New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-07-10
Popular Education in this City.

Popular Educ alton in thi. City.
! Mayor KINGsLAND, in the Message which
accompanied his Inauguration, took occasion
to speak of the expenditures for the support
of public schools in this metropolis as enor
nous, so great in fact, and SO certain lnOr-
dlnately to increase as to render probable
Revision of popular feeling which would
seriously injure the cause of universal edu-
cation. The means by which the Mayor
proposed to obviate this danger was to put the
schools again under the control of the Cor
poration, by which they would be managed
more economically and wisely
1t is scarcely necessary to say that this
suggestion was and is wholly impracticable
The people cannot be brought to assent to
IT. The Schools and the Aims House were
formerly subject to the Corporation, that is
to saw, to the chances of party intrigue and
the gracious care of Ward politicians and
office seekers After long and baleful ex-
perience this was changed, and these most
important departments of our municipal
affairs removed out of the political arena.
The change has been tried and is generally
regarded as beneficial Indeed, we venture
to say that could good plan be devised for
taking the entire business OF the city away
from mere partisan influences and dIsposlng
of it as these two departments have been
disposed of, an overwhelming majority
would at once pronounce IN It's favor. That
experience would only confirm the decision,
no impartial man would deny who for ever
so short time has seen little behind the
curtain of our city government, no matter
which party is uppermost.
This assertion of the Mayors that our
schools are enormously expensive. being an
imputation upon the Board OF Education
reou,red an answer at their hands. 1t has
received il. and in the most conclusive man
nor from a Committee of that Board APP
pointed specially to report on the subject
The Report, which was drawn up by Hon.
Luther BRADlsH, has just been published.
1t considers the matter In every aspect, and
leaves not the shadow of foundation for
the Mayors charge.
1t is true that the annual cost OF our pub
lie schools CAST year the appropriation was
S53l 900. though the actual expense OF the
Common School. was but S275,000,)
amounts 10 a large sum OF money, but II
should not he forgotten that New \ ork Is a
populous city, nor that since the establish
ment of the present system OF management,
very considerable engagements have been
made in the scale Of the education gwen
But in order to settle conclusively the ques-
ton at issue. il is necessary to inquire what
effect the present system has had upon popu-
lar instruction, what is the actual expense
of this system. and also what Is It's relative
expense compared with our population, the
value of real and personal property, the
number of persons Of an age to be taught III
the schools, the number actually taught
with the expense of schools IN other cities OF
the Union. in the rural districts at this State
and with the expense of our own private
schools On al these points except the eX'
pense of schools in the rural districts. the
Board present most abundant aud unques
tionable statistics, and even On that they
have facts which suffice, they tell Us, u
show that our schools are economically con
Quoted in comparison.
But the most natural parallel is that viii
other cities, and this fully decides the con
troversy in favor Of the Board. In Bostol
the average expense of the common an'
higher schools is 50 IS to each person II
the population; in New-Yorknis - cents
in Boston the rate to each pupil attendin!
|, school is SIS 81, in New-York 1t Is 50 81
If the Common Schools are taken alone tn
> result is similar. In Philadelphia for In