the greater share of the increase of national income by the privileged can only mean a reduction in the share of this increase falling to the non-privileged. Still, there is an absolute increment of improvement for these with each extension of advantage and opportunity.

11. Educational opportunity is of primary significance to any class since the higher incomes are open to those only who can invest in the higher training which qualifies for them. Ruling classes therefore insist upon a practical equality of educational opportunity within their own ranks, and their educational policy towards the non-privileged is dictated by the economic relations which the non-privileged bear to the privileged. This is naturally one of labor-service to the private or nationalized capital of the ruling classes, and such education is provided for these groups as will make this service economical (profitable) to those who own the capital. It will never take the form of extending a thoroughgoing equality of educational opportunity to the non-privileged, for this would mean opening to competition with the children of the privileged all the more able children of the non-privileged groups, with the consequence that the practical monopoly of the higher incomes by the privileged would be broken and many of their children would be thrust onto the lower levels of income.

Equality of educational opportunity, then, grows with each accession of the new classes to political power and can not proceed faster than this by and large. Still, with each extension of opportunity conditions become easier for a limited number of the most able and aggressive children of the non-privileged to obtain the training leading to the higher levels of income, so that a growing seepage continually takes place from the lower to the higher levels. So

long as this does not threaten the security of the children of the privileged groups, and serves to supply a developing industrial order with indispensable talent, it is welcomed by the privileged groups, whose members point to the process as evidence of equality of opportunity. It has the additional advantage of encouraging the nonprivileged with the hope of "rising," and drains off some part of that ability which would otherwise yield to the non-privileged groups troublesome leaders and spokesmen. The funds needed for the extension of opportunity to the incoming privileged groups are derived in large part by taxing the wealth and income of the preexisting privileged groups. (Chap. V., pp. 260-264, 313, 319; compare Ross, op. cit., p. 203.) 20

With these fundamental assumptions of our author in mind we may glance at his interpretation of the recent course of American history as construed in these terms. The formulation of Walling assumes that each of the classes cataloged above (which, he cautions, are not to be regarded as rigid distinctions but as broad suggestions of the realities only) either has been, or is destined to become, dominant successively-first, the large capitalists (whose régime he designates "Competitive Capitalism"); second, the small capitalists ("State Capitalism"); third, the privileged non-capitalists ("State Socialism"); Finally the non-privileged noncapitalists ("Socialism"). The wresting

20 Carlton has shown ("Economic Influences upon Educational Progress in the United States,' 1820-1850, Bulletin of the Univ. of Wisconsin, 1908) that the American free school system is to be understood as largely the result of the political effort of wage-earning classes in behalf of extension of their opportunities, at a time in our history when this influence could be made effective. See also his "Organized Labor in American History," 1920, Chap. IV.

of political power by the large capitalists from the earlier small capitalists soon after the Civil War represents his starting point. The régime of large capitalism persisted until the rise of Progressivism under the conspicuous leadership of Bryan, Roosevelt, La Follette, and Wilson, the spokesmen of the small capitalists.21 The transition from the control of the large capitalists to that of the small capitalists is now on (1914)—

State Capitalism "has not as yet reached maturity, and its destined successor, Laborism or State Socialism, is only half grown (represented by the labor parties of Australia and Great Britain and the conservative "socialist" parties of Ger

many) the succeeding movement is at least

already born and, as an infant, is thriving and growing in our midst. . . . The New Union, Syndicalism, or Industrial Socialism, has certainly reached a point, in several countries, so that it requires no prophet's vision to tell us what its tendency is and what kind of a society, in a general way, it makes for" (p. xviii).

While the present social order is still primarily under the domination of large capital, the inroads of the small capitalists have been sufficiently marked to indicate their nature and to suggest an outline of small capitalist policy. "The conflict then. is between the farmer, the shop-keeper, the small professional and businessman, on the one side, and the bulk of the larger capitalist interests, including those of the would-be rivals of the trusts and 'restorers of competition' on the other" (p. 35). The opposing policies are indicated in connection with railway regulation and nationalization, the conservation of natural resources, reclamation, etc., the municipalization of public utilities, the wider distri1 21 Such an episode is now quite generally assumed. Cp., for example, Orth, "The Boss and the Machine," 1919. The struggles of the agricultural element are shown in Buck, "The Agrarian Crusade," 1920. See also, DeWitt, "The Progressive Movement.'

bution of the control of credit and banking, the taking over by the state of the strategic points in the marketing of the small capitalist products, the state and national regulation of the greater trusts and monopolies, the use of graduated income and inheritance taxes, the discouragement of large land-holding and speculation, and the extension of communistic enterprises for public health and recreation.

The new governmental expenditures incident to this extension of collectivism are regarded by the small capitalists as investments from which dividends are to be

expected, not immediately but in the future. The large capitalists having been sustained in their position by constitutional means,22 this small capitalist policy soon encountered legal institutions which required alteration—hence the initiative and referendum, the direct primary, and the recall. In other words, the small capitalist program required for its fulfilment the perfection of majority rule and popular government.

