Reintroduction of Secondary modern schools for majority of children.

Regarding sec mods as less good schools than grammars came later when the idea of comprehensive schooling took hold, which it did because some of those at sec mods should have been in grammar school classes and vice versa.

Some sec mods were very good schools. A friend of mine from primary school who didn't pass his eleven plus got eight good O-levels at his ec mod school and then joined the, by then, comprehensive sixth form that had been a grammar school sixth form.

Sec mods were not invented to be inferior to grammar schools. They were invented to be different and to cater for different needs. Some people are now talking about generating more technical schools and vocational schools based on the same thinking about different kids needing different subjects. Comprehensive schools are supposed to cover all that and some do.

I agree that the Sec mods were mostly very good schools thatbags and the one in particular I would have gone to had I not gone to the grammar was excellent . My school was all girls and full of bullies ( teachers and pupils alike ) I hated it .

Interesting tales of poverty - many very clever but poor children did not progress to professional careers from grammar school. My MIL was not even sent, after passing the "scholarship" in the war, because the uniform was too expensive.
There is a good summary of the Tripartite system, which operated from 1947, here
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar_school#In_the_Tripartite_System
Most analysts would probably agree that the system was brought in to cater for the needs of the economy - a growing need for people to equipped to move into professional careers, a need for literate and well-educated skilled-workers to do technical jobs and an unskilled group who had reasonable literacy and numeracy. The grammar schools were better funded, with more highly qualified teachers. It was not brought in for the benefit of individuals. The technical schools don't seem to have got off the ground in all areas.

gillybob yes that's what I meant about secondary.

Nevertheless the headmistress was outstanding and clearly had a strategy and focus that gave every assistance and opportunity to her girls at whatever life choices they made. The grammer never gave us an alternative other than O and A then university or not.
That is the sort of education I would like to see offered to our grandchildren, with schools actively seeking the necessary training for the childs chosen career and feeding thecolleges, universities and employers. With young people with a good working knowledge relating to theircareer path.

Looking at the overall picture of schooling patterns and changes during my lifetime, it occurs to me now that the idea of schools being comprehensive, to cover all levels of academic and practical ability and to be flexible to different children's needs, and the needs of the society they were being educated to take part in, really seems to be going back to what the 'public' 4-14 parish schools had been doing all along: educating everyone except those rich enough to pay for private schooling. The original parish schools were totally comprehensive as far as they could be. Modern comprehensives, with the grammar school and sec mod blip, have simply extended the remit of public education. Progress.

Wish my dad was still around to talk to about this.

My husband went to an appalling sec mod school too, in Cardiff, gillybob. He left at sixteen with two pathetic CSEs. Fortunately his inner grit and intelligence (which apparently no teacher ever noticed (!), possibly because of his shyness (prob Aspergers too), meant he didn't give up on education so by the time he was 32 he had a D.Phil from Oxford.

I'm just glad the opportunity was there for him to pursue his education via the Open University (three loud cheers for Harold Wilson!), then uni at Aberystwyth, then Ox.

I know feel sure I would have done better at Sec Mod which seemed to offer a more rounded education than I had suffered. Okay so I performed well in an examination at 11 but I was not an academic (really? I hear you protest lol) and would have done so much better doing the social sciences that were not available to me at grammar school.

I didn't go to an appalling sec modern thatbags I went to (imo) an appalling grammar school, that seemed to concentrate its efforts on the top 20% of its pupils . Of which, surprisingly, I was not one .

Oh, sorry, gbob. I misunderstood. I think there were people like you at my grammar school too. In fact I'm thinking of the sister of the boy I mentioned earlier who, unlike him, did pass her 11+ but floundered at grammar school where her brother would have been fine. She would have been much happier, I think at the girls' sec mod. Just shows, yet again, how daft the division was.

thatbags,

The old 4-14 parish schools weren't truly comprehensive. As I expect you know, they were originally church schools. The churches (CofE and non-conformist) wanted everybody to read the bible and to be competent in household chores, farming and that was about it. As towns and cities grew during the late nineteenth century, local education boards were introduced and established new schools, but these still only offered an elementary education.

There were some people who paid for their children (usually boys) to go to public schools and the increasing number of girls' academic schools. Many of these schools offered scholarships and bursaries, so there was an option for the very bright to have a proper secondary education. The number of scholarship places varied between areas, as did the fees for those who didn't win a scholarship. Generally, there were more places available in cities and big towns. Both my parents and three of my grandparents went to grammar schools before the 1944 Education Act. My mother had a full scholarship, so her parents paid nothing.

Even before the 1944 Education Act, there was a need for people who had had more than an elementary education, so 'elementary highers' were introduced. These gave children a more academic education than the elementaries did. My one grandparent who didn't go to a grammar school learnt French at school, because she went to one of these schools. Unfortunmately, the grammar schools saw them as competition and elementary higher pupils were barred from entering public exams.

The 'secondary' in 'secondary modern' does indeed refer to the stage of education between primary and tertiary. It was 'modern' because it was new and a break from the elementary curriculum of reading, writing 'rithmetic and vocational training. The policy makers didn't intend the new schools to be second rate, although their views of social hierarchy were questionable. They thought that people could be labelled and thought they were providing something more appropriate to the needs of the (then) modern world.

PS. That's what I remember from the 'History of English and Welsh education' module from my PGCE many years ago. I expect I could remember more, if I thought about it.

Thank you, dd. Very interesting post. I'm just in for a cuppa and a dose of gransnet after some garden bonfiring and your post was a good read.

I think we often forget about the narrowness of the offering at many Grammar Schools and the same could be said when children were educated to in the 4 to 14 parish schools. Many Secondary Moderns has inspiring heads but were working with a limited budget.

