[Letters to Editor]

Abstract

WE are glad to publish the above views of a member of a university staff who has also examined school students of biology. It should be borne in mind, however, that the majority of secondary school students do not proceed to a university, and furthermore only a minority of those who do so continue their studies in the science faculties. Science in schools, therefore, is only one of several disciplines and should be treated as such. Over and over again the criticism that the school curriculum caters too much for the university candidate and too little for that majority, who complete their ‘formal’ education at the School Certificate stage, has been made in NATURE and elsewhere. This criticism is now meeting with a certain amount of response. Science teaching is still too much concerned with the presentation of factual information, by experiment or otherwise, and too little with its social and humanistic contacts. It is not the business of the schools to train academic, professional and industrial experts, but rather to produce intelligent and knowledgeable citizens. Dr. Chapman's views are justified from the point of view of a biologist looking for good, sound biological material to train as specialists. That scholarship candidates “come up knowing advanced genetics, but when presented with a twig of larch they do not recognize it” betrays an unbalanced syllabus. School science should “reveal the influence of scientific thought and achievement in the evolution of our present-day civilization—an appeal to social interest and utility”. It has been shown that “factual knowledge and knowledge of scientific method can be imparted as successfully by demonstration as by practical work”. While not advocating the complete abolition of practical work, we consider that in schools there is too much of it; it is too elaborate and demands more time than can be justified. (Editors of NATURE.)