In the matter of education the state has relieved the parent of a
large part of the responsibility by legislation prescribing the ages
during which the child must attend school, and in some states the
grade he must reach before leaving school. In spite of this there
still rests with the parent the responsibility of choosing the school,
getting the child to school promptly and regularly, following his
progress, deciding whether he shall go beyond the time prescribed by
law.
The choice of the schools means for most immigrant groups, a choice
between the public and the parochial school. In very large numbers of
cases the parochial school is chosen. The reason for this is only in
part the influence of the church, although this undoubtedly counts for
a great deal. The people we have interviewed in this study have
repeatedly pointed out that it is not only for religious education and
training that the foreign-born parent sends his child to the parochial
school, but that it is also because he wants him to learn the language
of his parents, the history and traditions of the country from which
he came, and to retain a respect for the experiences and associations
that remain of great importance to the parents.
Another reason that has often been given for sending the children to
the parochial school is the lack of discipline in the public schools.
This has been especially emphasized by Italians, but it has also been
spoken of by members of other groups. There can be no question that
the parochial school, under the tradition of authority maintained by
the church, is much nearer in its idea of discipline to the ideas the
immigrant brings with him from the old country, than is the public
school whose system of training the immigrant parent does not
understand and has not had made clear to him.
[Illustration: IMMIGRANT CHILDREN ACQUIRING INDIVIDUAL INITIATIVE IN A
MONTESSORI CLASS AT HULL HOUSE]
The problem of the immigrant parent with regard to the education of
his child is more difficult because of the change in the position of
the child in this country, which he usually does not understand. At
home the child was important, not as an individual, but as a member of
the family group, and home decisions about the child took into account
the needs of the family in the first place and only secondarily the
welfare of the child.[45]
This reversal of emphasis is confusing to the immigrant parents. Taken
in connection with the fact that many of the immigrants are from
countries where education is not compulsory, it leads them to
sacrifice the welfare of the child at many points. It seems of much
greater importance, for example, that the work of the household should
be done than the child should get to school every day. The study of
the reasons for absence in two of the immigrant neighborhoods of
Chicago[46] shows the frequency with which children are kept out of
school because of the needs of the family. Thus, of 1,115 children who
were absent from school during a certain period 131 were out to do
work at home; 81 were kept at home because of sickness in the family;
42 stayed home to interpret or run errands.
One boy, for example, was kept to watch fires for a sick father while
his mother "got a day's work"; another had stayed at home because his
sister's baby was in convulsions and his mother had not been able to
get him ready to go to school; John was staying at home because his
mother had gone to see a doctor and wanted him to look after the
children, who did not like to go to the day nursery; Bruno, aged
twelve, was found at home helping his mother wash, but he explained
that he had really stayed out to go "to tell the boss" that his father
was sick; Genevieve, aged twelve, who had been absent fourteen half
days and tardy twice within a month, was found alternately tending the
shop and taking care of three younger children and of a sick mother,
although her father was well able to hire some one to come in and help
care for the family while the little girl was at school.
In the rural districts the failure to understand the necessity of
complying with the compulsory education law is even more marked. In
the Rolling Prairie group of Polish families many of the children were
not sent to school until after two families had been fined for not
sending them. There was the expense for clothes and books, and the
extra work for the mother. The roads were bad, the children often had
no shoes, even in winter, and, above all, the parents had no
understanding of why they should go. After the prosecution, however,
the school law was obeyed.
The parents' attitude toward the problem of keeping the child in
school comes out quite naïvely in the answers given to visitors for
this study. The following comments, given in the quaint but forceful
English of our foreign-speaking investigators, show what is meant:
Mother (a Russian woman with three children) visited school
when teacher demanded her to send daughter to school when she
wished her at home to help.
Mother (a Polish woman with six children under fourteen)
feels that children study too much and ought to help their
parents more.
Father (Italian) thinks there should be laws for protection
of parents as well as child labor.