SIR,—I am glad that the headmaster of St. Olave's has
called in question the comments made by the headmasters of Harrow and Mill Hill on this subject, and Janus's endorsement of them. It has become popular to criticise the Minister's imposition of an age-limit, and to impute to him social rather than educational motives: but there is no evidence for these, and the criticism is often misinformed and ill thought-out. There are. gs Mr. Carrington points out, sound educational reasons why boys and tirls should not be allowed to sit for external examinations before the age of sixteen, and many of us, who have had to do with schools, have felt for many years that the evils of cramming a pupil for the old School Certificate at the age of fifteen (or even earlier), or subjecting precocious children to a kind of forcing process in their early years and allowing them to spend the rest of their school career in a course of narrow specialisation, far outweigh the very doubtful advantages claimed for the " able " boys and girls. The one really regrettable feature in the new situation is that the age-limit should have been imposed by the Minister: 1 would suggest that it is no part of his function to determine either the content or the timing of a curriculum. The schools should have insisted
on this age-limit a long time ago.—I am, &c., M. L. JACKS. University of Oxford, Department of Education, 15 Norham Gazflens, Oxford.
Previous page
