I don't tend to get drawn into long conversations on here, mate. It could have been a short exchange but you seem to have strong views that I was interested to hear more about.
Anyway, I'm having a pint now and waiting for a mate, so that's it from me. For today at least
So-called 'mass migration' had nothing to do with falling standards of living - that was sparked by economic recession that began in 1990 and evolved into the dot-com bubble that burst in 2000. The bursting of that bubble led to a flood of money into the property bubble which crashed in late 2007.
Grammar schools were never a driver for social mobility - they were a mechanism to keep the middle and upper classes aloof from working class kids.
That's possibly a cynical interpretation, but it's certainly the case that they do nothing overall to help social mobility, regardless of any number of individual cases of working class kids going to them before going on to "better" things.
were they no working class kids that went to grammar schools ? Surely there must have been .
Tosh. Red brick universities were being built by Labour in the 60s to accommodate those getting qualifications at grammar schools.
Oh dear. Each to their own... oh, hang on, there were shedloads of working class kids at my grammar school.
There is a little misunderstanding of my comment on this - and it is my fault for not being specific enough - the purpose of the grammar school system as it was established in the 1940s was to keep education divided along class lines - with working class kids attending the grammar schools and the toffs attending the public schools - rather than scrapping the public school system and the implementation of a universal education system free to all at the point of delivery. Furthermore - the grammar schools were designed to reinforce the existing nature of education - the production line approach, based on the model of the industrial revolution with an over-arching emphasis on academic subjects. While it contributed significantly to increased educational attainment by working class kids - it was never designed for, nor did it secure, social mobility. Of course the Blairites threw any advantages that do accrue to working class kids into significant reverse by their ideological charge of changing education into a structure based on 'academies' - effectively the privatisation of education.
It worked for me.
And my family too. My cousin went to HCGB and ended up boss of his own company. My own parents, separated, lived in council property all their lives, but I bought my own house. My daughter went to university and my son is in charge of several fire stations.
Yep. And there were no 'class gangs' at HGSB when I was there 69-76. It was stage-one of my emancipation from working class cap-doffery. I have been enriched by mixing with people culturally and financially richer than moi. An important part of my escape from what would have been for me, autistic, a miserable life.
Plenty of people who went to secondary moderns or comprehensives could tell very similar stories.
Comprehensive schools were progressive as pupils could be streamed within the schools, ie good at maths & science, A stream, not so good at languages D stream, but all in the same school. At least that’s how it was for my kids.
I agree which is why I agree with comprehensive schools as explained above.
I always get slightly irritated when any conversation about grammars gets railed down the "I went to one and then I was the first in my family to go to uni so they worked" route.
Once the 'secondary modern' stigma was walked beyond it was clover. And then whether the school was good or not was determined by other means.
