III. A competent father, to stand back of the mother and help make a home adequate at least to the minimum of normal life's demands.

IV. Community surroundings that will make possible the successful achievement of parental duty.

V. Census provisions for vital and social statistics that will make it sure that every child is counted in the population of his nation, state, and community, and that he is accounted for in all social relationships.

VI. State protection against industrial exploitation, vicious influences, harmful use of leisure time, and generally unwholesome conditions.

VII. Health standards in the community, fixed by experts and maintained in essentials by public provisions.

VIII. Education standards, fixed by experts and maintained, at least in normal minimum, by community provision.

IX. Such vital relation between the family, the school, the political system, and all cultural opportunities as shall insure to each child his just share of the social inheritance to which all are heir.

The Need for Two Parents.—The first point noted is the need of two parents for every child. The illegitimate child is handicapped. It is a sound social movement that aims to make every "slacker" father accept his share of responsibility in the case of the unmarried mother and either marry the woman or give financial aid for the child. It does not thereby secure two actual parents for the child. The orphan child, the half-orphan child is handicapped; more so if bereft of mother than of father, but if the father dies or deserts after marriage, all experience shows that even if the mother lives and is capable and faithful, the child who lacks a father has many difficulties to overcome. The child of parents who have come to dislike each other is seriously handicapped. A forced tie between those who no longer love each other creates an atmosphere often fatal to comfort and happiness and one to which children, sensitive as they are to the feeling of their elders, react most unfavorably. The child of divorced parents is handicapped; perhaps not so often or so seriously as when held for years in an atmosphere of mutual hatred, suspicion, fault-finding, and distrust—handicapped, however, by many social embarrassments, by shock to affection given, perhaps, to both parents equally, and by the often great difficulty of finding a suitable home for the child of the divorced couple. The child that is not wanted and comes into a world hostile to his birth is handicapped in proportion as the influence reaches him at the moment of conception or lessens the power of the parents to give him what he needs before or after he arrives.

There must, then, be two parents, in love, as in law, to start a child right—two parents who live until he has reached age of independent direction and support, two parents who pull together for themselves and for him, two parents who are equally recognized in law as acting for him in guardianship throughout his minority.

The recognition of some of these needs of every child has been more general and intelligent than that of others. For example, the equal guardianship of the father and mother, their mutual responsibility for financial support when financially competent, their equal control over the family life and their common pledge to the community of parental care—this has not been recognized until recently, is not now in many of the States of the Union and perhaps not perfectly in any one.

At an Annual Meeting of the Uniform Laws Commission, at Cleveland, Ohio, Mrs. Catherine Waugh McCulloch, partner with her husband in the firm of McCulloch and McCulloch, Chicago, Illinois, and representing the League of Women Voters, secured an almost unanimous recommendation for uniform laws giving equal guardianship to fathers and to mothers. As Mrs. McCulloch is the successful mother of four children, besides being Master in Chancery of the Supreme Court of Illinois in Cook County, and has long represented the legal interests of women in the largest organizations of progressive women in the United States, she could, and did, speak with special authority in urging the right of mothers to protect their children on equal terms with fathers, by a "Uniform Joint Guardianship Law."

Some facts have given color to the claim of the extreme feminist that if you can only get the right sort of mother the father is more or less a negligible quantity. The history of the family, however, proves, if it proves anything, that to actively engage two adults in the business of rearing children is an immense asset to those children.

The two parents insisted upon as foremost necessity for child-care may, however, be of a poor sort, perhaps only furnished with good-will toward their task. Even so, whatever the lacks may be, however small the capacity, feeble the will and poor the purse, however society-at-large has to make up for deficiencies in the parents, it is at least one step toward a successful life to have two recognized parents who mean to do the right thing by their offspring and never fail in love toward each other and toward the children whom they call their own.

Every Child Should Have a Competent Mother.—The second demand of child-life is for a competent mother—competent in health, that the baby may get really born alive, competent in nursing and household skill, or in power to secure that skill from others, in order that the baby may be sure of that first long start of two or three years toward physical, mental, and moral sanity and strength. It is in those first years that the child gains power to begin his own conquest of the world at an advantageous point. That many women are not competent physically for even the first test of childbirth we know from many sources of inquiry. The facts brought out in legislative hearings by those urging support for the so-called "Maternity Bill" amply prove this. Taking the figures for New York State alone, in the year 1920 we find a total of thirteen mothers out of every thousand dying in childbirth, with an estimate from physicians that with proper care two-thirds of these women could have been saved. A competent mother, then, physically speaking, means not only one measurably strong but one sufficiently cared for to prevent overstrain before the birth-hour. Again, in New York State alone, we find that eighty-six babies out of every thousand die before they reach the end of their first year. This may be from ignorance on the mother's part, or it may be from her physical weakness unequal to the care of the new baby. It may be there are already too many children near that baby's age who also make heavy demands upon time and energy. It may be that discouragements from unhappy family conditions or worry over economic disabilities sap the mother's vitality. It may be that taints of blood doom the child and the mother. Whatever the cause, it is reason for deep concern that a great state, like New York, for example, has a rate of infant mortality nearly twice as high as that of New Zealand and ranking eleventh in the twenty-three states of the registration area in which the death of babies is set down with care. When we add to this loss the death of at least 25,000 women each year in childbirth, most of whom could have been saved under right conditions, we are still more concerned. Of the 250,000 babies lost last year we are safe in estimating at least one-half whose lives could have been spared with even a minimum care. The effort now making all along the line of social advance to give every child a decent start in life is obviously necessary and wise.

If the mother is proved wholly incompetent in mind or character we have acquired a social right to take her child from her and place it where it can receive better nurture and training. We are beginning to recognize the corollary duty of social aid to all women of good character, motherly feeling, and any fair degree of intelligence in their function of motherhood. There are those hopelessly incompetent who should never be allowed to have children. There are far more with power to bear and rear children successfully whom adverse circumstances submerge to incompetency. These, we are now learning, must be helped in some way, for society's sake even more than for their own, if they are willing to undertake parental service to the race.

The passage of the so-called Sheppard-Towner Bill is one answer in the United States to the right of the child and its mother to life and health. There are those who deplore the tendency to seek for such aid to individuals through the Federal Government. The Governor of New York State, for example, although a man of progressive ideas and liberal point of view, opposed "starting aid to mothers and babies from the Washington end," declaring that work for the "welfare of citizens of any class should start at the locality to be benefited." He would not have the people educated to depend upon the Federal Government for benefits. He feared that the Sheppard-Towner Bill would tend to "make the public expect to be nursed from the cradle to the grave" and be a detriment to the public life rather than a benefit. New York State made a good appropriation for its own aid to mothers and babies, but did not apply for the Federal aid in addition. By the middle of the second month of 1922, however, nearly thirty states had accepted the Act as a welcome help in their welfare work, and few will be left outside of its provisions by the end of the year. The fear that such an Act would make the general government the active controller and director of the lives of parents and their children in most intimate ways seems not justified by the facts. The Bill, when passed, simply provided money to be given to the states on the fifty-fifty basis "for the purpose of cooeperating with them in promoting the welfare and hygiene of maternity and infancy." The specific plans for each state are to be made by the state agency in charge of the work and the only Federal supervision is that of standardization, by which the Chief of the Children's Bureau, the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service, and the Commissioner of Education must approve those plans as "reasonably appropriate and adequate to carry out the purposes of the Act" before the money of the Federal Government is passed over to any state.

It is rather as a help to states desiring aid in this particular than as a compulsory requirement that the Act is intended to operate. There are those, however, who fear any extension of power of the National Government even through influence acquired by subsidies for necessary aids to the common life. It is a matter for thought and unprejudiced study what form of public aid is, on the whole, the best for our country. It cannot be denied, however, that different states have differing burdens to carry for the immigrant, the ignorant, the destitute, and the defective. It is at least desirable to press the point that no state lives to itself and no one dies to itself. Disease knows no boundary lines of political government and the death-toll of mothers and babies does not halt at geographical limitations. We are all one country insofar as bad social conditions are concerned. We are all helped when any smallest country town most remote from the centres of population is raised in its social standards and conditions. Hence, perhaps, we may not fear national aid to each locality in need or feel concerned as to what agency accomplishes a required social advance.