The small capitalist attitude toward labor is of special interest (Chap. III.). Being employers small capitalists are particularly interested in a lower labor cost and therefore in a lower cost of living. But

"as the supply of cheap labor is gradually being exhausted, the cost of production is being more and more considered, and more and more money is being invested privately and governmentally in efforts to improve the quality as well as the quantity of the labor supply” (p. 47). "For the first time labor itself has been capitalized and put on the books of capital as part of the commercial assets of the 'nation' considered as a business concern; and this obviously could only take place when the capitalist class was at least sufficiently uniform

22 Cp. Hadley, "The Constitutional Position of Property in America," Independent, Vol. 64, 834838, April 16, 1908.

and united to keep books in common, and has a government which the dominant group, the small capitalists, could safely entrust with the control of labor, knowing that they would all get their fair share of the benefit of such control." The deeper cause for this new labor policy-its "scientific management"-means that at last the classes in control "have become sufficiently wealthy to afford to pay high wages and to carry out the other reforms (sickness and accident insurance, shorter work day, minimum wage, sanitation, model dwellings, unemployment policies, recreation, etc.) needed to bring the workers to a high degree of efficiency" (p. 48).

And this entire program aims at an increase in the profitableness of labor only, and will not extend to the point of economic sacrifice in behalf of the worker in his human capacity. In no sense are profits to suffer. The whole governmental policy is frankly an employers' policy. "This (policy) is not an appeal to one's sympathy or sentiment," said a Secretary of Commerce.

"The present trend

toward saving effort and keeping the human mechanism in our factories in good working order does not arise from altruistic motives but from economic ones" (p. 69).

Consequently, in its educational policy, the small capitalist régime does not necessarily imply a decrease or limitation of expenditures for schools

"If the industrial efficiency of employees can be sufficiently increased by schools they might consent to allow several times as much money to be expended on them as at present. But there is a rigid limit somewhere to all increased expenditure that would bring a margin of profit to taxpayer or employer. It is when this limit is reached that we shall see the antithesis of 'the taxpayer versus the child' and 'special interests versus society' in its naked ugliness.' '23

23 Doubtless the socialist would find some verification of this anticipation in a criticism, by the

It follows that the kind of schooling especially favored by the small capitalist for children at large is vocational training

The interest of the masses requires two kinds of educational progress, an improvement and extension of general education for all, and after this a special occupational or vocational training. The business community, who are also tax-payers, want less of the former kind of education and more of the latter. But it would be unpopular to confess this policy. It is easier to demand that all new expenditures shall be for vocational training, while resisting any considerable increase in expenditures for any other kind of education. Thus the normal growth of general education is automatically but effectively checked; there is some improvement, but only a small fraction of what is required and what the community can well afford (p. 118) 25

The spokesmen for the small capitalists "... acknowledge the principle of equal opportunity (Chap. V.) as the very foundation of every progressive democratic community. Indeed it is impossible for any one who is not an advocate of Better America Federation of California, of the child labor and compulsory education legislation of that state: "The only exception to take to this is that the period of compulsory education should not extend beyond fourteen years of age. The vast majority of children finish the eighth grade or grammar school at the end of their fourteenth year. Unless they are intending to follow some vocation, requiring a superior education, there is no practical wisdom in extending their school period by compulsion beyond that. As a matter of fact it is unwise, and results frequently in a handicap rather than an advantage in their future advance." From a pamphlet issued by the Fed⚫ration.

25 The author refers to the demand for national aid to industrial training which has since taken form in the Smith-Hughes legislation, as indicative of this small capitalist attitude toward education. It will be of interest to notice what measure of verification Walling's theory may have in connection with such unbusiness-like objects as the "equalizing of educational opportunity," the elimination of illiteracy, and the Americanization of aliens, contemplated by the Smith-Towner legislation.

"The

a caste society to take exception to it." principle is irresistible in its justice and can be only covertly fought; it will be resisted, therefore, entirely on so-called practical grounds. Vast sums of money will be granted for every form of governmental expenditure but not for this one-the supreme importance of which most people already admit.'' "In this country,' said President Wilson, 'no man is supposed to be under limitation except the limitations of his character and his mind; there is supposed to be no distinction of class, no distinction of blood, no distinction of social status, but men win or lose on their merits.' Nothing could be more explicit-in the abstract."' And the industrial engineer, Taylor, is equally explicit. Quoting him incidentally our author says: "Equality of opportunity means just this, to prepare every man for "the highest grade of work for which his abilities fit him' and 'to give him, when possible, this class of work to do.' And this possibility exists wherever society has this class of work to be done. That is the only limitation that is admissible. Of course Taylor has only employees and their children in mind. Apply the principle to all children alike and we have a social democracy."

