THE TRUANTS OF OUR STREETS
On my way to the office the other day, I came upon three boys sitting on a
beer-keg in the mouth of a narrow alley intent upon a game of cards. They
were dirty and "tough." The bare feet of the smallest lad were nearly
black with dried mud. His hair bristled, unrestrained by cap or covering
of any kind. They paid no attention to me when I stopped to look at them.
It was an hour before noon.
"Why are you not in school?" I asked of the oldest rascal. He might have
been thirteen.
"'Cause," he retorted calmly, without taking his eye off his neighbor's
cards, "'cause I don't believe in it. Go on, Jim!"
I caught the black-footed one by the collar. "And you," I said, "why don't
you go to school? Don't you know you have to?"
The boy thrust one of his bare feet out at me as an argument there was no
refuting. "They don't want me; I aint got no shoes." And he took the
trick.
I had heard his defence put in a different way to the same purpose more
than once on my rounds through the sweat-shops. Every now and then some
father, whose boy was working under age, would object, "We send the child
to school, as the Inspector says, and there is no room for him. What shall
we do?" He spoke the whole truth, likely enough; the boy only half of it.
There was a charity school around the corner from where he sat struggling
manfully with his disappointment, where they would have taken him, and
fitted him out with shoes in the bargain, if the public school rejected
him. If anything worried him, it was probably the fear that I might know
of it and drag him around there. I had seen the same thought working in
the tailor's mind. Neither had any use for the school; the one that his
boy might work, the other that he might loaf and play hookey.
Each had found his own flaw in our compulsory education law and succeeded.
The boy was safe in the street because no truant officer had the right to
arrest him at sight for loitering there in school-hours. His only risk was
the chance of that functionary's finding him at home, and he was trying to
provide against that. The tailor's defence was valid. With a law
requiring--compelling is the word, but the compulsion is on the wrong
tack--all children between the ages of eight and fourteen years to go to
school at least one-fourth of the year or a little more; with a costly
machinery to enforce it, even more costly to the child who falls under the
ban as a truant than to the citizens who foot the bills, we should most
illogically be compelled to exclude, by force if they insisted, more than
fifty thousand of the children, did they all take it into their heads to
obey the law. We have neither schools enough nor seats enough in them. As
it is, we are spared that embarrassment. They don't obey it.
This is the way the case stands: Computing the school population upon the
basis of the Federal census of 1880 and the State census of 1892, we had
in New York, in the summer of 1891, 351,330 children between five and
fourteen[10] years. I select these limits because children are admitted
to the public schools under the law at the age of five years, and the
statistics of the Board of Education show that the average age of the
pupils entering the lowest primary grade is six years and five months. The
whole number of different pupils taught in that year was 196,307.[11] The
Catholic schools, parochial and select, reported a total of 35,055; the
corporate schools (Children's Aid Society's, Orphan Asylums, American
Female Guardian Society's, etc.), 23,276; evening schools, 29,165;
Nautical School, 111; all other private schools (as estimated by
Superintendent of Schools Jasper), 15,000; total, 298,914; any possible
omissions in this list being more than made up for by the thousands over
fourteen who are included. So that by deducting the number of pupils from
the school population as given above, more than 50,000 children between
the ages of five and fourteen are shown to have received no schooling
whatever last year. As the public schools had seats for only 195,592,
while the registered attendance exceeded that number, it follows that
there was no room for the fifty thousand had they chosen to apply. In
fact, the year before, 3,783 children had been refused admission at the
opening of the schools after the summer vacation because there were no
seats for them. To be told in the same breath that there were more than
twenty thousand unoccupied seats in the schools at that time, is like
adding insult to injury. Though vacant and inviting pupils they were
worthless, for they were in the wrong schools. Where the crowding of the
growing population was greatest and the need of schooling for the
children most urgent, every seat was taken. Those who could not travel far
from home--the poor never can--in search of an education had to go
without.
