[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR]
Sra,—Preparatory schools, as other educational establishments, must expect criticism, nor are they afraid of it provided that such criticism be fair and reasonable and is capable of being substantiated by fact, but the writer of the above article in last week's issue bases his attack upon half-truths, and in some cases upon assertions which are wholly untrue, and I trust, Sir, you will allow this reply to appear.
The writer has apparently heard of I.A.P.S. (The Incor- porated Association of Preparatory Schools) but he has taken little trouble to supplement his information. From the Public and Preparatory Schools Year Book (pp. 882-886) he might have learned that so far from " no qualification being necessary for a headmaster," membership of this Association, which today consists of 692 members representing 465 schools, is open to any preparatory school headmaster whose school contains no boy over 15 years of age " if he possesses a degree from a British University or is a Member of the Royal Society of Teachers."
The statement that " neither Education Committees nor Boards of Governors ever pry into their affairs " can be dis- proved by consultation of " List 6o " published by the Board of Education, wherein he might be interested to learn that up to February, 1938, 284 schools in the Preparatory Schools Association had been inspected by courtesy of the Board of Education and found efficient. A declaration that a school must invite such inspection is now an essential part of the form of application for membership. Incidentally, in the very nature of things, preparatory schools are more accessible and open to inspection by the parent world than any other form of school.
Nor has the writer ever heard, apparently, of the very much alive contributory pension scheme operating for assistant masters under the Standard Life Assurance Society. " ,C5o a year " living-in " is a common salary for University graduates." This is such a grotesque distortion of fact that it is scarcely necessary even to refute it. " Accommodation is frequently abominable." As one who has personally visited many dozens of preparatory schools all over the British Islands I can nail this down as a grossly unfair and untrue statement. " Unlike the Public Schools they are run for private profit" ! This is true, though many headmasters might question the word " profit," but is it not also true of many other professions, and after all overhead costs and charges on capital put into the business are settled—happy is the headmaster who can save even enough after many years of arduous and anxious work to provide for a comfortable old age.
The writer implies that the " atmosphere " of the average preparatory school is bad. If he is sensitive to atmosphere let him apply to the writer of this letter and he will suggest a course of visits to preparatory schools where the atmosphere of friendliness, enthusiasm, good fellowship and keenness on work and games will surprise him.
He asks " Why, then, do parents continue to support them ? " and then suggests that parents are so ignorant or so foolish as not to know any better. But are parents such fools as even some schoolmasters would sometimes make them out ? May it not be that the answer is to be found in the fact that parents want the best for their children, that they know a good thing when they find it, and are still prepared to pay reasonably for it ? That there are still some unsatisfactory private schools in this country is true, and no one deplores this more than the preparatory school headmaster, but an article which attempts to class together all preparatory schools under universal condemna- tion is so unworthy and so unfair, that the present writer is confident that you, Sir, with your unrivalled traditions of justice and fair dealing, will allow this to appear in your next issue.-- Yours, &c., P. C. UNDERHILL, Secretary, The Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools. The Gable, Bolter End, High Wycombe.
Previous page