Some one said earlier, but it bears repeating, that we no longer need those just educated in so called vocational, technical or academic subjects as the skills needed in our modern world cannot be narrowed in this way. Making choices at, say, 14 should be about choices - as many as possible and a fluid as possible.

My grandmother was a headmistress at a village 4-14 school.
She retired in 1945 as she had cancer, and my parents were going to get married, so she could go and live with them instead of in the schoolhouse.

Any of you who have been to Beamish, it was smaller than the school there.
According to my mother, there were 70+ pupils with my grandmother and one pupil teacher to teach the whole age range. The pupil teacher was one of the brighter girls who had left the school and wanted to learn how to be a teacher. She was completely untrained. Never met my grandmother, so I never learned from her what it was like, but it sounds very unlike a comprehensive school, more like advanced babysitting, with all pupils sitting in rows in agegroups, working on slates, head walking up and down the rows.

My father passed the 11+ but couldn't go to grammar school as his mother couldn't afford the uniform. His father died when he was nine, and there were four other children.

Rab Butler actually wrote about how important it was ' to ensure that a stigma of inferiority did not attach itself to those secondary institutions ..which lacked the facilities and academic prestige of the grammar schools'.

Grammar schools had three times as much money spent on them, the best teachers, the best facilities, offered public exams and a secure route into higher education.

The NFER came out against selection in 1957, saying that the 11+ contained serious errors, because of the number of children who were achieving academically in some of the secondary moderns. Even Rhodes Boyson said that the 11+ made serious mistakes.

So why go back to selection, if it didn't work properly back then?

The 11+ and grammar schools did work for a few years, because they provided a few places for children, whose parents would never have been able to afford a grammar school education. However, there was a lack of consistency. Some areas had more places than others, so it was never fair. More importantly, the 1944 Education was formulated in the context of a pre-war society. A minority went on to have white collar jobs and it was only considered necessary to provide those few with a proper secondary education. The majority of people worked in manual jobs and academic learning wasn't considered relevant. With hindsight, this was a huge mistake, because countries such as Germany were providing quality vocational training and apprenticeships.

After WW2, there was a huge increase in white collar jobs and even manual work became more technical. Socially aspirational parents wanted their children to work towards less 'dirty' jobs and it was realised that secondary moderns just weren't providing the opportunities (although some secondary moderns were better then others). During the 1950s, some of the most vocal supporters of comprehensive education were in the shire counties, such as Leicestershire, because there weren't enough grammar school places for the children of the upwardly mobile parents.

Fast forward to the current day...our economy needs more skilled workers at every level. Anna Vignoles, a professor of education at Cambridge who has done a huge amount of research on social mobility and education, says that we have enough 'highly educated' people to do the top jobs. She claims that what the country needs to do is concentrate on those in the middle of the ability range and upskill them for the demands of the modern world. The return of grammar schools won't do that.

I'm at a loss to understand why Theresa May thinks grammar schools are a good idea.

PS. My own children were the first in my family to go to comprehensive schools. I was a little nervous at first, but I honestly think they had a better education than I or my parents had. Both have gone to good universities. My daughter found a good job after graduating and is more well-balanced than I was at her age. My son is just starting his degree and I'm reasonably confident he'll be OK. They're both bright, but I don't think they have suffered in any way from not going to grammar schools.

I think (hope) that things are so different these days that if grammar schools are brought back the not-grammar schools will be able to give just as good an education. After all in 'our day' (in Norfolk anyway) only 10% - 15% of children passed the 11+, it wasn't a standard level which had to be achieved but a competition for the places available which took no regard of the number of children applying; there was a considerable bias in favour of boys and the education in the sec mod (mine anyway) was to give a good general knowledge and an education aimed at getting a job. This influenced the level of teaching and the jobs we were aimed to fill.

As a girl It was not considered worthwhile teaching me woodwork, maths or science as I would never need them. Domestic science and business arithmetic and human physiology were enough. After all I would get a job in an office until I married and had babies and left work to be a good little housewife. Times have changed.

Now 50% go on to university. Most of this 50% must come from the not-grammars. They can't/won't be like the old sec mods. Can they?

Norfolk doesn't have grammar schools (it never had many), so I wonder what the education is like in present day comprehensives which have the top creamed off to grammars? Are kids in Kent considered failures if they fail the 11+?

Most of the children going to grammar school in Kent are from middle class families. Their parents pay to have them tutored for the exam. Working class children's parents can't necessarily afford to have them tutored.

So its still out of the reach of poorer kids who don't have access to coaching. Private education on the cheap. What the eduction like in the comprehensives? Do they suffer for loosing la creme de la creme?

(Apologies for bad grammar!)

Wouldn't have thought so as those children aren't necessarily the brightest - just taught to pass the exam.
I am sure some bright poorer children get through. I live in Sussex, no grammer schools around where we live. Lancing College not far though.

According to Melissa Benn in School Wars, there was an area of Nottinghaam where only 1.5% of the distrct's entire school population went to grammar school; in neighbouring middle-class suburbs, 60% did.
10% in Gateshead and Sunderland.
40% in Westmorland.
It's obvious that if you were from a poor area you had less opportunity. Theresa May can only get over that by siting them in the middle of no go areas. Can anyone see her doing that?

The better off folk do that even with good schools over the entire age range. Dd moved to a village because of the schools
They paid a lot more for an inferior house just to get the boys into the schools. If you were less well off you wouldn't stand a chance.

People also send their children miles to go to grammar schools. I know folk in London whose children commute to grammar schools in Kent. Apparently, that's not uncommon and it leaves local children less able to gain a place.

The Chelmsford grammar schools have now imposed a distance restriction (12.5 miles I thin), because there were so many children commuting out of London, which meant it was even harder for Essex children to gain places.