The Department of Education employs twelve truant officers, who in 1891
"found and returned to school" 2,701 truants. There is a timid sort of
pretence that this was "enforcing the compulsory education law," though it
is coupled with the statement that at least eight more officers are needed
to do it properly, and that they should have power to seize the culprits
wherever found. Superintendent Jasper tells me that he thinks there are
only about 8,000 children in New York who do not go to school at all. But
the Department's own records furnish convincing proof that he is wrong,
and that the 50,000 estimate is right. That number is just about
one-seventh of the whole number of children between five and fourteen
years, as stated above. In January of this year a school-census of the
Fourth and Fifteenth wards,[12] two widely separated localities, differing
greatly as to character of population, gave the following result: Fourth
Ward, total number of children between five and fourteen years, 2,016;[13]
of whom 297 did not go to school. Fifteenth Ward, total number of
children, 2,276; number of non-attendants, 339. In each case the
proportion of non-attendants was nearly one-seventh, curiously
corroborating the estimate made by me for the whole city.
Testimony to the same effect is borne by a different set of records, those
of the reformatories that receive the truants of the city. The Juvenile
Asylum, that takes most of those of the Protestant faith, reports that of
28,745 children of school age committed to its care in thirty-nine years
32 per cent. could not read when received. The proportion during the last
five years was 23 per cent. At the Catholic Protectory, of 3,123 boys and
girls cared for during the year 1891, 689 were utterly illiterate at the
time of their reception and the education of the other 2,434 was
classified in various degrees between illiterate and "able to read and
write" only.[14] The moral status of these last children may be inferred
from the statement that 739 of them possessed no religious instruction at
all when admitted. The analysis might be extended, doubtless with the same
result as to illiteracy, throughout the institutions that harbor the
city's dependent children, to the State Reformatory, where the final
product is set down in 75 per cent. of "grossly ignorant" inmates, in
spite of the fact that more than that proportion is recorded as being of
"average natural mental capacity." In other words, they could have
learned, had they been taught.
[Illustration: "SHOOTING CRAPS" IN THE HALL OF THE NEWSBOYS' LODGING
HOUSE.]
How much of this bad showing is due to the system, or the lack of system,
of compulsory education, as we know it in New York, I shall not venture to
say. In such a system a truant school or home would seem to be a logical
necessity. Because a boy does not like to go to school, he is not
necessarily bad. It may be the fault of the school and of the teacher as
much as of the boy. Indeed, a good many people of sense hold that the boy
who has never planned to run away from home or school does not amount to
much. At all events, the boy ought not to be classed with thieves and
vagabonds. But that is what New York does. It has no truant home. Its
method of dealing with the truant is little less than downright savagery.
It is thus set forth in a report of a special committee of the Board of
Education, made to that body on November 18, 1891. "Under the law the
truant agents act upon reports received from the principals of the
schools. After exhausting the persuasion that they may be able to exercise
to compel the attendance of truant children, and in cases which seem to
call for the enforcement of the law, the agent procures the indorsement
of the President of the Board of Education and the Superintendent of
Schools upon his requisition for a warrant for the arrest of the truant,
which warrant, under the provisions of the law, is then issued by a Police
Justice. A policeman is then detailed to make the arrest, and when
apprehended the truant is brought to the Police Court, where his parents
or guardians are obliged to attend. Should it happen that the latter are
not present, the boy is put in a cell to await their appearance. It has
sometimes happened that a public-school boy, whose only offence against
the law was his refusal to attend school, has been kept in a cell two or
three days with old criminals pending the appearance of his parents or
guardians.[15] While we fully realize the importance of enforcing the laws
relating to compulsory education, we believe that bringing the boys into
associations with criminals in this way and making it necessary for
parents to be present under such circumstances, is unjust and improper,
and that criminal associations of this kind in connection with the
administration of the truancy laws should not be allowed to continue. The
Justice may, after hearing the facts, commit the child, who, in a majority
of cases, is between eight and eleven years old, to one of the
institutions designated by law. We do not think that the enforcement of
the laws relating to compulsory education should at any time enforce
association with criminal classes."
But it does, all the way through. The "institutions designated by law" for
the reception of truants are chiefly the Protectory and the Juvenile
Asylum. In the thirty-nine years of its existence the latter has harbored
11,636 children committed to it for disobedience and truancy. And this
was the company they mingled with there on a common footing: "Unfortunate
children," 8,806; young thieves, 3,097; vagrants, 3,173; generally bad
boys and girls, 1,390; beggars, 542; children committed for peddling, 51;
as witnesses, 50. Of the whole lot barely a hundred, comprised within the
last two items, might be supposed to be harmless, though there is no
assurance that they were. Of the Protectory children I have already
spoken. It will serve further to place them to say that nearly one-third
of the 941 received last year were homeless, while fully 35 per cent. of
all the boys suffered when entering from the contagious eye disease that
is the scourge of the poorest tenements as of the public institutions that
admit their children. I do not here take into account the House of Refuge,
though that is also one of the institutions designated by law for the
reception of truants, for the reason that only about one-fifth of those
admitted to it last year came from New York City. Their number was 55. The
rest came from other counties in the State. But even there the percentage
of truants to those committed for stealing or other crimes was as 53 to
47.
