The working classes just aren't very bright so have no chance of bettering themselves

Pippa The number of grammar school places in an area was largely based on history. Most of the original grammar schools were foundations and had originally been funded by a variety of organisations. Boys' education was valued more highly, so there were more boys' grammar schools. People often forget that they had in fact existed before the 1944 Education Act, if your parents' had the money to pay for them or the pupils won a scholarship. During the early twentieth century, many cities and towns with rapid population expansion had few grammar schools, although some local authorities did set some up. By 1944, there was a patchwork of provision and this continued after the Act. Some of those original grammar schools remained as private schools, but the majority were now under local authority control and were free. A handful became direct grant grammar schools with 25% free places and the rest fee-paying. Very few new grammar schools were built, which meant that there was still an imbalance in the number of places available and pupils' chance of a place was a postcode lottery.

Alexa

Foxie48, we need literate, numerate , tech savvy etc..

True. Let us expand on that "etc." . Boris and Co are going to reduce arts education. It is education in the humanities that increases empathy and civilised behaviour.

Well I think the first sentence rather proves my point, although I think many might disagree with your second sentence. My younger daughter and husband are both scientists and neither lack empathy or are in any way uncivilised but I get your point.

There are some who see themselves as entitled, just as there are others that see themselves as done down and discriminated against, that’s life some blame others for everything. I will say that many individuals believe they are entitled to special treatment in various ways especially when they are getting a service. No more so than the health service
Years ago I did some moonlighting, catering at functions waitressing, one such event was a local Tory dinner, early on the evening the Chairman started talking down to the servers, quickly other diners joined in, it was awful. They tried to rebook the next year but the waitresses refused to work that night.

What I object to so strongly is the way some people on GN constantly say unpleasant things and attribute nothing but vices too one group in society, when if any one says even half a word of criticism about those at the other end of the social spectrum, they would turn on them like a herd of ravening lions and tear them apart limb from limb.

I think you're given to unwarranted hyperbole, MOnica

asuziewoozie I know many lovely privileged people and have also seen entitled bastards in operation

Surely that is the point, you have known many lovely privileged people and some bastards. But isn't every group like that? I have met many people who people would consider at the other end of the social spectrum, some have been lovely and some have been horrible.

What I object to so strongly is the way some people on GN constantly say unpleasant things and attribute nothing but vices too one group in society, when if any one says even half a word of criticism about those at the other end of the social spectrum, they would turn on them like a herd of ravening lions and tear them apart limb from limb.

Foxie48, we need literate, numerate , tech savvy etc..

True. Let us expand on that "etc." . Boris and Co are going to reduce arts education. It is education in the humanities that increases empathy and civilised behaviour.

I grew up, the youngest of two children in the NW of England, and my parents ensured that I had a good education and I was the first in my family to go to university.

My mother was the eldest of 2 girls, in a lower middle class family who went to the local Girls Grammar school and left school at 16 having taken the school certificate, going on to college to train as one of the first NNEB's, so actually not starting work until she was 18 around 1948/9.

My father was one of 6 and from a poor working class family, his father in and out of work, his mother working all the hours to keep food on the table. My Dad was entered for and passed the school scholarship exam and won a place at the Boys grammar school but didn't take it up. When I asked my paternal grandma why not she simply said there was no point as they couldn't afford for him to go; they couldn't afford to buy all the extras he would need.

He went instead to the technical school, left without any qualifications at 14, to go and work at the local pit on the coal shunting wagons bringing in a wage, which obviously helped greatly regarding the family finances.

Fast forward to my education in the 70's and when my paternal grandma was told that I wasn't leaving school at 16 but going on to do A levels with a view to university later, she sniffed disapprovingly saying 'there was no point in educating girls as they only went on to get married and have babies just like the rest of us'. I'm sure this view was quite a common one at that time amongst her peers.

I always felt a sense of injustice regarding my dad and his situation. Due to the social norms of the time, in the late 40's and early 50's a Grammar school education was for those who were intelligent enough to qualify to attend AND could afford it. Unlucky for him, his IQ wasnt enough.
My Dad always worked hard, becoming a manager eventually but often despairing of the short sighted decisions made by those above him, when he could see the 'bigger picture' but they either couldn't or wouldn't.

