New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-11-16

between the committee or any agency the
committee may have seen fit to employ
and Professor Hanus and Professor
Moore we cannot completely say but IL
is our opinion that an approach TO Pro-
lessor Moore, based on the 223 questions
which were addressed to him in one COM
municauon, was not calculated to achieve
constructive result From the point Of
view OF the educational expert these cues
tons were not intended to elicit facts
but were In the nature of hostile cross
examination, badgering in tone, and some
times offensive In their implications.
The public cares nothing for the right
or wrong on the personal side of the con-
troversy over the Moore report, and that
is now regrettable history. But 1t does
very much care for an authoritative an
praisal of a school system by the persons
VINO, from detached point of view, have
been a full twelvemonth gathering from
the most important educational centres Of
the country for minutely scrutinzing the
system, and 1t does not wish TO see the
results OF that scrutiny wasted by con-
nicts between individuals or official bodies
Hanus Report as Unit.
we believe the public properly takes
the view-as DR.. Hanus and his associates
most certainly do-that the Hanus report
Is to be taken as unit, and attains It's
full value only when regarded in that
way; that the rejection OF any part OF il
dismembers II, throws the remaining
parts out OF proportion and leaves an
important field of inquiry untouched. This
View Is reasonable In itself. but ii may be
| noticed that this sort OF inquiry Though
never so extensiyel has been conducted
before, notably I'm the school systems of
England, and that Sir Michael Sadler's
reports upon his Investigations are in the
nature of essays, illuminating technical
and sbstruse facts 10 the interested lay
public and reaching to the fundamental
philosophy OF city school systems.
1T is to be noted further that Sadler's
reports-favorabl or ACKNOWLEDGMENT
printed by the various municipalities in
full as sadler wrote them.
There can be no doubt that the COM
mittee OF the Board of Estimate sees the
hiatus and recognizes that IL must be
filled. and for that reason has now Sc
lected Professor Goodnow and DIR. Howe
as the committee says TO make the study
assigned to Professor Moore. These gen.
tlemen are, as the committee states, both
competent authorities on questions of mu-
nlclpsl administration and educators OF
experience but this must be in the sense
that they have long been employed IN
the business of education. for il has never
been part of the educational activity OF
either, so far as We are aware, to make a
subject OF the study of city school admin
istration: neither one has ever affected
to be an authority on education or educa-
tional administration, nor has either one
ever written on the subject.
That has been Professor Moore's life
long study, his branch OF education which
is assigned to him at Yale University, and
was the particular reason for his selec-
ton for this one subject by Dr. Hanus,
who insisted that he OF all men in the
country was most competent for the study
Of that subject Doubtless. Professor
Goodnoy and DIR. Howe will do an inter
esting piece of work and give US a Vaiu-
able study from the governmental and
political point OF view, and this VIII be
a valuable supplement to the work OF Dr.
Vanus and Of his associates, but study
,ror, that point OF view cannot fill the
hiatus left by the rejection Of Professor
Moores report.
CHARLES p. ROWLAND. president OF
the Public Education Association OF
New York.
New York. Nov. 10, 1872.