Ellen Key declared that every mother should be maintained by the state during the first year of every child's life and that afterward each child should have one-half its support from the state and one-half from the father. That may not be the ideal. We may believe that to thus reduce the father's responsibility would mean a dangerous lessening of his energy and devotion to the family well-being. It is true, however, that while there are so many in every community without essentials for care in childbirth or for the early nurture of infants, we must find some way of providing these essentials, or the state is endangered at its vital centre.

Every Child Should Have a Competent Father.—The third demand of childhood is for a competent father. That takes us at once into the area of wages and economic conditions. When the Children's Bureau, itself a testimony to the awakened social conscience in respect to childhood, shows from careful investigation that in families where the father earns only ten dollars or less a week more than twice as many babies die before the age of two years than in families where the fathers earn twenty-five dollars a week or more, we can see with clearer vision than ever before that to give babies a fair chance in life the father must be fairly paid for his work.

The following table shows this fact in graphic form:



Economic Aspects of the Father's Competency.—The death-rate of babies in families in which the mother has to earn outside the home under factory conditions of labor in order to secure absolute necessities is so high that it is seen to be not socially thrifty to thus place a double burden upon mothers. The death-rate and sickness-rate of families in which the children do not have sufficient nourishing food, in which the mother is half starved and wholly deprived of rest and pleasure, and the father is under terror night and day lest the rent money will not be ready when the landlord's agent comes, cannot give us ease of mind. The families in which unemployment is frequent or overwork keeps the father as well as the mother under the pressure of nervous exhaustion, are the families in which the right of the child to two competent parents is grossly denied. The aid given the mother, by even the best of "Maternity Bills," insofar as it transcends the wider dissemination of knowledge and gives actual financial aid in economic distress, seems only a makeshift. The sick have a social claim for social care and the ignorant of all ages have a special claim upon the community for instruction, whether from separate Commonwealth or from the Federal Government, it matters little. The financial aid given, however, the "material relief" that must be rendered in family emergencies, should not be needed by the healthy, law-abiding, thrifty, honest, skilled, or even half-skilled workman. He should be able to earn a necessary minimum for himself and for his family by his own labors. We cannot here enter into the economic problems involved, but must register a conviction that real social progress must include not only a competent father for every child but also a fairer chance for every man to become that competent father through fairer sharing in the profits of industry. Widespread and careful inquiry as to reasons for dropping below the self-supporting line list as one cause of "necessity for material relief, having in the family more than three children under the age of fourteen." This fact must give us thought. At fourteen in many states the child may begin to earn something toward his own support. The question may well be debated whether or not an average man in ordinary economic general conditions should be unable to care for more than three children below the earning period if his wife is a competent housemother and thus earns her part. If such a condition of restriction upon family increase is accepted as inevitable and permanent in our industrial order, then surely the cost of rearing children must be far more widely distributed. In such a condition there would be needed social help for fathers and mothers far more definite and inclusive than merely the aid to expectant mothers. If it is true that it takes from three and one-half to four children from each married pair to keep up the population considered necessary for national well-being, and if there is an increasing number of men and women deterred from furnishing even two of that quota by the expense involved, then it is high time that we consider at least how the family burden may be more equally distributed.

The French Plan of Family Extra-wage.—One plan of meeting this unequal social burden of parenthood and the social danger involved in too few children born, France has devised by the family extra-wage.[8] This is simply a provision by which married workers with children are preferred before married workers without children, and much preferred before bachelors, in the matter of wages. French work-people with families, irrespective of their station, rate of pay, premium or bonus, receive:

1. An indemnity of 200 francs at the birth of a child.

2. A suckling indemnity, which is given to the wife, of 100 francs a month during the first year.

3. An indemnity of 3 francs a day for each child under fourteen years of age, which becomes a part of the family income. The Paris district alone for the first four months of 1920 shows 39,266 families in receipt of these allowances, with 62,176 children benefited, at an expense of 4,115,014 francs. The money comes largely from a pooling of funds by combines of manufacturers in many industries, so that although business pays the extra charge it is distributed equally among all engaged in the same industry. The trade unions have not been wholly pleased with this discrimination in favor of fathers and mothers. They work for the strict equalization of wages. The national need for more children of strength and health, however, and the effect of low wages upon mothers and upon infant life have led to this social measure.

Surely, this is a way not wholly unreasonable by which a society can help pay for the children it demands.

The Endowment of Mothers.—In England, a different plan has been developed, although not yet applied. A Proposal for the National Endowment of Motherhood, advocated by K.D. Courtney, H.N. Brailsford, Eleanor F. Rathbone, A. Maude Royden, Mary Stocks, Elinor Burns, and Emilie Burns, has been published. In this plan the ideal is "that within each class of income the man with a family should not be in a worse position economically because he has a family than the single man in that class." They demand that "the standard of living be not lowered by children." The authors of this plan declare that in the present system "The mother is still the uncharted servant of the future who receives from her husband at his discretion a share in his wages." They want the mother to receive from society, through the Government, "a weekly allowance sufficient in amount to cover the primary cost of physical subsistence, paid to the mother for herself and for each of her children, throughout the period when the care of the children necessarily occupies her whole attention." They claim that such a plan would, in the first place, make "equal pay for equal work" for men and women really possible, since the argument that "men should be paid more because they have families to keep" would be outgrown. They claim also that such a plan would remove economic restrictions on parenthood which now often work social harm. They also claim that the health of children requires this public allowance for their care.

The authors of this plan, although frankly stating objections to this point, claim that the payment of this allowance should be directly to mothers "as the first step toward raising the status of women and blotting out, in what has been called the noblest of professions, those conditions which compare only with the worst of sweated employments." The whole discussion of this plan is worthy most serious attention of all interested in preserving the family from injury through economic inequalities.

Does This Plan Make Too Little of Fathers?[9]—There is one question, however, among others, to be asked of the authors of this plan, and that is, Can not some means be devised to make the father's share in the care of the children more definite and better rewarded, less often shirked or incompetent, in any scheme for state subsidy for the care of young children? The difficulties that inhere in all subsidies for children are chiefly those that make people of small intelligence and little conscience trade with the state for larger subsidies for larger families, begotten by the less fit for parentage and with an eye on the public purse. This catastrophe, not unknown in the past history of England, must be avoided. If there shall develop any scheme for equal sharing by all the community in the expense of raising the coming generation then there must surely be no special honor paid to those that have very large families. Better, for social purposes, that no children above a reasonable number should in any family receive a special allowance, even if older brothers and sisters did do so. It may be that in France large families are desperately needed. Not so in the United States. The number of five or six should certainly be the limit for which any just scheme of family subsidy should mulct the taxpayer.

Just Limits to Number of Children in Subsidized Families.—The difference between the three under fourteen years which in so many cases can be cared for unassisted by the average workman, and the four and more that bring the family down to the danger-point of financial dependence, might be a subject for consideration in any scheme of family subsidy, and some clear idea of social need in family fertility should be a part of any proposition to make allowance from the public funds for each child under the earning age. In any case, the father's share in the self-sacrifice and burden of parenthood should have some clear recognition in any law dealing with such state aid. In the last analysis, unless some extreme form of socialism is better than the present industrial order and to be sought, the best way to help the family is to make fathers and mothers competent to take care of their own children without too great effort for themselves and without injurious consequences to the children. Those Trade Union leaders may be right in principle when they hesitate to accept any public family aid scheme lest it make wages less rather than more and bring on a condition in which heroic struggle for one's own, the very pith and marrow of manhood in its relation to the family, be less esteemed and less practiced.

We are confronted, however, both in the movements for aid to maternity in care before and after childbirth, and in all the many provisions for child-saving that publicly supported Boards of Health are everywhere inaugurating, with a tendency of the greatest strength and social appeal, tendencies toward a sharing by all of the burdens heretofore borne only by the heads of families. Some way must be devised by which such sharing will not cheat society of any gains to character and to sense of family responsibility which old systems of economic support of children have given the race. Some way must be devised to recognize as economic assets of society the special sacrifice and service of the housemother in her function of life-giver for the coming generations and yet not ignore the father but rather bring him nearer to competent fatherhood as social conditions make it easier for him to bear his part of the family load. The place for full discussion of these important considerations is not here, but the need for the child to have a father who can be the efficient partner of the competent mother in the task of rearing him must be always insisted upon, else reform measures that help the mother will only take us backward instead of forward.