This is the "system," or one end of it--the one where the waste goes on.
The Committee spoken of reported that the city paid in 1890, $63,690 for
the maintenance of the truants committed by magistrates, at the rate of
$110 for every child, and that two truant schools and a home for
incorrigible truants could be established and maintained at less cost,
since it would probably not be necessary to send to the home for
incorrigibles more than 25 per cent. of all. It further advised the
creation of the special office of Truant Commissioner, to avoid dragging
the children into the police courts. In his report for the present year
Superintendent Jasper renews in substance these recommendations. But
nothing has been done.
The situation is this, then, that a vast horde of fifty thousand children
is growing up in this city whom our public school does not and cannot
reach; if it reaches them at all it is with the threat of the jail. The
mass of them is no doubt to be found in the shops and factories, as I have
shown. A large number peddle newspapers or black boots. Still another
contingent, much too large, does nothing but idle, in training for the
penitentiary. I stopped one of that kind at the corner of Baxter and Grand
Streets one day to catechise him. It was in the middle of the afternoon
when the schools were in session, but while I purposely detained him with
a long talk to give the neighborhood time to turn out, thirteen other lads
of his age, all of them under fourteen, gathered to listen to my business
with Graccho. When they had become convinced that I was not an officer
they frankly owned that they were all playing hookey. All of them lived in
the block. How many more of their kind it sheltered I do not know. They
were not exactly a nice lot, but not one of them would I have committed to
the chance of contact with thieves with a clear conscience. I should have
feared especial danger from such contact in their case.
As a matter of fact the record of average attendance (136,413) shows that
the public school _per se_ reaches little more than a third of all the
children. And even those it does not hold long enough to do them the good
that was intended. The Superintendent of Schools declares that the average
age at which the children leave school is twelve or a little over. It must
needs be, then, that very many quit much earlier, and the statement that
in New York, as in Chicago, St. Louis, Brooklyn, New Orleans, and other
American cities, half or more than half the school-boys leave school at
the age of eleven (the source of the statement is unknown to me) seems
credible enough. I am not going to discuss here the value of school
education as a preventive of crime. That it is, so far as it goes, a
positive influence for good I suppose few thinking people doubt nowadays.
Dr. William T. Harris, Federal Commissioner of Education, in an address
delivered before the National Prison Association in 1890, stated that an
investigation of the returns of seventeen States that kept a record of the
educational status of their criminals showed the number of criminals to be
eight times as large from the illiterate stratum as from an equal number
of the population that could read and write. That census was taken in
1870. Ten years later a canvass of the jails of Michigan, a State that had
an illiterate population of less than five per cent., showed exactly the
same ratio, so that I presume that may safely be accepted.
In view of these facts it does not seem that the showing the public school
is making in New York is either creditable or safe. It is not creditable,
because the city's wealth grows even faster than its population,[16] and
there is no lack of means with which to provide schools enough and the
machinery to enforce the law and fill them. Not to enforce it because it
would cost a great deal of money is wicked waste and folly. It is not
safe, because the school is our chief defence against the tenement and the
flood of ignorance with which it would swamp us. Prohibition of child
labor without compelling the attendance at school of the freed slaves is
a mockery. The children are better off working than idling, any day. The
physical objections to the one alternative are vastly outweighed by the
moral iniquities of the other.
I have tried to set forth the facts. They carry their own lesson. The then
State Superintendent of Education, Andrew Draper, read it aright when, in
his report for 1889, he said about the compulsory education law:
"It does not go far enough and is without an executor. It is barren of
results.... It may be safely said that no system will be effectual in
bringing the unfortunate children of the streets into the schools which at
least does not definitely fix the age within which children must attend
the schools, which does not determine the period of the year within which
all must be there, which does not determine the method for gathering all
needed information, which does not provide especial schools for
incorrigible cases, which does not punish people charged with the care of
children for neglecting their education, and which does not provide the
machinery and officials for executing the system."