382 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER 
JUNE i4 
WHY DO BOYS STAY ON THE FARM t 
The following note will serve as an introduction to the 
remarks we have to make on the scenes pictured in our 
first-page illustration : 
“In The Rural NEW-YoRKER.of April 14, J. M. Drew 
has a short article, the subject of which is, ‘ Why do Boys 
Stay on the Farm ?.’ In my case it is not a hard question 
to answer, for I am staying on the farm simply because 
I like the comparatively free life a farmer leads. I used to 
think there was nothing in farming but drudgery and 
work, but my father let me go and pull for myself for 
awhile, and I changed my mind. Farming still has its 
drawbacks for me, but they are nothing compared with 
the confinement of a position in the city. My father has 
always let me have stock of my own, and for the last two 
years let me have some land to work: he furnishes the 
tools, horses, etc., and gives me one-third of the crop. I 
think the main reason so many boys want to leave the 
farm is because they are held down to nothing but work, 
and are never allowed to market a load of produce, own a 
calf or colt, or have a small patch of land to work, and 
keep what they can make. If these privileges were 
granted, the boy could buy his own clothes and things such 
as his father would have to buy for him. and in the end 
the parent would not be so poor as he would have been if 
he had held the boy down to nothing but work, and the 
boy would take greater interest in things and would be 
learning to do things for himself. 1 am a boy yet myself, 
and claim to know just a little about how such things go; 
but I have never known what it was to be forced to work. 
1 would like to hear some of the other young men of the 
Rural say something for themselves on this subject.” 
Peru, Ill. c. L. w. 
* * * 
The w r riter of this has filled, to the best of his ability, the 
position of a “ boy ” on a New England farm, and he 
knows every “in and out” of the job. He may say that 
every one of the scenes pictured on the foregoing page, ex¬ 
cept the “ gymnastic exercises,” formed an incident in his 
boyhood. He has always been glad that it was not his 
own parents that “put him through a course of sprouts.” 
Sad as is the childhood of the “ bound ” boy or of the child 
that must be “ given away” so that smaller mouths may 
be fed, such children do not lose their childish faith in the 
kindness and love of father and mother. It is a pity that 
this cannot always be said of children whose parents give 
them daily examples of injustice, meanness and petty spite 
Are there not parents who do this systematically ? Ask 
yourself, my friend, if you are fair to your son. Do you 
ever forget that he is a boy and not a man ? Do you ever 
take advantage of his weakness and boyishness ? Do you 
ask him to accept an equivalent for his services that would 
justify a hired man in striking ? Do you take advantage 
of his enthusiasm and his lack of experience to make a 
bargain that you could not possibly make with a man ? If 
you do any of these things, you ought to be ashamed of 
yourself and you will be some day, just as true as you live. 
The writer well knows that talking will have very little 
effect upon some men who are intelligent enough to know 
that if they raised their calves on the principles they 
employ in training their sons, their cattle would not be 
worth keeping. He would rather talk to the boys them¬ 
selves and tell them to be patient, brave and strong. Don’t 
lose your faith in a better future, boys; do your duty just 
as well as you know how to do it, and believe that it is 
possible for you to make farm life bright, happy and profit¬ 
able. Don’t think that anything that is said here is de¬ 
signed to give boys an idea that they should not be taught 
to work faithfully and well. Not at all. Every boy should 
learn how to work and should pick up habits of industry. 
A lazy, shiftless person is one who deliberately neglects to 
improve the chances which God has placed in his hands. 
The Parable of the Talents will apply directly to those who 
refuse to take advantage of their opportunities. Happi¬ 
ness without labor of some sort is impossible, and the more 
we bring thought and skill and the results of experience 
into our work the keener will be our enjoyment. The man 
who does the best work not only receives the best pay for 
it, but he has the best time too. I have never found that 
boys, as a rule, are naturally lazy and inclined to shirk. 
Whenever they receive just and fair treatment and are 
encouraged and gently directed they become patient and 
loving little helpers and will do more efficient service, in 
proportion to their weight, than any other person on the 
farm. Boys rebel against injustice and unfair treatment. 
They never forget such treatment and it cannot be expected 
that they should. Now, friend farmer, you had better let 
every other crop on your farm run to waste rather than 
neglect the Boy Crop. 
OUR DISTRICT SCHOOLS. 
Last January our correspondent “ Jerseyman” wrote an 
article on “ Our School Money,” in which he found fault 
with the prevailing methods of spending the school 
money, and also criticised the methods of teaching em¬ 
ployed by many of our district school teachers. While con¬ 
fessing his inability to go into the school-house and do 
any better service, “Jerseyman ” undertook to point out 
what he thought was wrong about the system of educa¬ 
tion employed in our district schools. He thought teachers 
put too much stress on text books and dry details, and 
did not try to encourage and develop a reading and think¬ 
ing habit. It is very evident that this subject is one that 
appeals strongly to intelligent farmers. The following 
comments on “ Jerseyman’s ” article are reserved till this 
season, that they may be read at the end of the school 
year, when, if at any time, we ought to know whether our 
school district has moved forward or backward in educa¬ 
tional matters. 
Another Jerseyman Joins In. 
I have been very much interested in Jerseyman’s Jottings, 
on page 46, of the Rural for January 18. It is not only 
one’s right, but his duty to know how his taxes are ex¬ 
pended. But, alas 1 how few know or care. The chief con¬ 
cern of the vast majority is to find the means to pay these 
tributes, just or unjust, and the collectors and dis¬ 
burses of the funds generally have no further concern for 
them than to see that they pay up. A public official who 
would expend another’s money with the same care and 
economy with which he spends his own, is a rara avis, 
very difficult if not Impossible to find. Once invested with 
official power, these puppies in office immediately assume 
a dignity and consciousness of superior knowledge nearly 
always far above their attainments. If perchance one is 
selected for his well-known ability and strict regard for 
economy and the just rights of his constituents, he is in 
such a hopeless minority that his efforts to serve the 
public honestly are futile. The tendency of late years in 
all our official bodies, from the highest to the lowest, is to 
increase expenses. They are imbued with an idea that 
their services are of immense value, often far beyond the 
requirements of any pursuits in which they have prev¬ 
iously engaged, and they believe they should be compensated 
accordingly, although there is no scarcity of equally able 
and good material ready and willing to assume their 
positions. 
This tendency is nowhere more prevalent than in the 
management of some of our public schools. The original 
design and intent of the law have been ignored and per¬ 
verted by amendment after amendment and supplement 
after supplement, till the school business has become more 
of a refuge for incompetent, impractical and impecunious 
parasites, than a fountain for the diffusion of plain, prac¬ 
tical, common-sense education. 
“ Jerseyman ” modestly disclaims ability to criticise 
the methods that prevail in conducting and teaching our 
public schools; but he does it nevertheless, and very credit¬ 
ably, too. It requires no extraordinary clearness of vision 
to observe the superficial character of the learning obtained 
in our schools, from their work, and he may well ask if we 
get what w r e pay for. I have seen pupils that could recite 
lengthy lessons by rote just as they occur in the oook, but 
let the questions be changed so that a little thought is re¬ 
quired to answer it, and they are all at sea. It would be 
interesting to know what per cent, of our graduates could 
write and spell correctly an off-hand business or friendly 
letter that would pass an editors’ ordeal without correc¬ 
tion, or promptly figure up a miscellaneous bill of goods 
purchased in hundreds and fractions thereof, the prices 
per ton being given. I have seen pupils far in advance of 
these studies completely demoralized over some simple 
questions of this kind, questions that pertain to the every¬ 
day affairs of life. 
If all our children were equally bright and quick their 
progress might be uniform ; but there are few classes with¬ 
out some dull scholars, and unless special pains are taken 
with them, they will fail to keep up with the rest, and if 
at all sensitive, will worry over their failure to their 
serious detriment; but the laggards must keep up with 
“ a hop, skip and jump ” or be put back. The result is ob¬ 
vious. The Rev. Howard Crosby, of New York City, re¬ 
cently characterized the present management of our public 
schools as a craze, expensive, unwarranted and inexcus¬ 
able. That is just about the fact of the case. The writer 
happens to be domiciled in a suburban town not a great 
way from New York, a large part of whose population 
consists of city people. Among them and some of the 
“natives” this school craze is more tenacious than the 
grippe. They pride themselves on being citizens of a 
modern Athens. No obstacles must be allowed to obstruct 
the high-pressure principles on which education is con¬ 
ducted. If it could be conducted at half the expense with 
more effective results, it would not answer at all. To 
question the policy or object to the expense is to invite 
contempt. At the last school meeting I attended, a re¬ 
spectable citizen, a large tax-payer, had the temerity to 
ask for information as to how the extravagant sums con¬ 
tinually asked for were to be expended, and to. protest 
mildly in favor of more economy. A college graduate 
whose combined tax probably did not amount to half that 
assessed the inquirer for the school alone, replied that the 
inquiry was doubtless prompted by selfishness, as the 
inquirer had no children to be sent to school, while the 
speaker had, hence he was in favor of the most liberal ap¬ 
propriation. This settled it. The school ring was out in 
force and would answer no such questions. This was 
years ago and the incubus has grown since. My district 
school tax on $1,000 is $7.40—the highest item on the bill. 
The State and county tax, which, I suppose, includes the 
State school tax, if any, is $6.40, and this, with other items, 
foots up $32.84 per $1,000. The objectors to these taxes, es¬ 
pecially to the school item, are plentiful when called to 
pay the bills ; but to object is to incur the ostracism and 
contumely of the school fanatics, and the discontented 
prefer to suffer In silence. Jerseyman has my thanks for 
publicly calling attention to the matter. The subject 
needs ventilating. With all our fine buildings and modern 
improvements and facilities for teaching, not omitting the 
modern salaried principals and superintendents, I question 
whether our model schools turn out a larger per cent, of 
honest, moral and virtuous pupils than did the common 
schools 40 to 50 years ago, and it is questionable also 
whether any large proportion will make any better, more 
honorable or more respected citizens. 
ANOTHER JERSEYMAN. 
The District School : What We Make It. 
It makes me “tired” to read these querulous tirades 
against our district schools. These institutions are abso¬ 
lutely under the control of the people most interested, and 
are exactly what these people make them. They are 
sources of inspiration, knowledge and refinement; or of 
coarseness, vulgarity and sin, according as they are 
managed or mismanaged. It is useless for parents to try 
to shirk their share of the responsibility for the good 
government of a school. The pupils are theirs, and they 
are either rebellious, untruthful and vulgar, or they are 
orderly, candid and refined, according as they have been 
trained at their own homes. The teacher has them under 
her supervision only a small portion of the day, and I know 
that teachers who are worthy of the name invariably do 
the best they can with the material furnished them. If the 
school is well managed, clean and progressive, It is be¬ 
cause the teacher is actively assisted by the parents, and 
well supported by the officers. 
I despise the man who goes whimpering about because he 
thinks his school taxes are excessive, and I have very little 
respect for the one who is forever whining about the 
“evil influences” he believes are to be found at district 
schools. Every educated man considers himself, as he 
really is, the superior of one that is illiterate, and if he has 
the welfare of his fellow-man and the future of his country 
at heart he is, or ought to be, willing to contribute liber¬ 
ally towards the education of the rising generation. Edu¬ 
cation makes intelligent men and women, and intelligent 
men and women make much better neighbors and citizens 
than illiterate, ignorant boors. 
“ Evil influences” are to be found everywhere, and the 
best that can be done in the matter is to so train the chil¬ 
dren at home that such influences can not have sufficient 
power over them to lead them astray. Observation has 
fully convinced me that children that are educated ex¬ 
clusively in the parlor at home are narrow, selfish, often 
ridiculous, and very susceptible to the “ evil influences” 
complained of. To make sensible, keen-witted and dis¬ 
cerning young men and women of them, it seems abso¬ 
lutely necessary that they should associate and strive with 
other children. Only by association and rivalry are the 
many little silly peculiarities of character effaced, and 
sociability, self-reliance and tenacity of purpose inculcated. 