The Right of a Child to be Officially Counted.—The next right of the child we must consider is the right to be listed as a member of the population. A registry of facts concerning himself and his condition that will enable the community to see where he is, what he is doing, and how he, in general, fares, is essential. The fact that only about one-half of the Commonwealths in our Union have full registration of births, deaths, health conditions, school attendance, and other vital matters concerning each individual, and of immense importance to society as a whole, is a confession of social incompetency too shameful for a nation that calls itself civilized. Where there is no adequate registration babies may be easily lost sight of altogether. Children may escape the call to school and child labor be unchecked. When an investigation of conditions in almshouses and remote country districts of a certain southern state was made the numbers of defective and blind and crippled children brought to light was appalling. Yet one political leader of that state, at least, declared when the investigation began that "it was not only unnecessary but an insult to an enlightened state." The enlightened state simply did not know how many children were born dead, how many died the first month or year of life, how many went to school later on, how many were not able to profit by instruction because of congenital defectiveness, how many needed special care and training by reason of some special handicap, and how many ran away from such public institutions as gave poor harbor to those without family protection. One of the fundamental rights, surely, of every child is to be counted, to have the community of which he is a part know something about him, and have his record kept where those interested in his protection and care, in his health, his schooling, his vocational training, may find out what they need to know in order to aid his progress or check his wrongdoing.

Every Child Should Have Social Protection.—In the next place, the demand of every child must surely be for community protection against those who for greed or evil purpose would exploit his life. The first law passed for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which aimed even at parents who did not act a parent's part, was the Magna Charta of child rights. After that the door was opened for all manner of protective legislation for the benefit of the young. Yet we still have many men and some women whose business it is, and a very profitable one, to debauch youth or despoil children.

Surely the time has come when all decent people should unite to abolish such evils.

Child-labor.—In the field of child-labor we have model laws, not always well enforced, laws that aim to keep inviolate for childhood at least a few years of schooling.[10] We have health laws which aim more and more at reducing the diseases of children and making it possible for all to share in the power and joy of normal existence.

Yet, although something has been done for the child who would otherwise be at work in factory, shop, or sweated trade at home, there are, it is said, still "Two Million Overworked Farm Children." In the South, in some sections, the little black children still pick cotton for the little white children to weave in mills. In the North undersized and mentally undeveloped youth still testify to industrial exploitation even where laws against child-labor are on the statute books. The agricultural workers, numbering more than any other class and spread all over the United States, count too many little children in their lists. It is estimated that in our country there are 38,000,000 living on farms, and of this number only 8,000,000 adult men are listed as laborers; we hence can well believe that children and youth are a disproportionate element in the working of those farms. This makes the slogan proposed by Owen E. Lovejoy, the Secretary of the National Child-labor Committee, "Keep the Farmer Through His Children," a highly compelling one. In the tobacco fields of Connecticut, boys and girls ten years of age and over; in the truck gardens of Ohio among the onion beds; in the Michigan sugar-beet fields; in the California asparagus beds; in the Southern cotton fields, where children as young as three years of age have been found—in all these and on lonely farmsteads doing general work we find these children. Cut off from regular schooling, herded often in the poorest substitutes for homes, moving about from place to place with fathers and mothers unskilled or handicapped by weak character, these children are defrauded of every right of a child at every turn. It is not true, as some complacently assert, that all is done that should be to prevent the sacrifice of young life to the industrial demands for large returns for investment. It is not true that such organizations as the Child-labor Committee can rest content with accomplished tasks and disband.

The exemption of agricultural labor from the legal protection of children given in many states in the field of manufacture, and the total lack of realization by the general public of the newer conditions which specialized and scientific farming make for the tenant hands, make this particular form of child-protection in farming a question of supreme importance.

As this book goes to press the Supreme Court decision which declares the Federal Child-labor Law unconstitutional places upon those working through state channels a still heavier burden of effort at child-protection. This decision of the Supreme Court may well be understood as indicating no indifference to child-welfare but rather as a call to clear the method of child-labor reform from any entanglements of taxation or doubtful alliance with Federal officialism. The principle of child-protection, whether by national or state laws, holds the moral devotion of our citizenship more firmly than ever before.

Children Must be Protected in Recreation.—The need for the protection of children from commercialized recreation with its centres set near all manner of vicious influences has aroused the conscience of the nation. The investigations of social conditions near the Camps of Training for our army in the Great War and many forms of social service carried on by men and women in connection with the Red Cross have given impetus to the general movement to "clean up the cities" to make the rural communities and village centres more helpful to moral living, and to make the streets safer for "the spirit of youth."

Yet the rural schoolhouses are so many of them lacking in provisions of decency and of playground supervision, and the village lounging-places are so often the scenes of vicious association, and the absence everywhere of sufficient provision for healthful and safeguarded recreation is so obvious, that we know we have still a long and heavy task before us to accord children their admitted right to social protection from moral evils against which even the best of parents can not adequately stand alone.

Standards of and Aids to Health.—Health standards in the community, fixed by experts and maintained, at least in minimum essentials, by public provision, is the seventh right of children which society should insure to each one.

The difficulties and dangers which inhere in any form of financial payment to parents, either fathers or mothers, in aid of their parental tasks, are not so clearly present, if present at all, in special aids given to all the population in matters of public sanitation, personal hygiene and the care of the sick. If we make our public aid topical rather than by classes, and to all citizens alike in definite aid, we avoid much of the taint of charity. Few, if any, propose, for example, to give maternity aid to the rich. Fewer still advocate old-age pensions for those of independent incomes of moderate size. Many see, however, that health aids should be so distributed and so universally offered and used that the standard of health may be equally raised thereby for all. The idea that there are no people between the rich, who can pay anything asked, and those poor who can pay nothing for hospital care, diagnosis, or general medical and nursing service, is becoming an exploded one. There is general agreement among those most intelligent in such matters that what is needed more than anything else in the field of physical culture and physical care is provision for the people of small incomes who desire to be self-supporting. It is a common saying that no one but a millionaire or a pauper can afford a surgical operation or a trained nurse. We are moving, too slowly, but still moving, toward some form of provision of doctors, nurses, hospital and convalescent care, to which people of refinement, of independent feeling but of limited purse, can resort when they need such aid without a sense of humiliation or incurring the danger of wholly unsuitable companionship. Whatever difficulties there may be in securing adequate aid of this sort to adults, there can be none in the case of children. When we started Boards of Health we definitely outlined a path from the doctor's office and the nurse's service to the public school and from the public school to the home. We saw more clearly as the years went on that that path must be worn by many feet if we would have adults strong and well and ready for the work of the world. We have in many Boards of Health (as so efficiently working in New York City under Dr. Josephine S. Baker) Children's Departments, officered by those specially engaged in baby-saving, in child hygiene, in the health of school attendants, and in the general instruction of mothers in the care of children. This is an achievement which needs only to be more widely understood, applied and supported to be of the greatest social value. We have now the Federal backing in these matters in many provisions outside that of the special Maternity Aid Bill with its fifty-fifty financial plan to make the general government partner with the states and with the various local communities in health aid to all the people. What we need now is to make the care of the minor child seem to all, as it now does to so many, a duty that can be isolated in the mind from any doctrinaire socialistic plans, a duty to include all the population in wholly free health-service from the state. There are differences which may well be stressed between schemes for placing medical service of every sort under state regulation and wholly supporting it by public tax, and any plan for radically abolishing the capitalistic regime.

We are fast coming to a united conception of social duty as requiring help to all parents that they may bring up their children in health and give those children the physical training which they need. Let us all, then, push hardest first for the standardization of health in the case of children and youth and the best possible arrangements of tax-supported aids to the realization of that standard. That is surely one of the ways in which the parental burden of child-care can be socially shared without starting embarrassing questions of radical or conservative theories of logical next steps.

Health Boards Should Help All Alike.—We can, however, thus divorce health activities from economic disputes only by making the investigation of children, the provisions for free examination and treatment, and the establishment of hospital and clinic facilities exactly the same for the children of the rich and of the poor. A recent investigation of the diet of children deduced from reports of undernourishment furnished by doctors specializing in children's diseases, showed that in some cities, at least, the children of the well-to-do were as often underfed or wrongly fed as were the children of the poor. Sometimes the fact that a family is financially able to employ a nurse, but not intelligent or conscientious enough to employ a competent nurse, results in worse conditions, as to food and other particulars, than are found where poor mothers do the best they can with limited means.

Items of Work in Child Hygiene.—The standards of health and the public provisions for their realization, which even now in the crowded city of New York are so ably enforced by "The Division of Child Hygiene," show that "the hazardous business of being a baby" is much reduced in risks. The list of details of work undertaken by that Division of Child Hygiene as so fully reported in the document of 1914 and in later publications may be of use if here repeated. They are as follows:

I. Control and Supervision of Midwives. II. Reduction of Infant Mortality. III. Supervision of Foundlings Boarded in Private Homes. IV. Inspection and Supervision of Day Nurseries. V. Inspection of Institutions for Dependent Children. VI. Medical Inspection and Examination of School Children. VII. Vaccination of School Children. VIII. Enforcing of Child-labor Law in Issuing Work Certificates.

For this many-sided work physicians, trained nurses, and various other helpers are required. Could the public purse be drawn upon for a more vital public necessity than this list indicates?

When it is remembered that from forty to fifty per cent, of births are in charge of midwives in the foreign-born population and that the condition of housing and of water, air and food supply are deplorably inadequate in manufacturing centres, and that in rural communities there are few doctors and nurses and little hospital service, it will be seen that the idea of having Federal aid for this large health requirement was not one of concentration of power in the Government (as some have thought), but rather of a diffusion of standards and better sharing in all parts of our country. The health crusade is not bounded by state lines, diseases may cross those lines without consciousness of any check. The help toward the abolition of all preventable illness, the protection of child-life from all manner of preventable weakness, abnormality and suffering, seems to be the business of society in general, if anything can be so called. The children must be saved if the nation is to prosper. It used to be thought that a high birth-rate was a sufficient indication of national well-being. It is now seen that a low death-rate and a high level of strength and vitality, of health and mental power, are still more the required national asset.

As Dr. Helen D. Putnam well says, "Democracy must finally depend on its department of education for establishing the right: for mothers, intelligence, health, economic opportunity to care for their babies; for babies, either rich or poor, intelligent, physically competent caretakers," If this be true, then the work of Health Boards and kindred agencies is a part of general education as it has long been a part of accepted charitable duty. The children stand first in line for receipt of that health education because they are the promise of the future.

We must take humane care of all the misfits, all the crippled, all the weak, all the defective, all the abnormal and the insane. This is now admitted. We must prevent, so far as we are able, such weight and burden falling upon our children and our children's children, as charity now presses upon us. In this matter, at least, "we must begin with the grandfathers if we would reform the world."

The Educational Rights of All Children.—The right of every child to a minimum of education, which was our eighth point, is also conceded, and the duty of making public provision in tax-supported schools for these essentials of reading, writing, fair knowledge of arithmetic and the rest, is acknowledged. The idea, however, that some people have that all the children in the United States have an elementary schooling is erroneous. This is not a treatise on education, and elsewhere the statistics of length of schooling per year for the different parts of the country and of dearth of school seats in cities and famine of teachers everywhere must be considered. From the side of the family, however, the claim must be made that equal rights in some accepted minimum of school training, and that determined in quantity and quality of teaching by those who know what education means, should be the demand of all fathers and mothers. In the older time young men going through college on the way to one of the three learned professions then listed, law, theology, and medicine, taught often in the country school to earn an honest penny. Such teaching on the way to some form of vocation deemed far more honorable was not of a sort to make teaching a profession in itself. Later, some measure of higher education was given young women in Normal Schools to fit them for teaching little children, and the teacher of the elementary school became, thereby, a professional. To-day few young men teach to help themselves through college and only a few choose teaching as a profession. To-day, also, the profession of teaching, which once was almost the sole opening for higher vocational work for women, now competes with a large number of professions or types of business or applied art, and fewer women proportionally are headed for the schoolroom when they leave college or normal school.

This tendency to take other lines of work increased to unprecedented extent during the Great War, which opened new worlds of paid work to women. This gives us the present teacher shortage, which all who know conditions feel to be the most serious menace to universal education. There are not only not enough teachers to go around, there are still fewer teachers fit to teach. If it is the right of every child to have a good education in essentials, to be well taught as far as he goes in schooling, how shall that right be realized if the teacher famine continues?

The Use of Married Women as Teachers.—The interest of the family is specially concerned in one way to ease that shortage of teachers. That way is the use of married women in the public schools. All women who have "verified their credentials" as good teachers should be held on to when they marry with all possible strength of appeal to fulfil a social duty as a part of the teaching force of the locality where they live. The old absurdity of making women resign from the teaching force when they issued wedding cards, or conceal the fact of their marriage if they were not scrupulous, so as to keep their positions, is fast passing. Few communities hold on to this penalizing of the woman teacher when she marries, but many school boards retain a sentiment against urging the continuance of any married woman on the staff. This must give way to an intelligent understanding of two things: one, that experience in teaching is an immeasurable asset to the schools and must not be lost in so great proportion of women as it has been; and, in the second place, that teaching lends itself in unique manner to half-time work, to vacations for maternity duties, to combining of two or three married women in positions that might be filled by one spinster, and to other social expedients favorable to married life; and that all that is needed is good sense and some skill of administrative adjustment to keep the larger majority of good teachers in the field after they are wives and mothers.

Moreover, from the point of view of the family, it is injurious for social practice to keep women who have the qualities of good teachers from marrying lest they lose their beloved profession. It is one of the best, although one of the least tried, ways of bringing the school and the home together by giving a good many teachers a clearer idea from personal experience of what the home needs from the school, and giving mothers a clearer idea of the reasons for school rules by having them serve in both capacities. The normal school education of women was obtained by appeals based on the fact of the first half of the nineteenth century that unless women teachers were secured and trained for the task the elementary school could never be enabled to fill the need of the public school system. The fact of the early part of the twentieth century should be as deeply pressed, the fact that there are not enough women teachers of education and character for elementary school service unless we mix teaching and marriage for many of them. This fact should make a social appeal to-day equal to that of Horace Mann's great mission.

If we are to have enough elementary school teachers and continue to increase the number from the most fit women for the task, we must also institute a new social backing for the profession. In this connection one is obliged to deal with the disrespect shown the average teacher of little children and even of the high school and college instructor as compared with leaders in other professions. The teacher of little children is most often a woman, and if a woman away from home and especially in some rural communities is very nearly a social outcast. The "teacherage" is just beginning to be called for as the suitable home for the teachers of a school; a "teacherage" which can become a social centre if near the school building, and thus be uniquely useful. The jointure of all the best homes in a community with all the wisest teachers in that community, not alone for the occasional discussion of "School Problems" or "Home Problems," but for some common public work which will link both teachers and parents to the larger life of the community—this is a necessity if we would have enough teachers of the right sort.

The attention to the physical details of school housing, school gardens, school playgrounds, school lighting and seating, all these the family life which furnishes the children must be keen about in the interest of each child. The curriculum must not be left to a school board chiefly interested in other matters than text-books, except it may be for a business interest in the latter. The supply and testing of teachers must not be left to a body more concerned in getting places for relatives and friends than for securing the best available teaching staff.

In all the things that experts should direct, and in all the things that mean health and comfort and happiness to individual children, parents, even if not very learned, should have a voice and seek to make their convictions work to actual progress.

Individual Sharing in the Social Inheritance.—For the last point of our list, namely, the right of every child to be made a conscious heir to the social inheritance of his time and place in the world, little need be said. The tendencies in American life which give thoughtful people the most satisfaction are the tendencies toward extension of culture privileges in public libraries, lectures, tax-supported and educationally supervised playgrounds, in young people's organizations like the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, in summer camps (not all for the rich), in vacation houses full of the flavor of the best of life, in the varied clubs and classes of the settlements, in the pageants and other forms of pictured world-life—all these, and more that might be named, show an exuberance of effort to share with utmost speed and fullest generosity the things that seem to the privileged few the most precious heritage of our race.

Yet, with all our effort so much more needs doing that multitudes live and die wholly ignorant of the world they have come to or of the race-life of which they are a part. Doctor Du Bois, in his classic appeal for human comradeship for all, The Soul of Black Folks, has shown what suffering comes to the cultured black man who finds all cultured men and women of white races forcing him to be an alien because of his skin. There is a sadder and more terrible, because unconscious, deprivation; it is that of any one, white or black, rich or poor, who loses the chance to partake of the culture of the past. The man or woman, whether able to accomplish much or little on the practical side of vocational service, whose outlook is bounded by the narrow, the superficial, the personal, the ephemeral, is missing the best part of his social inheritance, the capacity to "look before and after and pine for what is not."

