I don't know why, but I have been hearing a lot about education in the UK lately. Well, it's always a subject bubbling under the surface, really, so no mystery about that
( Read more... )
And me. I have both a B.A. and a PhD from Cambridge and I went to a common comp. I'm a common person. The problem with the grammar system was that the exam wasn't a level playing field. Children from more middle class backgrounds with more motivated parents tended to do better than brighter working class children who has less support at home and less access to the things that make learning easy (like books, and privacy and interest from adults). Schools decided who was fit to take the 11+, too, and would refuse to let some children sit it. This was supposed to be based on ability, but was often based on prejudice about a child's background. And the grammar schools weren't completely free. Uniforms were expensive, and while there were hand-down schemes, children rapidly found out who had 2nd-hand clothes and often tormented them for it. As did staff, in some instances. The grammars could be and did discriminate amongst pupils on grounds of class in how children were treated. And then... Not every child develops at the same speed, and there is no good reason to pick 11 as a cut-off. Boys, in particular, often fail at this age and succeed later. My head of dept was rejected at the 11+ and set to a 2ndary Modern. He managed to get to university, went on to do a PhD, to become an academic who has made major contributions to his field. Most of those who talk up the grammar system come from very privileged backgrounds. As do those who put down comprehensives. There have always been 'bad schools' under every system. And the majority of comprehensives are good. Indeed, many are excellent, far better than most private schools. Posts like this erase people like me. In my head, anyway -- I know you didn't mean it that way.
It's interesting how much class plays into it. My in-laws were very careful to let me know that the reason I wasn't invited to stay with them last summer had nothing to do with my nephew's missing out on his Oxford place (I'd given some advice on things he needed to clarify regarding his coursework, but I honestly wasn't as insistent as I should have been, because I didn't know the system and it was a modern paper -- but as it turned out, I think my nephew really just didn't *get* how to show he was thinking like an historian, and missed out his A by four points). But anyway, he's going to LSE. It was his 'fallback choice'. It's still, I think, a top uni. But for the family, Oxford is the degree that will get him the best job. That's what it's about. Not education for any other cause -- it's an understanding of an Oxford degree as a vocational degree.
You have to remember that there's also an age thing going on here. It was impossible for me to go to a comprehensive school because they didn't exist. There was just one in the whole of Manchester (brand new, just opened, revolutionary new concept), but basically we were fed through the 11+ system. I passed for grammar school, but it wasn't the advantage it was supposed to be. Well, it was and it wasn't. It's complicated. I loathed the selective system as a kid and still do.
When I worked for the Department of Education and Science in the early 1970s, the then Labour government were pressurising all councils to go comprehensive. I may be wrong, but I think Kent is the only totally selective county left, unless some reverted later. Kent dragged its feet at the time, praying for a change in government, which it got.
So most of the people praising grammar schools are harking back to a Golden Age that never existed, but I suspect that it's only people over the age of 50. They also conveniently forget that grammar schools creamed off the brightest pupils. I always end up shouting at the radio when I hear people comparing grammar schools with comprehensive. You have to compare grammar/technical high/secondary mod against a comprehensive to get a true picture.
My own kids went to the local comprehensive and did much better than I did at school. They also enjoyed their time there and both went on to university. My daughter is now a university lecturer and just started a Ph.D.
The main shift to comprehensives happened in the 70s under both Labour and Conservative. You can't see any change in the decrease in the number of grammars in the shift from Wilson to Heath in 1970, and in fact the decline of grammar numbers increased in 1973. Thatcher was education secretary from 1970 to 1974.
Feet dragging preserved the Kent grammars, not any change on government.
I've been watching "Suits", which is entertaining, surprisingly so since I should feel like knocking all teeth out of half the cast all the time. And in the legal firm where it's set they start by saying "We only hire from Harvard". There's a lot of that around in Britain. There's a lot There Are Only Two Universities In The World.
When major_clanger tried to find somewhere to do his pupillage he very much came against the "I didn't go to either of the Only Two Universities That Exists" attitude. So it might not be snobbishness on the part of your in-laws - it really is a question of it's either Oxbridge or you're second class.
Sorry - I didn't mean to knock the comprehensives, it's the system I came through basically, because at least until middle school level that's all we have in Italy and it served me really well.
In fact the point I wanted to make was that social mobility for a selected few is not the same as general degree of social mobility in society. And that, moreover, that is not the only metric that mattered. I don't think a violently unequal society is a good thing as long as everybody has an opportunity to join the very few who can live happy and fulfilled lives and the rest can drudge their years away in misery and hardship.
The problem with the grammar system was that the exam wasn't a level playing field. Children from more middle class backgrounds with more motivated parents tended to do better than brighter working class children who has less support at home and less access to the things that make learning easy (like books, and privacy and interest from adults). Schools decided who was fit to take the 11+, too, and would refuse to let some children sit it. This was supposed to be based on ability, but was often based on prejudice about a child's background. And the grammar schools weren't completely free. Uniforms were expensive, and while there were hand-down schemes, children rapidly found out who had 2nd-hand clothes and often tormented them for it. As did staff, in some instances. The grammars could be and did discriminate amongst pupils on grounds of class in how children were treated.
And then... Not every child develops at the same speed, and there is no good reason to pick 11 as a cut-off. Boys, in particular, often fail at this age and succeed later. My head of dept was rejected at the 11+ and set to a 2ndary Modern. He managed to get to university, went on to do a PhD, to become an academic who has made major contributions to his field.
Most of those who talk up the grammar system come from very privileged backgrounds. As do those who put down comprehensives. There have always been 'bad schools' under every system. And the majority of comprehensives are good. Indeed, many are excellent, far better than most private schools.
Posts like this erase people like me. In my head, anyway -- I know you didn't mean it that way.
Reply
Reply
Reply
When I worked for the Department of Education and Science in the early 1970s, the then Labour government were pressurising all councils to go comprehensive. I may be wrong, but I think Kent is the only totally selective county left, unless some reverted later. Kent dragged its feet at the time, praying for a change in government, which it got.
So most of the people praising grammar schools are harking back to a Golden Age that never existed, but I suspect that it's only people over the age of 50. They also conveniently forget that grammar schools creamed off the brightest pupils. I always end up shouting at the radio when I hear people comparing grammar schools with comprehensive. You have to compare grammar/technical high/secondary mod against a comprehensive to get a true picture.
My own kids went to the local comprehensive and did much better than I did at school. They also enjoyed their time there and both went on to university. My daughter is now a university lecturer and just started a Ph.D.
Reply
Reply
Feet dragging preserved the Kent grammars, not any change on government.
(You can see the figures for this here.)
Reply
When major_clanger tried to find somewhere to do his pupillage he very much came against the "I didn't go to either of the Only Two Universities That Exists" attitude. So it might not be snobbishness on the part of your in-laws - it really is a question of it's either Oxbridge or you're second class.
Reply
In fact the point I wanted to make was that social mobility for a selected few is not the same as general degree of social mobility in society. And that, moreover, that is not the only metric that mattered. I don't think a violently unequal society is a good thing as long as everybody has an opportunity to join the very few who can live happy and fulfilled lives and the rest can drudge their years away in misery and hardship.
Reply
And yes, that's an excellent point, and I agree with you.
Reply
Leave a comment