things wherein the college societies are most at fault. From personal experience, I find much harm and little good in these school societies. They encourage clannishness and self-conceit, and are subversive of school and class spirit. Loyalty to the society takes the place of loyalty to the school. Each new society affords pretexts for additional social functions and extra expenses. Mothers with tears in their eyes tell me of the heartless and cruel ways in which their daughters are slighted and snubbed by society girls.

In 1903, a committee was appointed by President William R. Harper of the University of Chicago, to report upon the influence of fraternities and sororities in secondary schools to the Conference of Academies and High Schools in relations with the University of Chicago. In 1904 the committee reported progress and called for further time. In November last this committee, after an investigation of two years, made a report. Extracts by the chairman, Principal Spencer R. Smith, were published in the January number of the School Review. They had received answers to an exhaustive questionaire sent to principals thruout the United States. The investigation was conducted with fairness and deliberation, and we take the liberty of quoting its main conclusions, which follow:

Summing up the argument for and against the secondary-school secret society, it is found that there are some schools which thoroly believe in and strongly favor the presence of the secret society in the school. Prominent among these are Lewis Institute, Chicago, and Colgate Academy, Hamilton, N. Y. But these two schools are closer in spirit to the college than is the average secondary school.

The arguments made in favor of fraternities are: (1) they can be made very useful to the individual student as well as to the school at large; (2) they aid school discipline; (3) they foster friendships; (4) they increase school spirit and loyalty.

The arguments against. secondary-school fraternities and sororities were numerous and various, but those recognized by the committee were mainly these:

1. Their influence is detrimental to the school.-They have been found an evil and a curse. Their tendency is to break up all literary societies and divide the school into cliques, and bring into the school the worst kind of politics and morals.

2. They are detrimental to the student himself.—(a) Positively, in that they hurt his mind and character. The greatest injury has resulted to the members themselves. It causes a decline in school interest and in the preparation of school work. A spirit of indifference to consequences and an air of superiority seem to follow. Many never complete the course. In their fraternity rooms rumor has it that there is little evil that boys can indulge in that is not carried on. (b) Negatively, they are of injury to the student in that they keep him from doing things that he might otherwise do if he were a loyal member of a united, single-spirited school. The elect owe all that they have of excellence in force, character, and manners to lift the level of the mass. The school as a social organization ought to be unified by the generous spirit of those able to give, not broken into suspicious cliques. They split the school on every project in which unity is desirable.

3. They are unnecessary. They fill no real need, as the college fraternities do. The students are at home and are too young to choose any life outside of the home life, and supposed to fill some of its needs. They ape the college, with no other reason than to be "collegey."

4. They are undemocratic. They cause much jealousy and heart-burning, especially among the girls. They are a source of grievance to many who are not “called."

5. The standards they set up are different from, if not opposed to, the standards ideally set up by the school authorities. "All are organized on a social basis; the faithful students, that neither dance, smoke, or dress well are not wanted." They "are filled with sons and daughters of the wealthy to whom life seems only an idle dream."

6. They are often an element of danger in the government of the school, when they have grown old and strong, and are a source of much annoyance to the authorities.

7. The committee, finding the final argument against fraternities and sororities very well voiced by a gentleman from Massachusetts, quotes him fully:

Any system that makes paramount the decisions of immature minds on questions of social and other school distinctions is, in my opinion, radically vicious. Any plan that tends to break up the solidarity of the school in the interest of imaginary class distinctions cannot be too sedulously avoided. Any scheme that weakens the influence of the master and his teachers, and exalts the power of pupils without regard to masters or teachers, strikes at the very foundation of the American school.

"The absolutely inane antics of initiation among these secret societies are enough to condemn them in the minds of intelligent people. To my certain knowledge, the

usefulness of more than one headmaster has been destroyed in the community by friction arising from the prevalence of the secret-society evil. . . . .”

At the close of this report, President Harper asked whether the committee had any recommendations to make. The chairman stated that the committee would like to present its report as a report of progress, and to be continued with a view to report further at the next session. It was accordingly moved that the committee be continued.

After further discussion of the question involved in the report, it was voted that, in view of the evidence submitted, in the opinion of those in attendance at this meeting, the presence of secret societies in schools of secondary grade is harmful to the best interests of these schools, and of the individuals concerned.

Until recently, the apprehension that fraternities would, if not discouraged, ultimately become a menace to the welfare of the public schools has been confined to the principals of the high school, who are in a position best to see the inner working of the schools. But superintendents are now taking up the matter in a vigorous way. Superintendent E. G. Cooley, of Chicago, has, after a careful investigation of the conditions in that city, denounced fraternities in unqualified terms. We feel that the value of Superintendent Cooley's investigation justifies liberál quotations from his report. He

says:

