SIR, —Dr, Toulmin's recent article (Spectator, March 26, p.349) raises many
interesting and important questions, anti I should like to comment on a few of them.
His view that a wider syllabus and less intensive specialisation are desirable in the upper forms of grammar schools is shared by many university teachers. It must be pre- sumed, however, that it is not shared by those responsible for the open scholarship exami- nations at most of the colleges of the older universities. Preparation for these examina- tions involves such intensive study of subject matter of a limited kind that it is virtually in- compatible with the development, or even the maintenance, of a good general background. -To a very large extent the pattern of grammar school teaching and the character of GCE examinations have been determined by the tacit requirement that nothing should be done which would reduce the chances of success of a pupil, or a school, in the open scholar- ship competition. For the few, the excep- tionally gifted, who each year emerge from the grammar schools with width of know- ledge and active interests enriched by inten- sive study in particular chosen fields, there are vast numbers of intrinsically able young people for whom width has been almost wholly sacrificed to depth, a depth often no more than that attained by blind and frenzied burrowing through some softer subsoil. That there should be some concentration of effort in chosen fields in the later school years few would deny, but this is very different from the almost exclusive concentration which is commonly practised. The bad effects are only too apparent in the great majority of entrants to universities, and are probably no worse in scientists-to-be than in others, though they may attract more attention later. It may not be easy to gain general agreement that the present pattern of sixth-form work might be changed for the better; it will be almost impossibly difficult unless many more of those concerned at Oxford and Cambridge openly accept some of the views presented by Dr. Toulmin, and act accordingly.
The general problem touched upon is im- portant in itself, and can be dealt with quite apart from the question of the shortage of science teachers with which it is linked by Dr. Toulmin. Here he seems unduly opti- mistic; for it is very doubtful whether a wider syllabus would contribute appreciably to a lessening of the present and anticipated difficulties. Those of us who think with him on the general problem can face with equani- mity the decreasing entry to the schools of graduates with first class honours in particular subjects. But the need remains for many well qualified men and women with character, commonsense and lively interests, to enable the grammar schools to provide good teaching in many subjects to all their pupils to some- thing beyond the GCE Ordinary level, and in some subjects to Most of their pupils to something like the GCB Advanced level. Among these subjects, mathematics, physics and chemistry are of inescapable importance, and it is a minor disaster if any grammar school is unable to deal adequately with them. if, as is contended, less science for the scien- tist is desirable, it does not follow that fewer science teachers are needed; for a balanced educational scheme equally requires more science for the non-scientist; and the average arts graduate, who from an early age has followed his own narrow track, is no more competent to teach science at any level than the average science graduate would be to teach history.
The educational programme of grammar schools may then be advantageously modified in such a way as to reduce the demand for specialist science teachers with high academic qualifications of a specialised kind; but it is difficult to see how any satisfactorily modified' programme can be implemented with rela- tively fewer good science teachers. At the same time there is an undisputed need for more good scientists in industry, nationalised and private, and in government service. The number of good scientists ean never be very large, and even by long term planning the present number could be appreciably in- creased only by deflecting towards stience some of those intending to take up different, but equally essential forms of work. The over- all demand for scientists exceeds the supply, and is likely to exceed the supply for a long time to come. The policy of allowing the main burden of doing with fewer scientists to fall on the schools is mistaken and short- sighted in the highest degree; for without an ihCreaSiDg entry of good science teachers to schools, there is no hope of maintaining, in number and quality, even the present supply of scientists and technologists. Tlrire is only one way of ensuring, without compulsion, that an appropriate prolSortion of the available scientists enter the teaching profession, and that is by making the salary and the financial prospects of a graduate teacher comparable with those which the same graduate would have in other fields of work. If it is argued that the country cannot afford to pay the teachers more, the answer is clear: the country can still less afford the higher salaries which are paid outside the teaching profession.— Yours faithfully,
Time University, Leeds
EDMUND C. STONER
Previous page