"This reform-for, notwithstanding its high cost, it is a reform, costing no more than some others would also be a revolution. It would change the whole structure of society. . . ." But this is all for the future since "progressive governments, though truly and wholly progressive when compared with the plutocracies that preceded them, are, without exception, in the hands of small capitalists and middle class majorities, and it only verifies all we know of average human nature throughout all history if they continue to use their political power, first of all, to provide for their own children and, second, to give to the lower classes either (a) what is left over, or (b) an equal chance to compete for those very exceptional positions only which are so important in themselves that they must be filled by the most able applicants from whatever class they come." "Employers naturally regard working-class children as they regard the working class. They are a source of future profits and are to be improved and made more efficient as far as the cost is distinctly less than the promised return. It is not sought, then, to develop their powers for 'the highest grade of work for which their abilities may fit them.' This would be done only if the efficiency of the nation were in view, and not merely the employers' interest.'' Conse

quently "vocational training is so important to employers and governments that foreign nations and even some American states, which would not dream of establishing enough maintenance scholarships to enable the children of the masses to compete on equal terms with those of the classes for the higher professional positions, are subsidizing it with vast sums. .. Indeed this movement seems bound to absorb more money than all the other labor and 'communistic' reforms put together. In a sense it is the very foundation of the whole social reform program.

The

"Yet the movement to make education exclusively industrial will surely first fulfill its legitimate function-within a decade or two-and then go to such excesses as to cause a reaction. community will in the meantime have advanced far on other lines of radical social reform and the demand for equal opportunity for all children will become insuperable, the first point at which both progressivism and that 'Laborism' I describe in later chapters will be transcended . . . small capitalist communities . . . will furnish models of democratic education, and when their systems are applied to non-capitalist masses of industrial communities, we shall be far on the road to equal educational opportunity. But more than one great struggle between the classes must intervene before that day can arrive."

...

It would be outside the present purpose to carry the report of the author on into the later phases of social evolution with which he deals. It will be sufficient to notice that in his belief it is only with the advent to political power of the masses of the non-privileged that the conditions will be set for the institution of complete equality of educational opportunity, for until that time comes the class self-regard which lies at the bottom of his entire conception must necessarily set limits to its extension beyond the point marked by the interests of the classes in power. With the final admission of these non-privileged masses-by reason of the increasing wealth and degree of organization which comes to them as incidental to the measure of general progress brought on by the classes in power-the distinction between the privi

leged and non-privileged will have been resolved so that the total community, having then become privileged, will wield its political power not in the interests of some chiefly but of all proportionately. In the redistribution of advantages to follow for the total community, equality of educational opportunity will be among the first to receive attention. This guarantees equality of economic opportunity. And this is Socialism.

Reviewing broadly the entire discussion, including that of the economists, an interesting consideration presents itself. Whether with the economist-reformer one looks forward to a "refined and purified" competitive system as an ideal social order, or with the socialist one anticipates a very large measure of collectivism as an inevitable consequence of the assumption of political power by a majority of noncapitalists, the implications for education are practically the same. For a refined and purified competitive system is inconceivable with anything less than the total community coming into it without educational handicaps upon inborn talent. This was implicit in the accounts of the economists. For the purified competitive system the socialist substitutes a civil service, whether under the direction of a "community-unit" or industrial selfgovernment (industrial democracy), into which similarly all must enter without educational handicaps in order that their several inborn gifts may find corresponding employment and reward. To either conception equality of educational opportunity is indispensable. But the socialist account goes below that of the economist in this sense, that whereas the purified competitive order is only possible on the assumption of a thoroughgoing state system of schooling, with the necessary maintenance of the less well-to-do, the socialist,

with considerable show of reason, makes these very conditions contingent upon

more fundamental development, that, namely, of the more perfect distribution of political power-itself a by-product of improving well-being and group organization on the part of the less privileged. PERCY E. DAVIDSON

STANFORD UNIVERSITY

EDUCATIONAL EVENTS

NUTRITION OF CHILDREN IN SAXONY

THE Journal of the American Medical Association reports that in accordance with a ministerial decree issued by the government of Saxony, July 1, 1920, an examination of all children from six to fourteen years of age, including the pupils of higher institutions of learning and boarding schools, is being made in almost all the communes of Saxony. The system employed is that introduced and successfully used by the Quakers in selecting children most in need of special nutritional care. In accordance with this system the children are divided into four groups. Group 1 comprises children in a satisfactory, or at least fairly good, condition of health. Group 2 takes in the children who are slightly undernourished, for whom special nutritional care is desirable from a medical standpoint but not absolutely necessary. In Group 3 are placed children who are markedly undernourished, presenting evidence of retarded physical development (deficiency in weight and height), scrofula, late rachitis or marked anemia. Group 4 is composed of children who are in a serious condition as the result of a prolonged period of undernutrition. To this group belong all chronic patients, especially tuberculous children. The children of Groups 3 and 4 are regarded by their physicians as absolutely needing special nutritional care. In the classification of the children in the various groups the difference between the normal condition and the actual condition is the decisive factor. In order, therefore, to get a basis for the comparison as to mass and weight and thus be able to establish the deviations from normal, a table