[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR] SIR,—As one who has
been an assistant master in prep. schools for the last ten years, and who knows intimately a score of men who are masters at others, I should like to comment on Mr. Roger Clarke's article on prep. schools. Every statement Mr. Clarke makes is doubtless true of individual cases ; but the effect of the article as a whole is to convey a totally wrong impression about the average prep. school. On reading the article, the lay reader would think that a prep. school is a place where :
(a) The headmaster gains a large profit from the school.
(b) The headmaster and staff have no degrees.
(c) The standard of teaching is below that which obtains at • the grant-aided school.
(d) The assistant masters are grossly overworked and under- paid, and have totally inadequate accommodation.
(e) The fees are exorbitant.
Each of these statements is untrue of the 20 or 3o schools with which I am directly or indirectly acquainted : (a) The headmasters are finding difficulty in making any profits.
(b) All the headmasters with one exception, and more than half the assistant masters, have university degrees.
(c) The standard of teaching is infinitely higher than at grant-aided schools, one reason being that the forms are about quarter of the size.
(d) Notices of posts for graduates, of which I have seen literally hundreds, have offered never less than £13o plus board, and usually more. Apart from 16 weeks holiday in the year, I have always found plenty of time for my own hobbies, and deny that any of my colleagues or myself have ever been overworked.
(e) The fees are nearly always well below £15o per annum.
" Bucket-shops " there probably are ; but at the vast majority of prep. schools I am convinced that the boys are well catered for in every way ; and I myself thoroughly enjoy the work, the games, the out-of-school activities, the friendliness of the boys, and not least my own free time in the evenings.—I am, Sir,
Previous page
