Grammar schools and comprehensives in Birmingham in the 50s and 60s.

[Bob Davis]

I have no complaints about the modern education system, a grammar school boy myself, married to a grammar school girl who became a teacher we had three children who went to the local comp and got 28 GCSEs at A and B. We immediately saw tertiary education followed by Uni. Not to be my eldest son joined a local construction company as an apprentice, the first they had taken on for 10 years, he was a carpenter/joiner, site foreman, site manager and is now the Contacts Director. My youngest son left at 16 and on the following Monday started at Barclays Bank, got his bank exams and a business management degree, external learning, moved through the system to regional director South West and eventually became Managing Director personal banking, left them, did a spell as an executive at Nationwide and is now an executive with Apple on their internationall banking side. His forte has been ATMs and digital banking, he has a European and Middle Eastt remit. My daughter about to enter Sandhurst, was unfortunately involved in a serious RTA which left her disabled, but not unable to carry on living, get married etc. She has put her energies in working in charity shops etc as she was left unable to carry on in a waged position. No my wife and I have no complaints with the modern education system. Just a footnote the first of my grandchildren to complete a degree is just about to start with Greene King in public relations and media. I have four others all doing various degrees and seemingly successful and the youngest girl, currently in tertiary education and who plays cricket for Devon girls and a North Devon club and golf for Devon girls and is captain of Saunton golf club junior girls team, hopes to get to do a sports based degree. I think they are living my dream.
Bob

 

[Brummie a long time ago]

I think they are living my dream.

Family achievements of which you sound justifiably proud. The quote says it all.

Andrew.

 

[Spargone]

There's nothing wrong with the comprehensive system because it gives each child the chance to progress at their own rate. They're not written off at 10/11 like they used to be.

That's quite some statement! I'm inclined to think there is something very much wrong with a system whose proponents would see the elimination of all alternatives. Perhaps comprehensives are responsible for the increasingly common viewpoint that some ideas are 'totally unacceptable'?

Allowing children to 'progress at their own rate' is just another term for 'streaming'. It is never explained how a 'dull' child who has morphed into 'bright' child catches up with those who have always been in the 'bright' stream. (I lost a month or so of schooling to illness when I was 17 and I don't think I ever caught up).

It sometimes said of large i.e. comprehensive schools that they can offer a wide range of subjects, taught over a range of abilities. I have two relatives, products of that system. They got spat out at the end lacking a coherent set of exam results so were unable to find work or gain access to degree-level further education until they took filler courses at the Open University. That would never have been allowed in a grammar school.

Whatever the system there will be winners and losers. Adversity pulls some down but motivates some to rise. Whatever the system, having teachers that inspire their charges is probably most important but even then there have got to be pupils that went on to 'greatness' to spite the teacher that tried to bring them down.

 

[Brummie a long time ago]

That's quite some statement! I'm inclined to think there is something very much wrong with a system whose proponents would see the elimination of all alternatives.

Agree totally. Any system not just schooling.

I lost a month or so of schooling to illness when I was 17 and I don't think I ever caught up

I was off school when calculus was introduced. That was hard work, it is a fundamental aspect of my career. I feel for you.

It sometimes said of large i.e. comprehensive schools that they can offer a wide range of subjects, taught over a range of abilities.

Providing they have a wide range of teachers to match. And that students can be sympathetically put into the right classes.

I think the 11+ measured on too narrow criteria. All students have value, it takes a skilled teacher to find what that is in any student. I do see the practicality of the exam though, it would be difficult to educate everyone at a personal level. Grammar schools were fine for that type of student, and there were technical colleges available. Comprehensives seemed to be a catch all, with too wide a range of abilities lumped together.

Apprenticeships were ideal for some, and were a progress path for many provided the company did not see them as cheap labour for dirty work.

My (old bloke) feeling is that society does not value society.

Andrew.

 

[Richard Dye]

That's quite some statement! I'm inclined to think there is something very much wrong with a system whose proponents would see the elimination of all alternatives. Perhaps comprehensives are responsible for the increasingly common viewpoint that some ideas are 'totally unacceptable'?

Allowing children to 'progress at their own rate' is just another term for 'streaming'. It is never explained how a 'dull' child who has morphed into 'bright' child catches up with those who have always been in the 'bright' stream. (I lost a month or so of schooling to illness when I was 17 and I don't think I ever caught up).

It sometimes said of large i.e. comprehensive schools that they can offer a wide range of subjects, taught over a range of abilities. I have two relatives, products of that system. They got spat out at the end lacking a coherent set of exam results so were unable to find work or gain access to degree-level further education until they took filler courses at the Open University. That would never have been allowed in a grammar school.