He strove to ensure that we, unlike him through no fault of his own, had all the educational opportunities available to us so that we had choices and for that I am forever grateful, but I often wonder what he might have become had he been given the same chances.

foxie48

TBH I think the biggest flaw in Saunder's article is the assumption that society educates people to give them the best opportunity to succeed in life and seeing "success" as social mobility. That is not the role of education and it never has been. I'm not a Marxist but the "All education takes place under the long shadow of work" (Bowles and Gintis) is as true now as it was. As a post industrial society we need a different type of worker, one who is numerate and literate, tech savvy etc. Look at the focus on apprenticeships, even the development of the NVQ system in the late 80's was part of this up skilling as was the focus on 50% of people having a university education. I'm not sure what Saunders means by "working class" or the classification system he's using but as a sociologist I would have expected him to have moved away from the WC/MC/UC model so I suspect he's really talking about the "under class" except that tends to make non sociologists cringe!

I am sure you are right foxie48. As I was given to understand even the much hallowed 11+ worked like that. Year sizes were, to some extent, subject to the perceived needs of the counties and, certainly in the beginning, more boys than girls were passed. Shades of the Conservative algorithm which didn't allow children in areas where they hadn't done so well in the past to do well in 2020 - which if carried on would mean they never could in those areas.

foxie48 Thanks for the memory.

Your quote from (Bowles and Gintis) took me right back, it was one of the core publications I used for a long time :-)

I suspect you're not far off when you suggest he's really talking about the "under class" and about it making most people cringe

I had to explain to DD1 that "All education takes place under the long shadow of work". DGD goes to local village school on a Dukes Estate so geared to agriculture and hospitality. DGD's parents are both in IT so didn't connect to schools focus and ethos, they are thinking of moving before DGD starts secondary school.

As for the article, IMO it's next to useless. The perimeters are out dated and it doesn't reflect todays educational, class or social issues.

Also pushing Toxic Messages such as WC aren't bright enough or hard working enough to better themselves is offensive. Everyone seems to offended these days so I thought I's join in :-)

It may not be "offensive" but I don't see how this article is helpful or informative, nor does it move the body of knowledge forward.

But someone has published something, therefore, something has been done so the powers that be have a defence against "Doing Nothing" about ...

Interesting post though so thanks for starting it OP

M0nica

suziewoozie But you know this is just not how so many of the ‘elite’ are brought up. A sense of entitlement shines through as well as disdain - do you really think it’s widespread to respect everyone regardless of origins?

This is totally at odds with my experience, I have found most people at every level of society are kind, open and treat you with courtesy, but then I do not have the chip on my shoulder that so many others seem to have.

Of course there are real b*st*rds at all levels of society and the offence such people give has nothing to do with where they come from.

Well we’ll just have to agree to differ. I know many lovely privileged people and have also seen entitled bastards in operation - nothing to do with chips at all. Because of various contacts through the former I have experienced situations where I have clearly been re-evaluated as a person in terms of my ‘worth’ when they’ve realised quite who I’m there with and because of - I despise these people who are usually also rude to the waiters and never say thank you to them.

suziewoozie But you know this is just not how so many of the ‘elite’ are brought up. A sense of entitlement shines through as well as disdain - do you really think it’s widespread to respect everyone regardless of origins?

This is totally at odds with my experience, I have found most people at every level of society are kind, open and treat you with courtesy, but then I do not have the chip on my shoulder that so many others seem to have.

Of course there are real b*st*rds at all levels of society and the offence such people give has nothing to do with where they come from.

The opportunities were certainly there from the 1960s - 1980s for the "Boomers" because there were still local authority student grants. My parents treated me as a cash machine and made no sacrifices to allow me to stay on school for A levels. It was up to me to get myself to university as a mature student. I made the most of my opportunities and qualified to ph.d. level which opened up an academic career to me.

Todays young people are not so lucky, burdened by student debt. Reading many of the posts on MN its clear that most are dependent upon an additional financial boost from their parents when it comes to renting and making ends meet. There are many young people with degrees now competing for low paid jobs in the gig economy.

