Protest against Austerity Sheffield 8th July

[Eater Sundae 12]

I strongly disagree.

No one was abandoned.

Not all those that went to grammar school could automatically get on very well. Remember many who went to grammar school came from working class families and lived on council estates.

Those who failed the 11 plus could try for the technical school at 13 years of age.

Don't forget that a grammar school pupil left at 16 years old unless going into the 6th form this left them too old to get an apprenticeship in many cases.

 

I agree. IMO, Grammar schools provided a great opportunity for upward mobility for those from poorer deprived background.

 

I am old enough to have gone to grammar school, and went through the system to university. it worked for me.

 

One of my brothers failed the 11 plus, and went on to technical school at 13. He did OK for himself through that route, despit entering an industry that later died out and having to retrain in later life. He also got himself to University, but later in life through a longer route. He wasn't stopped by failing the 11 plus. My other brother passed the 11 plus, but hated Grammer school and left as soon as he could. He has done very well for himself, in business terms, I would say despite going to Grammar school.

 

Now grammar schools have gone, I'm concerned that some people remain in their local deprived area, because they don't see a way out.

 

I'm lucky (because I earn enough) to live in a "good" area, so my daughter goes to a successful school and mixes with the children of successful, aspirational parents. (I didn't know there were so many doctors and teachers in Sheffield until I started meeting the parents of my daughter's friends - an exaggeration, but you get the drift). She has opportunities because of this environment that a lot of other children don't have, IMO.

 

Looking back, we lived in a poor area when we were young. My dad was a skilled worker but never earned a great deal. (As soon as I started work, after graduating, I earned more than my dad). My mother worked between having kids, full time once the last (me) started at school. They worked hard (as did most parents) with very little to show for it, but they did see education as the "way out" of poverty. At that time, the 11 plus was seen as one such opportunity, but you needn't be on the scrap heap if you failed.

[truman 10]

The Grammar School system confined a huge majority of kids that didn't get the 'right' mark at the age of 11 to an appalling education in a Secondary Modern.

 

My brother failed the 11plus and went to a secondary modern ..he's just retired from his job as an electrical technical director at a huge mine in Canada...not bad for an "appalling education"..

[RickyM 10]

My brother failed the 11plus and went to a secondary modern ..he's just retired from his job as an electrical technical director at a huge mine in Canada...not bad for an "appalling education"..

 

He was just one of the lucky ones. A huge majority of kids in Secondary Moderns were abandoned as they were seen a waste of time and money.

 

I'm pleased your brother found a way around the failing system society burdened him with.

[truman 10]

He was just one of the lucky ones. A huge majority of kids in Secondary Moderns were abandoned as they were seen a waste of time and money.

 

I'm pleased your brother found a way around the failing system society burdened him with.

 

Do you reckon all the grammar school kids did well?

[RickyM 10]

Do you reckon all the grammar school kids did well?

 

I don't reckon that. The kids that got to Grammar School are likely ones that did well aged 11 and then decided, or their home circumstances changed later, that they couldn't be bothered with school or were unable to cope owing to personal reasons.

[donuticus 10]

Very few working class people 'make it' to the top because they aren't in 'the club' like their middle class counterparts. Middle class kids have parents that know other parents that work in professions like Law and Accounting and so they can arrange placements. They can also afford to provide their children with funds to live on - working class parents do not have these luxuries.

 

It's always a lot easier to blame others for the decisions you made. Take a look back through your life the only thing that has been a constant is yourself. You're where you are because of the life choices YOU have made. No one else.

[truman 10]

I don't reckon that. The kids that got to Grammar School are likely ones that did well aged 11 and then decided, or their home circumstances changed later, that they couldn't be bothered with school or were unable to cope owing to personal reasons.

 

So maybe then there's little difference in outcome between some grammar school kids and some secondary modern?

[RickyM 10]

So maybe then there's little difference in outcome between some grammar school kids and some secondary modern?

 

Clearly it's about proportion.

 

A majority of Grammar School pupils will 'make it' whereas a majority of Secondary School pupils will not.

[truman 10]

Clearly it's about proportion.

 

A majority of Grammar School pupils will 'make it' whereas a majority of Secondary School pupils will not.

 

Boring question I know but where's the proof? and can you define "make it"?

[RickyM 10]

It's always a lot easier to blame others for the decisions you made. Take a look back through your life the only thing that has been a constant is yourself. You're where you are because of the life choices YOU have made. No one else.

 

It's not about blaming successful people - it's about challenging the barriers to inequality so that all people have an equal start in life and that the post code your parents live in doesn't determine a person's future career and health prospects.

 

---------- Post added 02-07-2015 at 15:07 ----------

 

Boring question I know but where's the proof? and can you define "make it"?

 

I suppose the best way of defining it is using the government's formula for defining the average income - so roughly £25,000 a year before tax deductions.

Edited July 2, 2015 by RickyM

[truman 10]

It's not about blaming successful people - it's about challenging the barriers to inequality so that all people have an equal start in life and that the post code your parents live in doesn't determine a person's future career and health prospects.

 

---------- Post added 02-07-2015 at 15:07 ----------

 

 

I suppose the best way of defining it is using the government's formula for defining the average income - so roughly £25,000 a year before tax deductions.

 

Until most of the grammar schools were closed a person's post code didn't come into it 'cos all areas had one.. So "making it" is just about money? Do you reckon that kids who wouldn't have gone to grammar have faired better in comprehensives than they otherwise would have done?

[DnAuK 10]

Boring question I know but where's the proof? and can you define "make it"?

 

I don't know if you could call it 'proof' but here is some evidence that your school and background do make a difference...

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/poshness-test-is-the-new-glass-ceiling-lack-of-wealthy-background-denies-workingclass-people-top-jobs-says-research-10319541.html