Whatever the system there will be winners and losers. Adversity pulls some down but motivates some to rise. Whatever the system, having teachers that inspire their charges is probably most important but even then there have got to be pupils that went on to 'greatness' to spite the teacher that tried to bring them down.

Spargone, I agree there will be winners and losers at everything but WHO is that good that they know when someone is 11 or 12 that they are a winner or looser! When they do not even know them!
A great American Thomas Jefferson said “ the harder I work the luckier I get”. Many of us had no clue what that was all about or in my case had no guidance.

 

[trevor bow]

That's quite some statement! I'm inclined to think there is something very much wrong with a system whose proponents would see the elimination of all alternatives. Perhaps comprehensives are responsible for the increasingly common viewpoint that some ideas are 'totally unacceptable'?

Allowing children to 'progress at their own rate' is just another term for 'streaming'. It is never explained how a 'dull' child who has morphed into 'bright' child catches up with those who have always been in the 'bright' stream. (I lost a month or so of schooling to illness when I was 17 and I don't think I ever caught up).

It sometimes said of large i.e. comprehensive schools that they can offer a wide range of subjects, taught over a range of abilities. I have two relatives, products of that system. They got spat out at the end lacking a coherent set of exam results so were unable to find work or gain access to degree-level further education until they took filler courses at the Open University. That would never have been allowed in a grammar school.

Whatever the system there will be winners and losers. Adversity pulls some down but motivates some to rise. Whatever the system, having teachers that inspire their charges is probably most important but even then there have got to be pupils that went on to 'greatness' to spite the teacher that tried to bring them down.

Spargone, I don't think that what I said was that big a statement actually. From what you've written, I assume you want a return to the 11+. That's because you said that proponents of comprehensives like myself, want the elimination of all alternatives. That's some statement, as is your other view i.e."perhaps comprehensives are responsible for the increasingly common viewpoint that some ideas are 'totally unacceptable'" Really ? That will come as a surprise to over 90% of parents who send their children to comprehensives. You'll be blaming comps for global warming and Covid next.
Cream rises to the top, but if your cream hadn't risen to the top when you were 10/11, then you failed the 11+ and were condemned to an inferior education at a secondary modern school. At least at a comprehensive, your cream rising later gave the chance to achieve good 'O' and 'A' level results, and then putting these to good effect - university, college, good career prospects etc. And yes, streaming is a part of that and a pupil who starts in the 3rd set out of four can progress as his/her cream slowly rises. In case you didn't know, children develop at different rates.

Your two relatives who got 'spat out' at the end of their schooldays obviously went to a duff comp with probably duff teachers as well if they eventually 'came good' by taking filler courses at the Open University. But these days with Ofsted inspections, if that duff comp wasn't performing, it would mean the sack for the headteacher and it would be put into 'special measures'.

Yes, life is full of winners and losers even amongst those who have the most expensive private education. But at least with the abolition of the 11+, you aren't classed as a loser at 11 any more. In my opinion, it's stupid to say as you do that teachers try to bring some pupils down. I'm not a teacher but I know plenty who were in the profession. If you said that to their face they would probably invite you outside.

 

[Brummie a long time ago]

You'll be blaming comps for global warming and Covid next.

Sit down for a minute. Understandable but irrelevant, and diminishes your otherwise cohesive argument.

Disclosure. I benefitted from a good education, it started before primary school, through the 11+, grammar school, college, and never really stopped. So I am unashamedly biased.

That was 'then', in the 50's +. I suspect spargone is of the same era. The UK was rebuilding, and needed workers. I have said before that the 11+ used too narrow a criteria to make a reliable judgement. I suspect that the education system was designed to produce a sufficiently educated workforce.
I agree that children develop at different rates, but putting the 'failures' all together in big classrooms did not give the best chance to shine. Comprehensives needed to continue streaming, with enough teachers with the varied skills to handle that. Children do not develop towards some common peak, high achievement comes in different flavours. Grammar schools are not necessarily better, although they were promoted as such, they were just a 'stream' selected by certain criteria.

teachers try to bring some pupils down

I really doubt that, but some level has to be taught, and to achieve that without streaming, it has to be at the lower end to ensure that the slowest pupils are not left by the wayside. What was essential, was that the faster ones could be picked out and put in an appropriate class, and that class existed with proper staff. Not always the case.

That was 'then'. Can't comment on now, it is a different ball game.

Andrew.

 

[Richard Dye]

Sit down for a minute. Understandable but irrelevant, and diminishes your otherwise cohesive argument.

Disclosure. I benefitted from a good education, it started before primary school, through the 11+, grammar school, college, and never really stopped. So I am unashamedly biased.

That was 'then', in the 50's +. I suspect spargone is of the same era. The UK was rebuilding, and needed workers. I have said before that the 11+ used too narrow a criteria to make a reliable judgement. I suspect that the education system was designed to produce a sufficiently educated workforce.
I agree that children develop at different rates, but putting the 'failures' all together in big classrooms did not give the best chance to shine. Comprehensives needed to continue streaming, with enough teachers with the varied skills to handle that. Children do not develop towards some common peak, high achievement comes in different flavours. Grammar schools are not necessarily better, although they were promoted as such, they were just a 'stream' selected by certain criteria.

I really doubt that, but some level has to be taught, and to achieve that without streaming, it has to be at the lower end to ensure that the slowest pupils are not left by the wayside. What was essential, was that the faster ones could be picked out and put in an appropriate class, and that class existed with proper staff. Not always the case.

That was 'then'. Can't comment on now, it is a different ball game.

Andrew.

Andrew, I d not think streaming is the issue, picking winners and losers when the “picker” does not know them! Then the looser (so given) had to live with that mantel.
As far as education, we learn everyday! My wife was a classroom teacher with four master’s degrees, principle, superintendent Phd teacher of the year. Our daughter Juris Doctor with honors, our son I have spoken about. And me just three undergrad degrees and one graduate. Non of this would have been possible if I were relegated because of the 11 + whatever the pickers reason or criteria. Let the cream rise but give it a chance to rise.
My apologies to everyone for my rant, my wife and I learn everyday studying archeology and European history, I am sure there are many other Forum members who are continuing to learn. I see it everyday day with photography, computers, railways etc. Thank you for that!

 

[Eric Gibson]

Very few of us who didn't get into Grammar schools thought of ourselves as 'losers' the places were very limited and there were an awful lot of competitors for those few spaces.

 

[Astoness]

Very few of us who didn't get into Grammar schools thought of ourselves as 'losers' the places were very limited and there were an awful lot of competitors for those few spaces.

very good points eric... and just imagine the crush if everyone had passed the 11 plus

lyn

 

[Spargone]

Trevor, I deliberately extracted out of your post the line that 'there is nothing wrong with the comprehensive system' as that was the point that I disputed. I didn't set out to ascribe any other opinions to you and it is unwise of you to ascribe other opinions to me.

It is well known that the proponents of the comprehensive system wished to see the end of grammar schools and they are still pushing for that. By proponents I meant the politicians and educational academics. The parent of a child doing well at a comprehensive doesn't really have 'a dog in the game', their child's schooling is fixed for good or bad.

My general point is that there is far too much 'elimination of the alternatives' going on at the moment. If there is only one system, one party, one shop, one employer what is left to make comparison with?

Of course children develop at different rates but for the life of me I can't see how any system of schooling can fully cope with that. The child that is moved 'up' will inevitably be placed with children that are further ahead in the syllabus, how do they catch up?

I don't think my relatives' comprehensive was 'bad', it was doing what the advocates of the comprehensive system praise, the ability to offer a wide range of subjects. Fine, just try looking for a job or university place with passes in Religious Studies and Mathematics. My school put us into groups like Maths, Biology and Modern in the upper school which constrained our choices to those expected by employers or universities.

It seems inevitable in life that some people like us and some don't and that applies to teachers too. If all of your teachers liked you then you were very lucky.

What is the best education system? I don't know. The grammar schools of the 1960s were part of a system that broadly divided children into 'book' and 'practical' students and those are categories that many would still feel happy with. Did it produce the best outcomes for most children? Yes! The system wasn't thought up by tyrants but educationalists that wanted the best outcomes. Is there a better system? Quite likely, that is the nature of the rational approach to life, always trying to seek something better. But how do we know we have something better? We certainly don't do it by eliminating all alternatives and then name-call anyone not marching in lockstep.

Something that hasn't been brought up is the size of schools. A comprehensive school has to be large if it is to cater for a large range of abilities and offer a lot of options. How does a school, under any system, cope with a large number of pupils? There was a very interesting programme some years ago showing Birmingham pupils moving into secondary education. The large comprehensive lined up the masses, teachers patrolled the lines barking out commands and calling out minor disdemeanors. Once in the assembly hall they were told that they had to obey, or else the path was detention, young offenders institution then prison. The small, single-sex, grammar school assured its 'ladies' that there was no limit to what they could achieve. Yes, there is nothing wrong with comprehensives.

 

[Astoness]

thanks everyone for your contributions to this old running thread (2011) we now feel it has run its course

the team