Such a little time we are here! Even a Methuselah might wish to have in his mental furnishings the glory of the past and the prophetic hope of the future. All children, not merely a fortunate few, should have this sense of a group-life of which each is a part, should be able to see life and see it whole in the social inheritance that belongs alike to each one of us. Children make a large order upon each generation as they come into a vast group of all that have been and reach consciously toward the expanding life of the coming time.

The family must begin that culture by which the order shall be filled, but no family can answer even the least of the social demands by itself. "Culture," says Emerson, "shall yet absorb chaos itself," Every child has a rightful citizenship in that order-giving world of thought, of history, of poetry, of art, of science, and of religion.

What a nation we might become if only every child had this, its right, recognized and fulfilled!

QUESTIONS ON THE CHILDREN OF THE FAMILY

1. The eighteenth century was called the century of man, the nineteenth century, of women, and the twentieth, that of the child. What facts justify this statement?

2. What are the main elements in the modern standard of child-care, child-protection, and child-nurture?

3. What of these elements can and should the private home supply, and what must be the community provision and control?

4. In trying to effect both private and public conditions favorable to the best development of child-life, what should be the scale of values used, or what should be the order of effort?

5. Dr. Alice Hamilton, in a Chicago study of I,500 families, found that the infant death-rate in large families of six children and over was two and one-half times greater than in small families of four children or less. Was that an indication that infant mortality rises with fecundity or was it one of many indications that the better-to-do have smaller families? In any case, should such statistics always include the statement of the social standing and the income of the groups studied?

6. In The Child of August, 1920, Miss Julia C. Lathrop summarizes the Child-welfare Standards proposed by the Children's Bureau as follows:

(1.) Minimum standards for children entering employment:

A. Minimum age, sixteen years in all employments; eighteen years in mines and quarries; twenty-one years for girls as telephone or telegraph messengers; twenty-one years for special-delivery service of U.S. Post Office; prohibition of minors in dangerous, unhealthy, or hazardous occupations.

B. Minimum education, compulsory education for all between seven and sixteen years for nine months of every year. Between sixteen and eighteen years those legally employed to attend Continuation Schools at least eight hours a week.

C. Physical minimum, annual examination of all working children under eighteen years of age; prohibition of work unless found to be normal in physique and health.

D. Hours, minors not more than eight hours a day or forty-four hours a week, and prohibition of night-work. Continuation School attendance to count as part of working-day.

E. Wages, minimum determined by wage commission or similar agency.

F. Vocational guidance and employment supervision.

G. Employment certificate as needed protection against industrial exploitation.

(2.) Minimum standards for public protection of health of mothers and children:

A. Maternity aids; B. Infants; C. Pre-school children; D. School children; E. Adolescent children.

(3.) Minimum standards in relation to children needing special care:

A. Adequate income; B. Assistance to mothers; C. State supervision; D. Removal of some children from their homes; E. Home care; F. Principles governing child-placing; G. Children in institutions; H. Care of children born out of wedlock; I. Care of physically defective children; J. Mental hygiene and care of mentally defective children; K. Juvenile courts; L. Rural social work; M. Scientific information.

(4.) General minimum standards:

A. Economic and social; B. Recreation; C. Child-welfare legislation.

Read the above and compare your local conditions with these standards. Do you think all these demands necessary?

FOOTNOTES:

[8] Described briefly in The Survey of November 12, 1921.

[9] In New Zealand, which has so many "modern improvements" in government, the proposition has been made to fix a basic wage for a man and wife without children, and make it the same as for a single man. In addition to this sum, each employer would be required by law to pay into a State Fund a sum slightly in advance of this wage for the single man and the childless married man, and that excess sum would be distributed in the form of a children's allowance to each parent according to the number of children. It is estimated that under this plan the total sum paid out in wages would not exceed that now distributed, but the receipt by the workers would be proportioned to responsibilities.

[10] See publications of the National Child-labor Committee.



CHAPTER IX

THE FLOWER OF THE FAMILY

"What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals!"

"Sure, He that made us with such large discourse, Looking before and after, gave us not That capability and godlike reason To fust in us unused." —SHAKESPEARE.

"The apostolic of every age are ever calling for a higher righteousness, a better development of the human race, a more earnest effort to equalize the condition of men."—LUCRETIA MOTT.

"To every period its leaders: and the rise of every leader is according to his watching for opportunity; and the chief quality of leadership is the jewel of equity, by which alone the obedience of men is justified."—ARAB SAYING.

"He presses on before the race, And sings out of a silent place. Like faint notes of a forest bird On heights afar that voice is heard; And the dim path he breaks to-day Will some time be a trodden way. But when the race comes toiling on That voice of wonder will be gone— Be heard on higher peaks afar, Moved upward with the morning star. O men of earth, that wandering voice Still goes the upward way: rejoice!" —EDWIN MARKHAM.

The Proportions of Genius to the Mediocre.—In Dr. T.S. Clouston's suggestive book, The Hygiene of Mind, he estimates that at least four-fifths of the human race are legally "sound" and of average capacity. Of the remaining one-fifth who are "unusual" he and other investigators name only one-tenth of one per cent, as entitled to the distinction of "Genius." Clouston adds to this a class of "lesser genius," often extremely useful to the race but often personally unhappy from ungratified ambition or lack of temperamental balance. He lists "reformers" for the most part in this class and "inventors who do not succeed." He also specifically indicates a class of "all-round talent" from which successful social and political leaders are drawn and heads of big business and administrators of large enterprises in educational fields. Dr. Lester F. Ward, on the contrary, believed that we estimate the rate of genius and potential genius far too low and that special talent is vastly more common than the usual observer thinks. He says, "What the human race needs is not more brains but more knowledge." In his clarion call for the better education of all people of every race and condition, he affirms his faith in environmental opportunity and a finer personal development as the chief things needed to send the race onward. Professor Woods, of Dartmouth College, writing on "The Social Cost of Unguided Ability," confirms this conviction of Doctor Ward.[11] He declares that "for ten men who succeed there are probably fifty more who might succeed with adequate development and specialization of effort." He shows how "education as an agency in the selection of personal ability fails because of undue abbreviation of the period of training for most individuals and the omission of elements of training of real significance for the purpose of adjusting individuals to the specific task." When we note that before the fifth elementary grade is reached there is a drop in attendance showing only 80 per cent. of those found in the second grade, and in the sixth grade only 66 per cent., and in the seventh grade only 50 per cent., and in the eighth grade less than 40 per cent. remain of those entering the first and second grades, we see good reason for his statement. When the high school statistics are added, with the drop year by year in attendance until at graduation only one in fourteen pupils remains to the end, we feel that this author is right when he says that "Society suffers less from the race suicide of the capable than from the non-utilization of the well-endowed."



Eugenics.—When Francis Galton, cousin of Charles Darwin and one of the first to apply to human beings the ideas of "selection for better breeds," published in 1873 his article on "Hereditary Improvement," he used the word "Stirpiculture" as indicating the application of evolution to the method of improving mankind by the selection of the superior in the process of reproduction. He later changed the designation to "Eugenics," which is now held as the term best applying in this connection. In 1891 Dr. Lester Ward himself said, "Artificial selection has given to man the most that he enjoys in the organic products of earth. May not men and women be selected as well as sheep and horses? From the great stirp of humanity with all its multiplied ancestral plasms—some very poor, some mediocre, some merely indifferent, a goodly number ranging from middling to fair, only a comparatively few very good, with an occasional crystal of the first water—why may we not learn to select on some broad and comprehensive plan with a view to a general building up and rounding out of the race of human beings?" So keen an observer and philosophic thinker as Doctor Ward, however, could not long accept the first allurement of this idea. He soon began to show with his convincing power that "the control of heredity is possible only to a master creature. Man is the master creature of the animal world. Society is the master of its defectives. But normal people are their own masters. Any attempt on the part of society to control the choice of partners in the marital relation would be tyranny." Recognizing the need for "negative eugenics" fully, and declaring in its name that "mental and physical defectives of society should be kept from perpetuating their defects through propagation," he insisted that "eugenists must recognize and admit the enormous force of personal preference" in marriage.