If good, clean, progressive schools are wanted, they can be 
had by electing live, honest, interested men for directors. 
Such men will see that the teachers they employ are re¬ 
fined and efficient, and that they are not annoyed by people 
possessed of neither good breeding nor good sense. 
A word about teachers: By many country people they 
are regarded with about the same mingled curiosity, awe 
and contempt that a cowboy would bestow upon a Latin 
dictionary. By those who are possessed of only enough 
learning to make them imagine they are oracles, the 
teacher is looked upon with supreme disdain. If a woman, 
she is criticised at every turn, and any effort she may 
make to introduce new and improved methods into the 
school room is openly or covertly disparaged. If she is an 
expert cook and dishwasher, and, immediately upon her 
return from school, proceeds to assist in the housework, 
she is looked upon by a certain class as worthy of much 
consideration, though her board bill will not be discounted 
a cent for all she may do. If, however, she prefers to sit 
down and rest her body, and to refresh her mind with a 
book or newspaper, she is a “ very small potato lazy, ig¬ 
norant, and generally worthless. Many people seemingly 
cannot understand that school teachers are simply human 
beings like themselves. They cannot be made to believe 
that governing and teaching a lot of half-civilized children 
is hard, wearisome work, and that a good hour’s rest in a 
quiet place after the day’s work is done, is actually a re¬ 
newal of life and spirit. If they could, teachers would be 
treated much more considerately than they now are. In 
the matter of hiring teachers, the best are the cheapest. 
Teachers who do their work carefully and conscientiously 
should be encouraged with good wages, just as expert 
workmen are. Good wages are a powerful incentive to 
good work. FRED GRUNDY. 
Christian County, Ill. 
“ Left to Take Care of Itself.” 
I heartily agree with “Jerseyman’s” remarks, for I 
candidly believe that the average farmer needs more com¬ 
prehensive, practical philosophy, patience and a never- 
flagging energy to the square inch than the member of any 
other class of toilers, and if he is going to make “ farming 
pay ” he must have these properties: and as the public 
school is where, in a large majority of cases, the founda¬ 
tion is laid for their acquisition, it is obvious what kind 
of training the “ twigs ” need in order to bend in the right 
direction. Of course, superior “training” of the young 
idea will demand superior pay, and as I believe in good pay 
for good workin any direction, I shall never grumble at 
the taxes to meet it, for we can rely on this—that it pays 
to get the best of everything. So argument would be 
superfluous to prove that “a good many farmers” should 
not keep their children from the district schools. If these 
schools are not what they ought to be, whose fault is it, 
and whose duty is it, except the parents’, to see that every¬ 
thing “harmful” is removed, as far as possible? 
1 most emphatically say nobody’s, and I think the public 
will agree with me. Then, let the farmer go to work and* 
see to it that the things “harmful” are supplanted by 
things that are helpful, and the sooner our farmers realize 
the important fact that the district school is just what the 
fathers and mothers of its pupils make it, the sooner will 
they realize their duties and responsibilities. The fact ot 
the matter is that the district school, as a rule, is left to 
take care of itself; for after the tax payers have elected 
trustees and hired a teacher and furnished supplies, they, 
good, easy souls, fondly imagine that they have done their 
whole duty, and that there is no more to be done, except 
to grumble if their children don’t "get on.” Here is the 
fatal mistake, because, as a rule, both by parents and trus¬ 
tees the important duty of visiting the schools is entirely 
neglected, and so it is perhaps even by the county superin¬ 
tendent, who is expected to visit them at least once during 
the term. The teachers may or may not be well qualified 
and entirely responsible; out they are servants, engaged 
in a very important work, and, like any other important 
work, it must have constant supervision if those who 
have put money into it would have their money’s worth. 
