Outside this provision of the law, we think children should be kept at school as long as it is possible and prudent to do so.  This depends, of course, on the means and resources of the parents.  They are under no obligation to give to their children an education above what their means allow.  Then, the aptitudes, physical and mental, of the child are a factor to be considered.  Poor health or inherited weakness may forbid a too close application to studies, while it may be a pure waste of time and money to keep at school a child that will not profit by the advantage offered.  It is better to put such a child at work as soon as possible.  As says the philosopher of Archey Road:  “You may lead a young man to the university, but you cannot make him learn.”

Outside these contingencies, we think every child has a right to a common school education, such as is given in our system under the high school, whether it be fourteen years of age or over.  Reading and writing, grammar and arithmetic, history and geography, these are the fundamental and essential elements of a common school education; and in our time and country, a modicum of information on these subjects is necessary for the future well-being, success and happiness of our children.  And since parents are bound to care for the future of their children, we consider them likewise bound to give them such an education as will insure these blessings.

CHAPTER LXII.  EDUCATIONAL EXTRAVAGANCE.

Our public educational system is made up of a grammar and a high school course, the latter consisting of a four years term of studies, devoted in part, to a more thorough grounding in the essentials of education; the other part—­by far the more considerable, according to the consensus of opinion—­is expended on educational frills and vanities.  These “trimmings” are given gratis, the public bearing the burden of expense, which foots up to a very respectable total.

For a certain class of people—­the people of means—­this sort of a thing has not many disadvantages; it is in a line with the future occupation or profession of their offspring.  But for the bulk of the children who attend our free schools and on whose parents educational taxes are levied, it has serious inconveniences, is not in line with their future occupation or profession, is not only superfluous, but detrimental.  It is for them so much time lost—­precious time, that were better spent learning a trade or otherwise fitting themselves for their life work.  Herein therefore we discover a double extravagance:  that of parents who provide unwisely for their children’s future and that of the municipality which offers as popular an education that is anything but popular, since only the few can enjoy it while all must bear the burden alike.