Doctor Ward gives a figure—as above—which might be used to indicate the conclusions of Galton, in his Hereditary Genius, and of Ribot and others. Doctor Galton himself gave in his volume on the Social Order a chart somewhat more discriminating. In any case, however, the eugenists must depend upon the mass of the mediocre for a supply of geniuses and those of exceptional talent and depend upon the process of reproduction for securing that supply. Doctor Ward, on the contrary, looks to education, controlled and improved environment, and the stimulus for all people to be gained from more scientific knowledge more widely distributed. In his famous article, entitled "Eugenics, Euthenics, and Eudemics,"[12] Doctor Ward says that "eugenists tend to emphasize unduly the intellectual qualities" and "manifest more or less contempt for the affective faculties." "Nature," he thinks, "is far wiser and seeks to prevent all extremes." He also reminds us that "much that is called genius is pathologic and linked to the abnormal and the insane." Perhaps few would agree with Doctor Ward that "genius is scattered somewhat uniformly through the whole mass of the population and needs only favoring circumstances to bring it to conscious expression." But that thought challenges attention. He would improve mankind, first, by getting rid of error through the full use of demonstrated scientific knowledge and, second, by a "nurture" in accord with the laws of progress.

Euthenics and Eudemics.—The pioneer treatment of "Euthenics," or "The Science of Controllable Environment," with its "Plea for Better Living Conditions as a First Step Toward Higher Human Efficiency," was given by Ellen H. Richards in 1910. Doctor Ward, in alluding to this, reminds us that "there is a tendency for the avenues of progress to become choked and normal upward movements checked" and that "we must at all times take vigorous action and in the direction of the betterment of the human race." In respect to "Eudemics," or the doctrine of the welfare of the masses of the people-at-large, Doctor Ward uses the term first suggested to Doctor Dealey, of Brown University, by Doctor Koopman, Librarian of that University, with approval, and gives it a meaning of the greatest social helpfulness. In his view it is not a misfortune that society is being to so great an extent recruited from the so-called "lower classes." If there are signs of decadence anywhere, he thinks, they are not in the "proletariat;" they are among the "pampered rich," not the "hampered poor."

New Types of Genius.—Again, his plea is for universal education in real knowledge and true inference from facts of life and a universal sharing of the really best things to secure a just quota of genius and talent from all classes. It seems clear that we are not obliged to limit our hopes for "flowers of the family" to the few at the top of the social pyramid. For the testimony of history agrees rather with Doctor Ward than with the extreme eugenists, and we have often had arising from the common life splendid examples of human capacity and achievement. When the eugenists list their double columns of those whom humanity takes pride in and those of whom humanity is ashamed it is most often from the degenerative or defective members of society that the second list is taken. From the great common life of average condition, neither too rich nor too poor, too cultured nor too ignorant, for "human nature's daily food," one rises now and then to leave a mark high up on the list of great ones of the earth. Hence, humble fathers and mothers can build magnificent hopes on the newborn baby of their love. It is to be considered also that there is difference of opinion as to what constitutes genius and what may be called exceptional talent. One sociologist thinks that there are but three really important classes of men, namely, "Mechanical Inventors, Scientific Discoverers, and Philosophic Thinkers." Another type of judgment may consider that genius shows itself almost exclusively in those creative minds that give us great music, great pictures, great sculptures, great temples, and great books of poetry, drama, and the novel. Another type of mind, now growing fast among us in this machine-dominated industrial era, may find genius the most appropriate name for the master engineer or business-builder who rules a wide realm of successfully administered economic order. There is, also, although it is not often bold enough to claim loud voice, a small section of those who look for supreme excellence in religious or ethical attainment, a line of genius in mastery of the Way of Life. Certainly serviceable goodness, that which does big things for others' safety or help, may be given some place among the specially talented. For example, the little French girl of nine years of age who, bereft of her mother by the accidents of war, has brought up almost unaided five little brothers and sisters, the youngest only seven months old when her task began, and for two years, it is said, washed, cooked, and dressed her charges, and "saw to it that those old enough went to school where she went herself and took prizes for her scholarship," might well be called one of the "unusual." The prize of 500 francs awarded this "little mother" after two years of such able family engineering and personal care of those dependent upon her shows that some people at least rank those with ability to do social services and the high purpose to achieve the best possible for others' welfare as having a place In the company of the specially talented.

In an inconspicuous book called The New Party, edited by Andrew Reid and containing selections from many "labor" leaders, these words occur: "We have had politics for politics' sake, religion for religion's sake, science for science's sake, literature for literature's sake, art for art's sake: we want politics for justice, religion for right, science for happiness, literature for love of humanity, and art for the social pleasure of all." Those who can thus translate the separate achievements of mankind which taken at the top have won the title of works of genius are beginning to be seen above the human horizon as among the great of earth.

It is still, however, as of old, the man or woman who has a special gift of voice or pen or brush or sculptor's tool or command of instrument or ability to compose music or to write literature fit to live forever, or build temples that command wonder and admiration, or who in some form of creative activity makes his mark upon history, who is most often spoken of as a genius. It is now only a little while since we began to add to this list the scientific, the commercial and the political genius. The military genius has held a place for ages, but his specialty is losing standing as a social asset, and we can foresee a time when he must learn constructive rather than destructive methods of action in order to qualify for the "Hall of Fame."[13]

Only Men in Lists of Geniuses.—Genius along any line has for its topmost reaches the names of men only. Few women have even attained the secondary place of the talented. When we remember that higher education for women is a child of less than a hundred years' growth, and that all the higher walks of achievement in the intellectual, the political, the scientific, and the industrial field have been masculine monopolies in custom and even in law for ages after men had opportunity of specialized development and work, this is not a sure proof of the intellectual and vocational inferiority of women. Until women have had several centuries of equal education and freedom of activity with men no one can tell what they can do in any special line. It is therefore idle at this date for any one to argue either for or against the possibilities of a more balanced list of the sexes in those at the top of human achievement.

What we are now beginning to be sure of is that all talent is precious, all special power a social asset, all leadership to be conserved, and all real genius a priceless treasure—hence, that all children who are gifted, whether boys or girls, shall be developed to the height of social power. This means that although every gifted child is born in a private family, society must see to it that its chance for right nurture and fitting education is not limited to the resources of any private family, especially to those of the poorer in economic power.

Galton estimates two hundred and fifty in a million as in the "distinguished class," If, as Doctor Ward and others think, many more might be able to qualify for that position if favorably situated, then society, which is the loser by every undeveloped person, must learn to know the possibilities of children as indicated by scientific study and lessen the present waste of potential talent. Dr. Carl Kelsey says "Heredity determines what a man may become, but environment determines what he does become." This is not entirely true, perhaps, since many noble and wise have risen from untoward surroundings, but it is largely true.

Social Need to Learn What Children Are.—If society is to really set about the business of getting from the mass of mankind all the intellectual and moral power and all the real leadership that may be available for social uses, then surely we must learn first to know more about all the children in every family. How can this be done? In many cases children are slow in development and may have powers quite unsuspected until the time for most skilful cultivation has passed. In many cases parents are so partial that "all their geese are swans." In other cases the nervous excitability may be such that precocity leads to overstimulation and later there is arrest of development, and the promising bud does not develop into the flower of the family. In any case, the parents alone can not, as a rule, attain full comparison and due balance of judgment even between their own children and certainly not as between their own and the children of other parents.

"Charting Parents."—There is, to be sure, a new plan of "Charting Parents" to find out what they are able to do and what they are actually doing in the moral training and physical care of their children. "The Parents' Score Card," prepared by Dr. Caroline Hedger, of the Elizabeth McCormick Memorial Fund, and published in the Woman's Home Companion of March, 1922, aims to enable fathers and mothers "to size themselves up as parents." The points to be noted and on which parents have a rating as good, bad, or indifferent, comprise those concerning "physical defects attended to," "adequate supervision of athletics and recreation," "regulations concerning the below-weight or nervous child," on "team-work in parents" (whether they pull together or apart in the discipline of the child), and some very drastic examination points on "fault-finding," "lying to child," "punishing when angry." The chart deals, in general, with the character influence of the parent. It is said that only one child in three hundred had a perfect "score card" in an investigation of a large number of children, and hence only a small proportion of parents could be supposed to measure up to all the requirements of the parent's outline of duties.

