52 SOCIAL SCIENTIST of 'pure* science, fit for the 'superior' mind, in the liberal curriculum for the higher orders and, simultaneously, a halt to the practical scientific education of the lower orders since it had become 'too good' and expensive for them and was 'too far above basic literacy (required) for Bible reading.'12 Science was soon removed from the elementary school curriculum and the Revised Code of 1862 sought legitimacy on the grounds of inadequate funds and trained teachers. It was further asserted that a 'knowledge of common things was not to be obtained by the direct study of science, but through country walks, star gazing and domestic experiences.'13 Two decades later when it did reappear in the school curriculum it was in a form very different from that envisioned by the radical 'science for liberation' advocates. Yet, ironically, it was justified in terms of the prevailing liberal tradition with its devotion to the discipline of the mind and its accent on the exercise of reason and logic. The goal of 'pure' science in schools, as expressed by its new supporters, was to inculcate habits of 'value-free' and 'disinterested' inquiry 'for its own sake' in order to prepare future scientists for the universities. In the words of an eminent professor, teaching of science in schools was to be 'a means of sifting out of the great mass of the people those golden grains of genius which are now too often lost amongst the sands of mediocrity'.14 Science in the school curriculum thus became defined as a highly selective sieve to sort out those few who conformed to the image of the 'pure scientist*. Indeed, the mass of the populace for whom it was a resource assessable only in theory, were effectively deprived of any meaningful education in science, owing to its intended abstraction and aloofness from matters of their everyday lives and belief systems. Eggleston15 points out that this was in consonance with a general shift in the educational ideology at that time and a consequent redefinition of high status knowledge as that which was not immediately useful in a vocation or occupation. Layton16 affirms that even now school subjects, in their drive towards greater academic respectability, tend to become exceedingly abstract and remote from pupils' real life concerns, thus promoting in them an attitude of resignation and disenchantment. Asserting that such resignation is an express intention of the 'hidden' curriculum, Eggleston further exemplifies that 'the purpose of the mathematics curriculum is not only to enable pupils to learn mathematics but also to allow some to understand that they cannot learn mathematics and to acquire a suitable respect for those who can.'17 Thus legitimising the superior occupational status the abler pupils ultimately acquire. In an interesting analysis of the origin of the modern science text, Strube and Lynch18 trace the change from the 'conversationalist' texts of the nineteenth century to the 'formalist' ones currently in use. Most of the earlier texts meant to introduce into schools a 'science of common