Dear Editor,

The “abysmal” secondary results I presented (“What results can we realistically expect …..”? SN:12/03/10) should have been enough to caution Mr. Bhulai, (“All came out of primary school able to read, write and do arithmetic in the ’50s and ’60s.” SN: 13/03/10) about making extravagant claims for the then primary education system. However, I do hope that the following observation propels him towards greater objectivity.

“The quality of education provided in the schools is generally speaking poor, standards much too low to allow for complacency in permitting continuation of conditions which force standards down and will force them down further. … A striking example of the futility of the situation as it has developed was offered by the result of tests set by one big industrial concern to a large number of youths who had left school within the last four years, having passed the preliminary school certificate examination; a considerable number of the candidates had almost entirely lost their ability to read and write.” (Report of the UNESCO Educational Survey Mission to British Guyana -1964).

In passing, since for so long many of us have accepted the myth about the ‘good old’  education system (which Mr Bhulai now has a further opportunity to reassess) I trust that he will also be more questioning of his belief that the primary education of the day (or any day for that matter) could have made people “realize when they were being fooled.”

Yours faithfully,
Henry B Jeffrey