This new device of putting parents to the test is being adopted in many differing ways by health boards, by school boards, by children's courts, by church committees of investigation, and by the superintendents of charitable agencies. This all means that a standard of child-life is being attained, a measure of the normal, divergence from which is an indication of the abnormal, either in capacity or condition. This is a wholesome movement, although sometimes carried out in unwise and unsympathetic ways. This should enable parents to find out if they have average children and what to do with defects that are remediable. This is also one of the ways by which we measure the social need to help parents who are themselves handicapped in any way to do their duty by their children.

What we need, however, is more than this—we need some definite knowledge of what sort of children we have in one generation with which to build the next generation. We need to be able to take account of our social stock as we go along. To do this the home must be supplemented specifically and adequately by the school. In the school we have opportunity of wide study of varying types, of comparison of differing rates of progress, of getting at actual knowledge of actual quality and capacity in a child as related to the like in other children. This investigative function of the school has been used for the most part to ascertain what children were defective. This is useful. We need, also, to use it with far more ingenuity to ascertain what children are most promising and most likely to dower the race with special gifts.

New Observation Records for Children.—A very important "Observation Record for the Selection of Gifted Children in the Elementary Schools" has been drawn up by Julie A. Badanes, which has been published with an introduction by Dr. Saul Badanes. In this introduction it is well said that "the idea of establishing a norm for every school year" is a new one. The measurement of intelligence by Binet dates only back to 1905. In the treatment of the "Intelligence of Pupils," Meumann declares "that the problem of measuring the intelligence of school children is the basic problem in education." Recently William Stern has dealt at length with "The Selection of Gifted Children in Public Schools" and with related elements of investigation of the intelligence of children. William H. Allen, in his book, Universal Training for American Citizenship, has, as Doctor Badanes notes, given a chapter to the "Training of the Specially Gifted." We are all concerned with growing earnestness in the problem of getting in democracy the leadership which all social organization requires. It is, therefore, of the most intense interest to all thoughtful people how the flower of the family is nurtured and in what manner it is made to bloom.

This "Psychological-pedagogical Observation Record," which has been devised as an aid in finding out if a child is specially gifted, and if so in what way its gifts should be developed and how it should find its way to achievement, is very suggestive. Any parent might well study its itemized outlines for help in effort to understand the child that is unlike the average. The "Record" requires attention to the "general condition of the senses and nerves," to "memory and power of learning," to qualities of "imagination," to strength and expression of "emotions," to facility in "language," to "manner of work," to "relation to home and community life," and in respect to "adaptation to new demands." These things are vital not only to know about and understand as respects one personality but to compare on the same basis a number of personalities in order to get a ranking that is just and useful for guidance in education. Suppose a father and mother feel sure that a child of theirs is one of the exceptional, the gifted, perhaps of great talent, even possibly a genius in the making. They may get much help in arriving at sober judgment by many books and treatises now available. But far clearer would be their own approach to the matter in hand if they could study some such chart as is here alluded to and get a clear direction as to what to look for and how to measure what they find. If such parents, however, would be really assured in their first appreciation of their child they need the cooeperative observation and fuller opportunity of comparison which a teacher of a school, who is herself or himself a good psychologist, can place at their service. All of us can see our own children at their best; few can justly estimate what the power of that best may be in a competitive world.

What to Do with the Specially Gifted Child.—The child may be one of the few elected to leadership in some field. All who watch and study and understand may agree that it is the gift of its birthright. Then what is there to do? The question often arises, Shall the other children in the family be given less opportunity in order that this gifted one may have the larger chance which genius and great talent really demand for fulfilment of promise? There was no doubt of the answer to this question in the minds of those who believed that a special gift carried with it special privilege provided the special gift discovered were of a sort understood by all. For many generations a boy feeling a "call" to the ministry of religion as rabbi, priest, or preacher would be sure to have, if necessary, all the resources of his family at his command and all possible aid of friends even at the sacrifice of the elementary education of his brothers and sisters. In the same way in a more limited circle the child who could do any creative work of imagination in art would be considered entitled to any self-sacrificing devotion of other members of the family which might be needed to carry forward his work. In a larger way many have looked upon all higher education as solely for those who have shown a power of potential leadership. Not long ago the old saying was revived: "Colleges are for the exceptional individuals who may become the world's intellectual elite." On the other hand, the growth of State Universities and of many forms of adult education, and the offering of college courses in the evening to those employed in earning-work during the day, show that the opportunities of culture are more and more made free to all and that the conviction is growing that it is not alone leaders who should be educated but that the common life must be raised in mental and moral power in order for true leadership to work effectively for the advance of social well-being.

In the family the genius or near-genius is likely to get all that should be its privilege and often more. And this not only from pride in his talent and from desire to give that talent its proper chance of expression but because genius and near-genius have often a self-protecting and self-acquiring quality that make sure of much unselfish care from others. If, as has been said, "The genius is composed of a man, a woman, and a child," and there is much in life to give color to that idea, then it is easy to see why the flower of the family so often gets the larger share of every family advantage and when the family resource fails is sure to find friends and helpers on every side to help on his development. This is not unjust provided the talented member can serve well in this specialty. The great trouble is that many think themselves geniuses and find others, in youth at least, to confirm their judgment of themselves, who are only a trifle above the commonplace. This leads too often to selfish claims upon others that tire even the family affection. It would be well on this account, if no other, if every child could be wisely and adequately diagnosed in respect to mental power so that fewer mistakes would be made in confounding greatness with showiness or creative power with mere discriminating taste.

If the family really cuts off the education and vocational opportunities of the less gifted below the point required for average success in life, in order to give greater advantages to the gifted one, it is an injustice. The mediocre have their innings now, and it is one of the great demands of democracy, both within and without the family, that the commonplace shall not miss its chance for learning how to serve and enjoy the best it can. The family life must be for all, the one place in which no life is wholly sacrificed to another life.

What, then, shall be done for the gifted whose talent, like that of music, for example, means a high demand for expensive culture? The answer we are beginning to give is that social agencies shall aid the parents in securing that culture. Aristocracy had its "patrons" for artists. Democracy must have its special educational aids for the gifted. Already that demand is being met in countless ways that will readily occur to all. Meanwhile, there is the public school organized to meet the needs of the "average child." At first the grade-system had a Procrustean bed that made it impossible to meet the needs of those below the average and almost as difficult to meet the needs of those above that average. We started special schools and special rooms for those subnormal, retarded, slow, or specially difficult to manage. Now we are beginning to consider how we can best make the tax-supported public school serve the interests of the specially gifted. The first thing we see clearly now is to find out which children are exceptional on the upper side, and for that the newly devised forms of scientific observation and measurement may be useful if care is taken to mix every formula with common sense, patience, and human sympathy. The next essential is to decide whether the children who can go faster shall be passed along through the grades by special arrangement more rapidly or whether they shall be kept on the regular track of school promotions and be given extra lessons to "enrich their curriculum." The part of wisdom, it would seem, is to find out what kind of gift the exceptional child has and hasten his regular course, or add to it, in accordance with his type of talent. If he is to be one of those who are to mix with men and lead others in professions that demand administrative and executive power, the chances are that he should have the regular course in the usual order and add studies that will early give him the facts of practical life and an acquaintance with many phases of political, business, and scientific activity that would serve in such work as he is likely to find to do. If, on the other hand, the gift is creative, and the career nature has seemingly marked out is one where the impulse will come from within, and some special technical training can alone give that impulse expression, then the chances are that the sooner such a child "gets through with school," emerges from formal education into his own atmosphere and his own free alignment with the masters in his own art, the sooner he will really begin to be educated for his task. It seems to be true that the more a human being is set apart by nature for a specialty of art the less he gets from all teachers save those in his own field of interest. It seems also true that the wider a human being's range of dealing with other human beings in business, in politics, in religious organizations, in educational work, the surer it will be that "all is grist that comes to his mill" and there can be no study that is at all worthy that fails to enrich his mind. Hence, the new tendency to examination for the sake of finding out the specially gifted children and giving them the special opportunity in education which they need and will profit by, must be one guided toward details of differing gifts as well as toward quantitative power.

