Reintroduction of Secondary modern schools for majority of children.

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 .

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.

And I still think nobody who wasn't looking for a second-class element would see it in the term "secondary modern". I do not believe for one moment that the educationalists or politicians (or both) whose idea it was ever intended anything other than a separation from primary schools which, until sec mods were invented, went from 4 or 5 years old to 14 and were just plain "school". "Modern" secondary schools were to go to 15 at least and would be separate from "primary, schools.

This is not argument. It is historical fact.

I don't think the word "Secondary" when referred to schools, means second class these days ( because there aren't grammar schools around) but when I passed my 11+ ( not for what good it did me) in the 70's it most certainly did .
"If you work hard you will go to the girls grammar . If you don't you will go to the secondary school"

was

It was reasoned actually, ww, and the one about finding offence anywhere wasn't about you. It was a general remark based on this morning's observation as well as others made elsewhere (not on gransnet) of lots of other people, of an apparent misunderstanding.

Your comment: "you can't help yourself" seemed unreasonably personal to me, as if a rational remark to correct what appeared to be a misunderstanding of a common term was somehow wrong or mean. It wasn't. My initial remark was not personal in any way. It comprised was a statement of fact that secondary when used of schools does not mean and never did mean second-class. Thus, "not a whiff". All very straightforward as well as plain truth.

There was never any possibility that I could have gone to university or even stayed on for 6 form as my father died at the beginning of my second term at grammar school and I think poverty could describe the state my mother and I were left in. She was an older mother for those days, 44, and not qualified for anything. Grammar school , as I have said before on GN, gave me social mobility and confidence in myself that I would not have found at the secondary modern. I know this from my friends from primary.
I will be forever grateful for that opportunity. Now that would be different I realise but then was then.

Oh you are wrong there I do reasoned based but not personnel which is why I reacted to your last comment about me taking *offence" nothing reason based about that comment. However if you had expanded on the education on offer at your parents grammer and whether anything similar to my friends secondary modern was offered -which in my view was excellent- then we could have had a reason based discussion as you describe it.

I'll try and remember that you don't do reason-based discussion, ww (please don't bank on my remembering though). And, obviously, your not doing it won't stop me rationalising silly stuff as well as non-silly stuff. Cheers (can't drink alcolhol, soz. It doesn't agree with my meds).

Ha! I don't. ?

I don't do argument bags as you must be aware by now - sorry.

I always imagine you following up your remarks with a sniff

You likewise, it seems, ww. You don't really believe the 'secondary' part of the name 'secondary modern' was because they were designed as second class schools, do you? You must have heard primary and tertiary used in the same way just to signify what age-group was being accommodated.

Oh dear bags you can't help yourself can you!

Some people'll find 'offence' in anything.

Primary education, secondary education, tertiary education.

Not even a whiff of second class unless you're looking for it.

Was getting into university the sole aim of a grammar school education? So long as people who had some grammar school education had access to something they wouldn't have had access to otherwise—like my grandad who passed his eleven plus and went to grammar school until he was fourteen but had to leave to go down the pit when his dad died—surely that was a good thing? My grandad certainly benefited hugely from his short time at grammar school.

Which is not an argument to bring grammar schools back. I'm just saying that I don't think their primary purpose was to get people into uni. I think it was to educate people more than in the ordinary (parish?) schools that went from 4–14. My eldest brother started at a school like that in Leeds. Apart from his first day when my dad took him and collected him, my mum got a fourteen year old girl to take my brother and bring him home. She had two other young kids and a pregnancy to deal with and it was a mile to school.

Mine was a three class intake grammar school and there were two sixth form classes for my year. There would have been a few more than there were except that the school stopped catering for boarders at the end of my fifth form (my year had the last intake of boarders) so four or five of the seven remaining boarders (mostly from forces families) went to sixth form at a different boarding school.