Our Public Schools Teachers

image 1image 2image 3image 4cropped image 1

OUR PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS.

No one will, we presume, feel disposed to deny the immense importance of good, faithful and experienced teachers in our public schools. Upon them, in fact, the practical working of the whole scheme depends. The people pay and the powers that be duly appropriate the money, but, not to make an irreverent use of scriptural phraseology, the one may plant and the other may water, it is the teacher alone to whom we must look for the increase. His mission is one of such vast importance, it requires the exercise of such a rare combination of qualities, it calls for so much patience, perseverance and good temper, setting aside entirely all mental accomplishments and acquirements, that it is not to be wondered at that “model-teachers” are scarce, and the short-comings of those who fail to come up to the standard should be regarded with lenity.

But of one thing there can be no manner of doubt—the moral character of those who assume the guardianship of youth, no matter in how subordinate a capacity, should be like Caesar’s wife, above suspicion. The very idea of entrusting such a task to an unprincipled or vicious person is enough to cause dismay to the most careless parent. Whether competent in other respects or not, want of an irreproachable moral character should act as a bar against all access to our schools. How they manage these things in New York may be imagined from an instance related last night at a meeting in that city with reference to the Bible in public Schools. Rev. Dr. Reese instanced the fact that some years since, when he visited one of the Public Schools, he discovered that one of the teachers (an Irishman) was disfigured by a black eye, which he coolly explained by saying that “he got into a little difficulty the night before in a saloon.” This is quite characteristic of the loose manner in which such appointments are made in that city. We are ourselves aware of one instance where a pot house politician, with hardly education enough to carry him decently through life, received as a reward for political services the position of “Principal” of a public school, and he has it yet. And who can wonder at it when we remember the material composing their Board of Education. Our readers will recollect that not long ago one of the members of that worshipful body attempted to commit murder at a house of ill-repute in Howard street! What can the people of New York expect when they entrust their noble school-system to the hands of such men?

It is for the simple purpose of instituting a comparison between the educational corps of New York and Brooklyn that we have indited these paragraphs, and not with any fault-finding intent. Indeed the latter would be a somewhat difficult matter. Our Board of Education is composed of men of character and standing in the community, who were chosen because of their peculiar fitness for the position. They have no axes to grind, no unworthy ends to subserve, no interest of any kind save to do what their consciences tell them is best for the interest of the city. Their appointments for the responsible office of teacher are, we honestly believe, made with the sole and simple purpose of getting “the right men in the right place,” and, so far as our knowledge extends, parents have a right to congratulate themselves on the choice of the Board. We have repeatedly observed, in casual visits to the different schools, the admirable order, promptitude and ability displayed by both principals and assistants. The stream always partakes of the character of its fountain head, and so the subordinates, and through them the pupils, are uniformly impressed with the individuality of the principal. Our Board have had this fact in view from the first, and we can point with pride to the men whom they have selected to fill this responsible position. In high intelligence, in moral worth, in everything that constitutes a leader and exemplar for the young, we think the principals of our public schools will bear the strictest scrutiny.

They are all prominently before the public, but we have yet to hear that the slightest word has yet been breathed against any one of them in any shape or form.

And our lady-teachers—should they be forgot? We never enter a school-room under the gentle influence of a woman that we do not instinctively feel that it is her proper sphere by a right diviner than is vested in Common Councils and Boards of Education. Woman is born a teacher. Children look up confidingly into her mild eyes and love and trust her. Whatever other “missions” the sisterhood may claim, of that mission they can never be deprived. And those who devote themselves to it as an occupation—what a patient, considerate, over-worked, under-paid class they are! Florence Nightingale went out to the Crimea and visited the Hospitals and was almost deified by the public. But there are many such good angels, unknown and unheralded, who are now going through their round of daily mental labor and anxiety, ministering kindly and patiently to little, impracticable offshoots of ignorance and poverty, whose praises none have sung and whose cares none have thought of.

But we have said enough. The teacher is too often lost sight of in his quiet occupation by the great world, even by those most interested, and when we utter words of encouragement and praise we need not be too chary of them. Let us repeat that we are proud of the manner in which the system is carried on in our good City of Brooklyn, and let us wish the “rank and file” of the noble army success in their arduous calling—and better pay. They deserve it.