Genius Universal in Nature.—If any family has in it a real genius, that family shines forever in the reflected light of its choicest treasure. Yet a genius belongs to no family, even to no country. Such belong to the world. Mary, we are told, "pondered the things in her heart" which marked the boy Jesus out from all the other lads who played about the carpenter shop of Joseph. And it is not alone poetic imagination that shows her as troubled as well as humbly proud at the testimonies of His coming greatness. Many other mothers of those destined to high achievement have had misgivings as the shadow as truly as the sunlight of that greatness passed across their vision. For true greatness is solitary and often dedicated to tragedies of experience. The family life may be the only refuge from a misunderstanding world while the hero lives and only after death may the high quality of his service be known to all.

Genius Its Own School-master.—The most comforting thought to parents who have children "different" and perhaps different in ways not yet appreciated by the world around them, is this: nature, which takes care that we shall not have too many geniuses and doubtless will still take such care when we grow wise enough to give all the children a chance to prove whether or not they are geniuses—nature sees to it that the most gifted among the children of men carry within themselves their own school-master. If the regular lines of education do not suit their needs they promptly emancipate themselves from the useless pedagogy, and going after what they personally demand for inner nourishment, get it at all hazards. Sometimes, not infrequently, all the gifted child needs is a library and a chance to be free, or a studio and the companionship of an artist and just his own sort of training, at the time he can best appropriate it.

Varieties of the Gifted.—Happily all the flowers of the family are not geniuses or specially talented. Some are just beautiful to look at and yet unspoiled by flattery. It is a great gift of nature to be able to give happiness just by allowing people to look at one! The contour of the face, the turn of the head, the light in the eye, the freshness of the complexion, the grace of the movement, and the sweetness of the voice all go together, if the manner and the feeling only match the coloring and the form, to make it well worth while just to be alive.

And some flowers of the family are not beautiful but charming, those of tact and graciousness and understanding of others and consideration and unselfish behavior. These are they of whom one has said, "The charm of her presence was felt when she went, and men at her side grew nobler, girls purer, as all through the town the children were gladder who pulled at her gown."

Some flowers of the family bloom late and come to their beauty only when some disaster threatens destruction of the home or some sorrow wrecks its happiness. Simple, plain, unassuming, neither very wise nor very strong in other matters, they have a heart that can love with such intensity that it warms the coldest spot and is the refuge most sought when misfortune appears.

And sometimes the flower of the family is but a memory of one who early passes on. Emerson sang in his beautiful "Threnody":

"The gracious boy, who did adorn The world whereinto he was born, And by his countenance repay The favor of the loving Day,— Has disappeared from the Day's eye; Far and wide she cannot find him; My hopes pursue, they cannot bind him. ...................................... Nature, who lost, cannot remake him; Fate let him fall, Fate can't retake him; ........................................ the feet Of the most beautiful and sweet Of human youth had left the hill And garden,—they were bound and still."

It is of such that affection speaks most tenderly.

QUESTIONS ON THE FLOWER OF THE FAMILY

1. How far should the general family life be burdened for special development of the genius, the near-genius, and the specially talented member?

2. What added social provisions should we seek to secure to aid in the self-training of the specially gifted?

3. What type of education may lead more surely to the discovery of talent and special faculty in the mass of children?

4. Should the chief aim be to bring the subnormal or backward up to grade or to give a free and helpful range of opportunity to natural qualities of leadership? If both should be aimed at equally, how can the public school aid in the double task?

5. A suggestive list of Books for Parents, issued by the Federation for Child Study, headquarters at 2 West Sixty-fourth Street, New York City, includes several of special value in determining the mental powers and special requirements of children diverging from the average quality and capacity. Read at least one of the books indicated and compare local provisions for examination of children with those advocated as desirable.

FOOTNOTES:

[11] See American Journal of Sociology for November, 1913.

[12] See American Journal of Sociology for May, 1913.

[13] See chapter on "Democracy and Distinction," in Social Organization, by C.H. Cooley.



CHAPTER X

THE CHILDREN THAT NEVER GROW UP

"It was perhaps an idle thought But I imagined that if day by day I watched him and seldom went away, And studied all the beatings of his heart With zeal (as men study some stubborn art For their own good) and could by patience find An entrance to the caverns of his mind— I might reclaim him from his dark estate." —SHELLEY.

"One man, at least, I know, Who might wear the crest of Bayard Or Sidney's plume of snow. Behold him, The Cadmus of the blind, Giving the dumb lips language, The idiot clay a mind. Wherever outraged Nature Asks word or action brave, Wherever struggles labor, Wherever groans a slave,— Wherever rise the peoples, Wherever sinks a throne, The throbbing heart of Freedom finds An answer in his own. Knight of a better era, Without reproach or fear! Said I not well that Bayards And Sidneys still are here?" —WHITTIER'S tribute to Dr. Howe.

The Defective Children.—Not those who die young, full of promise, to leave a memory of exquisite budding loveliness cut short by untimely frosts, but those who live on from infancy to childhood and from youth to physical maturity and even on to old age, yet never become responsible adults—these are the children we must consider.

The demand of the eugenists that such, if obviously defective, should be prevented from bringing forth after their kind is clearly the only social wisdom. The statistics of social pathology all point to mental defectiveness as the prolific cause of crime, immorality, vocational incompetency, illegitimacy, family failure, and marital tragedy. In a recent study of one hundred families in which feeble-mindedness was obvious, a study carried on by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, immorality was found in 58 per cent. of them; extreme filth and bad home conditions were found in 30 per cent.; and in 47 per cent. one or more members of these families were public charges. Where the mother is subnormal there is almost certain to be a line of feeble-minded progeny, and in this study, while there were only 7 per cent. of the fathers hopelessly deficient, in 25 per cent. the mothers were notably defective in mind. Thirty-seven of these families showed illegitimate children—a far larger number than the average of normal population. Physical deficiencies also figured largely in these family records.

This particular study takes us into the region where Doctor Fernald, Doctor Goddard and many others have prepared material for convincing the public mind that no one thing so increases social degeneracy and so adds to the sum of human misery as the unprotected freedom of defectives to procreate and pollute the family currents.[14] This is not a treatise on social pathology and elsewhere must be found the details of investigation and information that justify this statement. What is here attempted is only a study of what should be the attitude of fathers and mothers toward feeble-minded children if such should be their tragic problem.

Custodial Care of the Defective.—In the first place, the attitude of mind of the parents, if they are themselves normal, is to be considered. What gives us feeble-minded children from feeble-minded parents is clear. The social prevention for carrying on known degeneracy cannot be too strongly stressed, and hence the first duty of normal parents is to consider the social danger of leaving a feeble-minded child, especially a feeble-minded girl, to any chance of parenthood. This leads to the question of removal from home of feeble-minded children to permanent custodial care in institutions provided especially for their segregation, possible teaching and thrifty use of small work-power. Alexander Johnson, who has done so much in the United States to make all philanthropy wise and effective and particularly has helped to form public opinion concerning right methods of care and training of the feeble-minded, tells us that "one-half of the mentally defective can become one-third of a normal person," can be made happy and useful to the extent of considerable aid toward self-support if under constant supervision and given the trained care of special teachers.

There are few private homes in which any feeble-minded boy or girl can attain such a condition. The children who are "different," if having the sole devotion of father and mother, may be protected and made happy in the measure of their power for happiness. But if there are other children in the family neither they nor the afflicted one are comfortable. The measure of feeble-mindedness is usually the measure of unhappiness when the normal and abnormal are in close companionship. In most families it is not possible for either or both parents to give entire time, strength and devotion to one subnormal child. Where it is, there is no security that death will not prevent the permanency of that devoted care. Hence, it is generally safer and better for all concerned to place the feeble-minded in collective homes where their own kind are cared for exclusively and where segregated control can be complete and permanent through life. There is no horror of such places for those who have seen what flowers of happiness and what miracles of devotion may be found in "Training Schools for the Feeble-minded."

The affectional side of the nature of a mental defective may be of unusual strength and may find special objects of love among those still more handicapped than itself. Those visiting intimately in such School-homes may see a higher-grade imbecile caring for a lower-grade with patience and devotion; they may see the competitive element in training, reduced in levels for the accommodation of the slender stock of mentality, producing on that lower level the same good results that normal children gain from trying to imitate and to excel. Small attainments are sources of pride in a class of defectives which if exhibited among the normal would give bitter experience of contrast. By making the standard of behavior and of attainment suited to their little power, the delight of conquest over difficulties need not be denied to the feeble-minded.