, Sec. 16.

The editor of the Massachusetts School Laws well says of this one: "This provision of the constitution contains an emphatic expression of the will of the people concerning the introduction of the moral element into all our public instruction."

Perhaps the magnificent sweep of this law makes it a little impersonal to common school teachers, since it includes the presidents and professors and teachers in all our colleges, academies and private schools, who are not the employes of the State, and so not the direct subjects of a State order. Possibly this feature of a splendid legislative paragraph has led the paid servants of the State in education to regard it as hortatory rather than mandatory. At least so it appears to have been treated. So much, however, the statute permits in the teaching of morals. We pass now to notice what provisions there are in detail to make this grand statute operative.

"Laws have been passed requiring . . . uniform courses of study for the different grades of schools." — School Laws of Massachusetts, p. 11.

The laws, collective, name about forty studies, and make it imperative that those shall be taught. These range from the simplest primary up through the Grammar, High and Normal schools. No other than those named is made imperative. The study of morals is not one of them. The teacher of a high school in a town of 4,000 inhabitants is required to be able to teach moral science, but it is optional with the committee whether it be taught or not. Of the other ten branches for a high school the law says, he "shall give instruction" in them; but of moral science it says only that he "shall be competent to give instruction" in it.-School Laws, p. 23.

In defining the purpose of the six normal schools the Board of Education say, in 1880, that one design is to acquire in them "the most thorough knowledge of the branches of learning required to be taught in the schools." They then give a list of forty-one, and add to it this: "The above is an enumeration of the studies."-School Laws, pp. 57-8.

But moral science is not one of them as required by law to be studied in the normal schools. The explanation of the omission may be found in the statement of the Board that normal pupils are to study there only "the branches of learning required to be taught in the schools."

The nearest approach to statute obligation to teach morals in the public schools is where "good behavior" is specified. This is named once only and in connection with the lowest or primary studies.-School Laws, 1883, p. 22.

“Good behavior" pertains, generically, to manners rather than morals. Worcester says: "Behavior relates especially to the corporeal actions and to the minor morals of society. Carriage, manners, deportment and demeanor are different species of behavior."

The law is very clear and honorably high in requiring good morals in the teacher, and the expression of this imperative pre-requisite is varied, frequent and abundant.

Moreover, the School Committee of any town or city has power to exclude from a school "a child whom they deem to be of a licentious and immoral character" and, if this is done in good faith, the act is not subject to revision.-School Laws, 28, 45.

Among the duties of the School Committee the statute says: "The School Committee shall direct what books shall be used in the public schools, and shall prescribe, as far as practicable, a course of studies and exercises to be pursued therein."School Laws, 32.

Under this law it is presumed that the power of the committee to prescribe a course of study is confined to the list of studies specified by law for the different grades of schools. In other words, their power is the power of selection for adaptation and not for the original nomination of a study which the statutes have not named. They may select from the State list of studies what the school in question seems to need, and "direct what books shall be used" for those studies. If it be a high school the committee have the option to prescribe moral science; and if the view given of the duties of the committee be correct, they have no power to prescribe it as a study in any other school below a high school.