TBH I think the biggest flaw in Saunder's article is the assumption that society educates people to give them the best opportunity to succeed in life and seeing "success" as social mobility. That is not the role of education and it never has been. I'm not a Marxist but the "All education takes place under the long shadow of work" (Bowles and Gintis) is as true now as it was. As a post industrial society we need a different type of worker, one who is numerate and literate, tech savvy etc. Look at the focus on apprenticeships, even the development of the NVQ system in the late 80's was part of this up skilling as was the focus on 50% of people having a university education. I'm not sure what Saunders means by "working class" or the classification system he's using but as a sociologist I would have expected him to have moved away from the WC/MC/UC model so I suspect he's really talking about the "under class" except that tends to make non sociologists cringe!

OK GagaJo, that's a different matter, though I've never encountered that.

Ellianne

^dumping grounds for the posh uneducable^

That's a bit mean. No child is ever uneducable regardless of their class.
It isn't a competition, we're talking about bettering oneself as an individual, not worrying about those around us.

Usually because of their behaviour. Over entitled, no work ethic, 'Do you know who I am?' attitude.

Might have been the north south divide stuff. My mum used to go on about it because she had a Yorkshire accent and we lived in London. She thought Londoners were cold, snobby and just generally nasty. My dad was a Londoner from way back, so was I. Ha.

M0nica

The amount of prejudice shown on this and many other threads to people who happen to have had better off (not necessarily much), backgrounds, is quite shocking and unpleasant.

I was brought up to treat everybody equally and not honour them or despise them for where they came from or what they did.

But you know this is just not how so many of the ‘elite’ are brought up. A sense of entitlement shines through as well as disdain - do you really think it’s widespread to respect everyone regardless of origins? I was shocked when I came to live in Surrey and saw widespread examples of how the ‘workers’ were treated - everyday rudeness such as not even saying thank you. Because of the work I was doing, I mixed with the the very well heeled and saw it at first hand. As for me snd my Yorkshire accent.,,,Even surface politeness was frequently quite patronising.

Maizie I suspect you might be very interested in the NCDS because it spans over six decades of different political parties being in and out of power.

I can assure you they nosily delved into all areas of our lives - education, careers, earnings, assets, ....... even our partners' provenance and performance.

Oh yes and our sex lives too!

I presume this was. Posted tongue in check and i won't be reading the article. . I know their is the old boys network in the top schools and also I know that many people myself from very working class roots who have top positions in companies, started their own, very intelligent despite not speaking several languages and learning Latin, it's all about attitude and intelligence. Two children from the same family with completely different aspirations. Many content to be in low paid jobs and are happy, not want the hassle of moving out if their confirm zone the other sibling has that need in themselves to achieve what they can. We need both types one needs the otter. Look at a couple of our Prine Ministers who came from the working classes, you can achieve anything if it's in you and focused.

M0nica

The amount of prejudice shown on this and many other threads to people who happen to have had better off (not necessarily much), backgrounds, is quite shocking and unpleasant.

I was brought up to treat everybody equally and not honour them or despise them for where they came from or what they did.

Exactly Monica.

Education gives one 'choice'.

MaizieD

^So no one can tell me people from poorer families lack intelligence or motivation.^

The tories might. Because that's one thing they might take from Saunder's article.

Very interested to hear details of the 1958 study. I hope I didn't give any impression at any time that I thought the study was flawed. It sounds like an incredible piece of research.

Hi Maizie
Try cls.ucl.ac.uk for the full bibliography and findings.

We are even in an ongoing covid study asking about our current health, habits, emotions etc.

Last three words of the above refers to what they did for a living, nothing else

The amount of prejudice shown on this and many other threads to people who happen to have had better off (not necessarily much), backgrounds, is quite shocking and unpleasant.

I was brought up to treat everybody equally and not honour them or despise them for where they came from or what they did.

M0nica

But these findings do not negate the need for all children to be given an opportunity to do their best and not to be written off as not capable of reaching higher levels because of their social background.

Precisely, MOnica.