Grammar schools shouldn’t be blamed for the failure of Secondary Moderns

As a Socialist, who benefitted from a Grammar School education and the taught Physics in a Comprehensive, I would like to see a return to Tertiary Education.
Grammar schools prepare pupils, who have the ability, to go on to career’s in the profession’s. Providing they are not seen as a sort of State sponsored Public School, where the children of the rich can be given an unfair advantage, I see nothing wrong with this intention. It is, in fact, to the benefit of the Nation as a whole.
Of course, there are late developer’s and there are the precocious, who will be failed by the system but that is unavoidable in life generally. At the time that the system ended, there were attempts to cater for late developers, such as the 13+ and State funded night schools. Such schemes helped in many cases.
Other’s, who had ability but were less bookish went on to technical college and provided the nation with the electricians, plumbers and other artisans and artists, whom we now see a shortage of.
60% of pupils went to Secondary Modern Schools, where, we were told, they were “dumped” together. I disagree. There may have been some middle class kids, forced to mingle with those from council estates, but most were given a basic education, which enabled them to earn a living. They were no worse off than they are now, in a modern Comprehensive. In some ways they were better off.
Generally, teacher’s will try to protect and nurture the most talented in their care.
In a modern Comprehensive, that will be those who would have passed the 11+. In the old Secondary Modern it would be the best of the rest.
In a Modern Comprehensive, the intention is to try and give all pupils the equivalent of a Grammar school education but without the Latin.
But who does it benefit, to force pupils to try and cope with subjects and topics, beyond their range.
Pupils, who can’t understand why “should of” is bad English, will always struggle with conversational French and German.
Pupils, who struggle with decimals and fractions are never going to get Trignometry, or Algebra, or any of the hard Sciences.
You can’t make those subjects “fun” for those whose talents may lie elsewhere.
You create resentment in those, who are made to see themselves as failure’s and you fail those who could have benefitted from a stronger pace.
The failure wasn’t in Grammars, or technical schools; it was in Secondary moderns not being geared to cater for those with creative skills, those with physical prowess, musical abilities etc., preferably with separate school sites to accomodate them.As a Socialist, who benefitted from a Grammar School education and the taught Physics in a Comprehensive, I would like to see a return to Tertiary Education.
Grammar schools prepare pupils, who have the ability, to go on to career’s in the profession’s. Providing they are not seen as a sort of State sponsored Public School, where the children of the rich can be given an unfair advantage, I see nothing wrong with this intention. It is, in fact, to the benefit of the Nation as a whole.
Of course, there are late developer’s and there are the precocious, who will be failed by the system but that is unavoidable in life generally. At the time that the system ended, there were attempts to cater for late developers, such as the 13+ and State funded night schools. Such schemes helped in many cases.
Other’s, who had ability but were less bookish went on to technical college and provided the nation with the electricians, plumbers and other artisans and artists, whom we now see a shortage of.
60% of pupils went to Secondary Modern Schools, where, we were told, they were “dumped” together. I disagree. There may have been some middle class kids, forced to mingle with those from council estates, but most were given a basic education, which enabled them to earn a living. They were no worse off than they are now, in a modern Comprehensive. In some ways they were better off.
Generally, teacher’s will try to protect and nurture the most talented in their care.
In a modern Comprehensive, that will be those who would have passed the 11+. In the old Secondary Modern it would be the best of the rest.
In a Modern Comprehensive, the intention is to try and give all pupils the equivalent of a Grammar school education but without the Latin.
But who does it benefit, to force pupils to try and cope with subjects and topics, beyond their range.
Pupils, who can’t understand why “should of” is bad English, will always struggle with conversational French and German.
Pupils, who struggle with decimals and fractions are never going to get Trignometry, or Algebra, or any of the hard Sciences.
You can’t make those subjects “fun” for those whose talents may lie elsewhere.
You create resentment in those, who are made to see themselves as failure’s and you fail those who could have benefitted from a stronger pace.
The failure wasn’t in Grammars, or technical schools; it was in Secondary moderns not being geared to cater for those with creative skills, those with physical prowess, musical abilities etc., preferably with separate school sites to accomodate them.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: