To ask what exactly is wrong with a '1950 s ' style education .

[mountford100]

I have just come across a thread on the Secondary Education board that suggests a couple of grammar schools are like travelling back to the 1950 s !

Does that mean they expect pupils to behave (not answer back) , work to their best of the ability do their homework, wear correct uniform at all times.
A school that has little or no time for a child seeking excuses as to why they can not abide with basic rules.

Why does there has to be a mitigating reason as why a child misbehaves other than just bad behaviour.

I am extremely grateful i was educated in a grammar school operating with many 1950 s principles (this is despite being near the bottom of the year) .

[makeourfuture]

If you look at somewhere were there is massive inequality between the very rich and the very poor and there is a large group in the middle just getting by then you can expect poor health, lower educational attainment and high crime levels

Truth.

[OldWitch00]

Doubt there are too many 75 yr old managers out there.
Like everything there was good and bad and education has evolved for the better of most.

[Minidoghugs]

Don't worry OP I think we are heading back that way.

[mountford100]

owever, if i had attended a 1980 s Comprehensive i think i would have left without even having one GCSE pass to my name !
And yet my 1980s comprehensive attending son managed to become a bank manager, and his brother has a Phd in Literature. Both diagnosed with an ASC. Dd, also Autistic, currently doing her first degree in Lit.
Oh, then there's me: A 1970s comprehensive attending pupil, also with an ASC. My title is Doctor.

Gilead. Your family has obviously done very well !

[mountford100]

The very thought of going to a 1500 or so mixed Comprehensive ( ok a Modern in my area )but you get the point made me cry at night at 11 !

My primary school head teacher was gobsmacked that i passed the 11+ ( my two elder sisters were not). The school had informed my mother that i was likely to be in the bottom sets of the catchment secondary school . The secondary school that i was 'supposed' to go to had at the beginning of year 6 arranged an 'outward' bound for next years 1st year pupils. The school had already pigeon holed me of being better catered for in its 'annexe' for children with different talents !
Why do posters believe Comprehensives school to be some kind of nirvana especially in the 1980 s. My outcome in that school would have been dreadful...

[thecatfromjapan]

OldeWitch200 Are you in Canada? I've met some Canadian teachers and they are so chilled. What are the main differences between education in Canada and the UK?

(I'm aware that's a bit of a thread de-rail. )

[Floisme]

Why are we talking about grammar schools as if they were a typical 1950s education? Most children went to secondary modern schools and left at 15.

[eddiemairswife]

As I said before, I was at school in the 50s. We didn't learn by rote; we were taught to reason, to construct an essay, to carry out scientific experiments. We didn't copy work from the board, but were expected to make our own notes. Perhaps London was more advanced than the rest of the country!

[Ifearthecold]

Ironically OP I came on to to the post to say that as a dyslexic I have always been very grateful that I was educated in a time where I was able to have my writing and spelling discounted. From my df views on his education those with learning difficulties had a horrid time and he had no learning issues at all, he just watched how others were hit repeatedly for failing to spell or learn time tables. My MIL went to a secondary modern school and they really don't sound great and that was where most DC ended up.

[thecatfromjapan]

Floisme I think that is what I find the most frustrating thing about these threads.

[mountford100]

I think i need to make it clear i am not saying Grammar schools are per se better than Comprehensive schools.

[Gilead]

Gilead. Your family has obviously done very well!
Why on earth wouldn't we? Comprehensive Education? The fact that my father was a GP who also wrote government policy? The fact that my mother was a policy maker? Your views on people and education are both erroneous and outdated.

[Gilead]

Oh, and you cannot say that you would have fared badly in a Comprehensive, only differently. There were good teachers at my school and bad. There have been good teachers and bad throughout my years of involvement in education, which are many.

[Gilead]

One final point. I did start out at a Grammar, I was bullied. Badly. Hence the move to the local comp. I'm still friends with some of my year, forty years down the line.

[fatweddingguest]

1950s education...where most women were trained for no more than to join the typing pool, actively discouraged from taking exams or staying on at school because their future was office or shop work for a few years then marriage and babies.

My mum and all her siblings passed their 11 plus.

None of them went to grammar school because the fancy uniforms were too expensive for a family of 8.

That's the reality of the 1950s.

[thecatfromjapan]

I know, Mountford, but the thing is, '1950s-style education' was all about separating children into groups. The 'style' of education relied on that separation. People always forget that the academic success of some grammar school children (and it was only some - because for every grammar school like eddiemair's there were plenty that were only aiming to turn out candidates for teacher training colleges and bank tellers) was down to selection not teaching methods.

The teaching methods you can employ with academically selected children, with all SENDs weeded out, is not really suitable for most children. It's arguable that it was a style not suitable for any children.

And, as eddiemair's post also makes clear, there were grammar schools and grammar schools and teaching was not uniform across them. Some grammar schools were fee-paying, with a couple of LEA-funded scholarship places, some were a lot more rough and ready, free, with lower aspirations, and less aspirational teaching.

And, of course, the majority of schools were not grammar schools at all. And people really don't think about that - and their style of teaching, at all when they go on about '50s style teaching' and its supposedly great results for children.

[tehmina23]

My dad went to a sec modern in 1950s. He remembers being hit on the back of his hand with the edge (not the flat) of a ruler by the teacher, also other boys being hit in the head with hard board rubbers.

He left at 15 without qualifications but got a car mechanic job with day release at college, he enjoyed his job & met my mum at 17.

The harsh physical punishments that the boys and girls endured were pointless because they still misbehaved in the classes despite the consequences!!

[tehmina23]

Sorry did my maths wrong dad would've been at the sec modern 1958 - 1964

[tehmina23]

Oh yes and dad was deaf - his mother & teachers all ignored the problem & he sat at the back of classes with his mates so rarely heard what was going on

[BoneyBackJefferson]

DunkMeInTomatoSoup

you say that people are being to literal. But you can't state that 1950s education was better without looking at all of the picture.

[Peregrina]

vuques - Did we go to the same girls grammar? We were expected to aim low, and needless to say, the teaching staff were not disappointed. 5 O levels were enough to get into teacher training college, which was the highest we were expected to aspire to. Occasionally a really bright girl might be encouraged to try for university. In the seven years I was there no one got into Cambridge, and I don't think anyone had ever been to Oxford in the school's history. There were some good teachers, but about half were mediocrities but alternative jobs weren't available - it was teaching, nursing or secretarial work.

As a Comprehensive, it's a thousand times better.

[OldWitch00]

thecatfromjapan
I think the knowledge that you can attend college at any time, transfer from college to university easily, takes off tons of performance pressure. lots of opportunity to upgrade even onsite at uni's.
there are still a few industrial centers which pay excellent wages for those with less options. but the severely disadvantaged still have many barriers.

[thecatfromjapan]

That sounds great, Oldwitch . And it seems to work, too.

[mountford100]

vuques - Did we go to the same girls grammar? We were expected to aim low, and needless to say, the teaching staff were not disappointed. 5 O levels were enough to get into teacher training college, which was the highest we were expected to aspire to. Occasionally a really bright girl might be encouraged to try for university. In the seven years I was there no one got into Cambridge, and I don't think anyone had ever been to Oxford in the school's history. There were some good teachers, but about half were mediocrities but alternative jobs weren't available - it was teaching, nursing or secretarial work.

As a Comprehensive, it's a thousand times better.

What were the Comprehensive schools of the same era aiming for !
I love to know what the career officers/teachers advised 16 year school leavers with no O levels to aim for after leaving school.

Would you have rather been told its the 'factory' or the 'Labour Exchange' the options for many pupils.

The point being though you may think being advised to apply for teacher training college was 'aiming low' . Compared to the careers advice given to many comprehensive/modern school pupils of the time it was a 1000 times more aspirational !

[GirlInterruptedOftenByKids]

Slightly OT but my Year 4 child is spending his homework time looking up words in a paper dictionary and practising handwriting. How about that for obsolete 1950s skills? Which 21st century child is ever gonna use a dictionary? ? Let alone words like "adumbrate" and "brocade"??

He's also being taught "-ed starters" so he can craft sentences like "Excited, she ran to school". Who writes like that? ?

This curriculum drives me nuts...