"In one Chicago high school having 1,330 pupils there are twenty-five elective positions filled by the students from their ranks. The fraternity members in the school number 130, as against 1,200 pupils not members of any secret order. At the time the investigation was made, it was found that twenty of the twenty-five elective positions in the school organization were held by fraternity or sorority members, and that the representative government of the school was as firmly in the clutches of the 'frat ring' as the municipal politics of New York are controlled by Tammany. If high schools are operated for the training of political bosses, then the 'frat' is an indispensable adjunct of high-school life; if government by clique is a desirable ideal with which to impress the mind of the young American, as a part of his high-school training, then the fraternity is accomplishing an excellent mission and should be encouraged in the secondary schools. "Next let us consider the question of scholarship in this connection. When this problem reached a critical stage in Chicago, the principals and teachers were instructed to report upon the scholarship records of pupils belonging to fraternities and sororities, and to indicate what kind of a record might reasonably be expected from the pupils, if they were unconnected with any secret organization. The consensus of these reports was that, as a general thing, these orders contained much of the best elements in the schools in point of capacity and of favorable home environment, while the scholarship records were far below par.

"Feeling that the principals and the teachers coming into close contact with pupils were the best judges of the influence exerted upon school life by these secret orders, I sought an individual expression from fifteen principals and 375 teachers in the high schools of Chicago. Without an exception or a dissenting voice, they characterized the influence of the fraternities and sororities as harmful to scholarship and to discipline, as un-American and undemocratic. That the attitude of these principals and teachers may be clearly understood, I give below the round-robin to which all of them affixed their names:

"DEAR SIR: We, the principals and teachers of the Chicago high schools, desire to express to you, and through you to the patrons of the schools, our disapproval of highschool fraternities and sororities. We believe these organizations are undemocratic in their nature, demoralizing in their tendencies, and subversive of good citizenship; that they tend to divert their members from scholarly pursuits and to put the so-called interests of the organization above those of the school.

"The effect of secret societies is to divide the school into cliques, to destroy unity and harmony of action and sentiment, and to render it more difficult to sustain the helpful relations which should exist between pupils and teachers.

....

"In addition to this, our experience shows that the scholarly attainments of the majority of students belonging to these secret societies are far below the average, and we have reason to believe that this is due to the influence of such organizations.

"In view of these facts, we feel that secret societies in the high schools ought to be discouraged by all reasonable means.'

"This communication covers the situation admirably and accurately, but the reports rom individual teachers bring certain features of the matter into clearer relief. principal writes: 'The general influence upon the school is harmful.

One Time and effort is given to these organizations which should be given to school work. Boys sit up late smoking and chatting, and have little enthusiasm for study next day. Cliques are formed, and any question of discipline or scholarship, small in itself, is resented by the whole club.' "Another principal calls attention to the fact that a ‘frat house' located near the school is especially harmful because the boys secure permission, on legitimate pleas, to absent themselves from the room, and then abuse the privilege by sneaking to the 'frat house.' Both the fraternities and the sororities assume to represent the 'swell' element of the school membership; it is apparent that pupils of certain races are tabooed, and in other instances there is reason to believe that the business or profession of the father and the social standing of the family are taken into consideration in passing upon the qualifications of a candidate. That the religious associations of pupils enter into their acceptability as members of these organizations is firmly believed by some principals who are in position to make very close observations.

"What kind of a training is this for a young American, at the most impressionable period of his life? Childhood and youth should be the period of democratic association, the time when the purely artificial and conventional lines of social and class distinctions are most obscure. Caste should not be permitted to enter the mind of the American school-boy or school-girl. Anything which fosters the idea of clique and caste in the mind of the boy or girl of high-school age will help in making of that hateful thing, a young American snob.

"In the handling of this problem in Chicago, it has been found that some parents have been foolish enough to encourage their children in 'standing up for their rights.' To all parents inclined to take this attitude I would point out the fact that such a point of view endangers the high-school system in any large city. Most of the children of parents of small means are compelled to drop out of school and take up the fight for a living before they reach the high school; in a sense, those who reach the high school and enjoy its costly benefits are 'the favored few.'"

At the last meeting of the Connecticut State Teachers' Association, fraternities in secondary schools were discussed and unanimously condemned. Your committee has been unable to find any defense of these societies by any competent person who has given the subject thoughtful attention.

From an able paper published in Cleveland, Ohio, January 12, 1905, it plainly appears that the two private schools mentioned above as favoring fraternities cannot be taken as representing the position of private schools in general. Mr. George D. Pettee, principal of the University School (a private institution), Cleveland, Ohio, in a very able paper prepared for his patrons and students preparatory to abolishing fraternities, reached the conclusion that they are detrimental to the best interests of the school.

The legal aspect of the question.-In a number of cities, boards of education have discountenanced fraternities, and have passed resolutions barring them from participating in students' societies, athletics, and other privileges outside the class room.

In Kansas City, where such a resolution was passed, a parent served an injunction on a high-school principal to restrain him from enforcing the resolution. The board of education employed its attorneys for the defense, which resulted in quashing the injunction on a technicality. In dismissing the case, Judge Slover gave advice to the boys that caused the matter to be dropped. After closing his official discussion throwing the case

out of court, he said: "The principal's resolution is reasonable on its face, and was intended for the good of the school, and would readily be obeyed by any boy having proper respect for the faculty and the school."

The following from Superintendent Cooley's article states the situation in Chicago: "Urged by their children, some misguided parents appealed to the courts for an injunction prohibiting the school authorities from enforcing the rules embodied in the resolution. The injunction was granted on the ground that the enforcement of the rules would deny to pupils belonging to fraternities and sororities certain rights and privileges enjoyed by other pupils.

"Here the matter now rests, but there is no doubt that it will be appealed to a higher court. Meantime there has been a notable falling away of 'frat sentiment' on the part of pupils, and an equally significant awakening on the part of parents to the fact that these secret societies have no legitimate place in high-school life-whatever may be said for or against them in connection with the college and the university.

"Parents should clearly understand that the high-school 'frat' means an early and a liberal education in snobbishness, in loafing, in mischief, and in the manipulation of school politics."

There is no legal precedent for the guidance of the courts in these cases, and the final outcome will, we believe, be determined largely by public sentiment. This sentiment seems at present to be setting strongly against fraternities in the secondary schools. The importance to the schools of the first court decision is so great that it seems to us that nothing should be left undone in propagating the sentiment so strongly prevalent among educators.

Therefore your committee submits that,

WHEREAS, The sentiment of superintendents, principals, and teachers against secret fraternities is almost universal, and their testimony, as disclosed in the foregoing report, coincides with the observation and experience of the members of the committee individually, be it therefore

Resolved, That we condemn these secret organizations, because they are subversive of the principles of democracy which should prevail in the public schools; because they are selfish, and tend to narrow the minds and sympathies of the pupils; because they stir up strife and contention; because they are snobbish; because they dissipate energy and proper ambition; because they set wrong standards; because rewards are not based on merit, but on fraternity vows; because they inculcate a feeling of self-sufficiency among the members; because secondary-school boys are too young for club life; because they are expensive and foster habits of extravagance; because they bring politics into the legitimate organizations of the school; because they detract interest from study; and because all legitimate elements for good-social, moral, and intellectual-which these societies claim to possess can be better supplied to the pupils thru the school at large in the form of literary societies and clubs under the sanction and supervision of the faculties of the schools.

Respectfully submitted,

GILBERT B. MORRISON,
EUGENE W. LYTTLE,

B. F. BUCK,

EDWIN TWITMYER,

JOHN M. DOWNEN.

Committee.

ROUND TABLE CONFERENCES

A. PRINCIPALS' CONFERENCE

TOPIC: SHOULD THE ENTIRE ENERGY OF A HIGH-SCHOOL PRINCIPAL BE GIVEN TO MATTERS OF ADMINISTRATION?

WALTER B. GUNNISON, PRINCIPAL OF ERASMUS HALL HIGH SCHOOL, BROOKLYN, N. Y. There is no doubt that the tendency at present in all the large cities of our country is to centralize, especially along the line of supervision. The superintendents are constantly taking the ablest teachers and principals, and giving them the supervision and direction of special branches. With the unparalleled growth of the high schools this tendency seems unavoidable, and many of our best teachers and strongest men are practically abandoning the field of teaching, and taking up the better-paid but entirely different work of administration. A good teacher is too rare a person in the economy of an educational institution to warrant his entire withdrawal from the work of teaching.

By teaching I do not mean that the principal should occasionally direct the classroom work for the instruction of the teacher, but I mean that he should take the entire responsibility for the term's work of some entire class; that he should submit himself to the same rules and perform the same duties as any regular teacher of a subject; that he should give and correct examinations; demand and examine home work; goad the sluggard and restrain the overconscientious; apply the same tests to himself that are applied to other teachers; take the classes as they come, good, bad, and indifferent; and cheerfully abide the results.

Parents must be met in regard to what is the wise treatment of their sons and daughters, and no time given to this should be treated as unwisely spent; one's experience and special knowledge should be given freely to the many seeking it.

1. The art of teaching involves many things, and one of these is the necessity of keeping alive one's interest in the imparting of knowledge. Nothing is lost more easily by disuse than this. To feel this daily contact with the young is absolutely essential.

2. A man in charge of a high school must direct and adjust the working of specialists in many branches. There still remains the fact, however, that a principal should represent sound and accurate scholarship in some line.

3. The most valuable duty of a principal is to know his pupils, not by name or number, but to know them so that there is established, however imperfectly, the kindly and friendly relation that exists between the parent and child. He should be the one into whose ears the little and great troubles can be poured with the assurance of a sympathetic hearing.

4. Again, closer than the intimacy between pupil and principal should be the intimacy between teacher and principal. The real success of an institution depends, not on one, but on all. The educational czar should understand that he is an anomaly in these days, and is beset with the same dangers in the educational world as his prototype in the political world. He may succeed for the time, but his crown is the target for every missile, and will remain in place only because of a Cossack cordon of official red-tape and bureaucratic inefficiency.

5. Again, the assumption of simple direction and supervision is a dangerous one in that it too often leads to a feeling of superiority and dogmatic infallibility which is humorous to the one who knows the facts. It is wise, however, for us all to be humble in our work.

That we may, therefore, be in position to do our fullest service to our charges, and to