29 MARCH 1940, Page 17


Sia,—Mr. Lee-Browne's letter in your issue of the isth is interesting, and I do not think I disagree with him. To say that social classes can be more easily mixed at the prepara- tory than at the public school stage is, of course, a very

different thing from saying that the public schools must accommodate themselves to the " break at t 1." I think, however, that Mr. Lee-Browne's views as to the willingness of working-class parents to send away their children at an early age are, perhaps, based on experience of parents in rural areas in the South, where the idea of boarding-houses attached to grammar schools has long been a familiar one. He also, perhaps, assumes too readily that it is impossible to re-create day preparatory schools within the State school system, specially designed for children who intend to follow a full secondary course up to 18. Even within the State school system, the " break at r r " need not be an invariable pattern.

May I add that I do not understand why Mr. Lynam thinks that I have now admitted something " which has been known to many for years." Surely it has been known to all who have taken the trouble to read a certain circular issued* by the Board of Education two years before the

publication. of the Hadow Report. That circular recom- mended the " break at I r " to local education authorities, and carefully explained the reasons for it.—Yours faithfully,


The Rector's Lodge, King's College, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 2.