Talk:Secondary modern school

Merger Request

I agree emphatically, there is no need for this article and another with a different capatilisation. Davidkinnen 18:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Go ahead and merge. Shropshire Lad 19:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Article Replacement

Previous debates on old article removed.

My apologies to anyone who feels I have overstepped my mark by replacing the old article. I felt that it made sense in the light of the widespread changes currently being introduced on the Tripartite System as a whole. I would take no offense if anyone were to take sections of previous editions and reintroduce them- I have only implemented a full change to ensure the text scans, and have done my best to include all information mentioned before. --Evil Capitalist 21:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

A few corrections I will make later - as there are still Secondary Modern schools today - in those LEA's that still have the 11+ and selective education. Davidkinnen 07:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't think they still went by the same name- there are about 250 schools that the government classifies as 'Secondary Modern', but I couldn't find evidence of a single one that still actually went by that name. As such, I thought the last paragraph covered modern usage. Looking at it, however, I can see that it could do with being in a good deal more detail. --Evil Capitalist 09:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Certificate of Secondary Education

This article says that secondary moderns prepared their students for the CSE, but the Certificate of Secondary Education article says it was introduced in 1965, so it was presumably only used in the final years. Kanguole (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. CSE were prepared as exams that could be taken at Secondary Modern Schools, but only one grade was equivalent to an O level. They were phased out when it was accepted just how unfair this comparison was. Many local authorities prevaricated in implementing Circular 11/66 and 10/68, in Kent and Medway, 75% of all non Catholic children still go to secondary modern school. The government choice agenda means it is legally impossible to rectify this, as Lord Adonis has found to his cost. So it is only correct to say that CSE were taken, for a brief period 23 year period in the life of a Kent Secondary Modern school- finishing 20 years ago with the introduction of the GCSE.

Medway has one streamed Comprehensive school, one heavily streamed Catholic comprehensive, one bi-lateral school, 10 secondary moderns, 5 selective state schools and two private schools.

ClemRutter (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, they were used for a considerable time in the areas that resisted, but the sentence in question seems to be describing typical secondary moderns in the heyday of the tripartite system. So it is misleading. Kanguole (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

And of course CSE's were taught and examined in grammar schools. I attended Calday Grange Grammar School (which still exists and is still a grammar school) 1979-1986 and a significant proportion of pupils took at least one CSE. Even in my class (top stream, top sets) some pupils took CSE's in subject they found very taxing. Contrariwise, when I did teaching practice in a secondary modern in Wirral (which still exists) the 6th form was small but there were certainly a reasonable number of children taking A-levels, so many of these remarks may reflect much older history but are no contemporary. When I was teaching secondary moderns in wirral tended to perform very well on educational league tables and there was no evidence that I could see of their being poorly resourced (which tended to be a political/sub-district phenomenon). Whether or not its a "good thing" (and who knows) the article doesn't perhaps tell the whole story. Francis Davey (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact I have a CSE(i) in French as well as an A grade at O-level because we were trialing the 16+ examination 8-). Francis Davey (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just highlighted (in the topic below) that maybe this article would benefit from being reorganised into the different periods in the history of secondary moderns which would help retain the historical accuracy but not make statements which are false in regard to the different eras. So there could be a subheading covering their launch and initial intentions, a second subheading covering their development as the new qualifications were introduced (O-levels, CSEs, etc) and the influence of the transition to the comprehensive system and finally a subheading covering the situation of secondary moderns today. Marlarkey (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is also wrong in implying that grammar schools taught GCEs for the whole period from whan the 1944 Act took force until GCSEs were introduced. In fact GCEs did not appear until 1951. Before then England had School Certificates (which required 5 years of study) and Higher School Certificates (requiring another year). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.125.188 (talk) 08:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Biased article

This article is very biased and gives a false view of secondary moderns. They were simply mainstream schools. The idea that they were some sort of Dickensian nightmare given here, is just a modern (mainly leftwing) delusion.

FOR EXAMPLE: "Those who were thought unsuitable for either an academic curriculum or a technical one, were to be sent to the secondary modern, where they would receive training in simple, practical skills. Education here was to focus on training in basic subjects such as arithmetic, mechanical skills such as woodworking and domestic skills, such as cookery."

This is nonsense. They were just mainstream schools. Children studied for their 'O' and 'A' levels like everywhere else.

"In an age before the advent of the National Curriculum, the specific subjects taught were chosen by the individual school. " That's misleading. There was a normal standard education/curriculum for all state schools in Britain. 212.219.249.5 (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. Your comments don't reflect the situation in 1944 when secondary moderns were set up and up to the 1960s. In 1944 secondary moderns were the alternative to grammar schools. Grammar schools were for the academically inclined and secondary moderns were for the rest, see Education Act 1944. On the QCA's own web site (http://www.qcda.gov.uk/6210.aspx) they describe how O-levels were introduced in 1951 but were taken by only about 20% of pupils, mostly at grammar and independent schools and in secondary modern schools "the opportunity to take public examinations was rarely available. In the '50s and early 60s', most young people therefore left school with no formal qualifications." So before the 1960s secondary moderns were the mainstream schools that most pupils attended but they did NOT gain qualifications "like everyone else".

Therefore the description of secondary moderns given in the opening paragraphs is an accurate description of the historical perspective of what secondary moderns were set up to be. The article should not lose that historical accuracy.

However the situation from 1960s to today is different. During the 1960s CSEs were launched and they were studied and gained by pupils at secondary moderns but also more and more areas abolished secondary moderns and launched comprehensive schools. As we getting nearer to today we find that secondary moderns have become more and more like comprehensive school ("mainstream" ?) in terms of the opportunities they seek to offer to their pupils.

So what could be helpful in this article is to reorganise it into three subtopics - the first covering their launch, the second covering their historical development and third covering secondary moderns today. Marlarkey (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I was initially tempted to dismiss this intervention as politic rhetoric, but looking at the article it is in sore need of references and it is understandable that a a general reader may be frustrated at not being to verify this concise accurate statement about the Tripartite system. Life in a secondary modern school. by John Partridge. Published in 1968, Penguin (Harmondsworth) is a text that needs to be studied as it is referred to in all subsequent papers.

The current article, unlike the Tripartite System, is not separated into sections. That must be done, but the ones suggested above are not the way to go. No mention is made in the article of RoSLA. No mention is made of the childs experience, the architecture of the buildings the restricted curriculum, there are no statistics or demographics anywhere in the article. No mention of the financial restraints preventing authorities from reorganising and no acknowledgement of superior teaching skills and reduced esteem given to teachers who worked in these schools. Yes a lot needs to be done.

Previous editors have often suppressed their professional judgement and deeply held convictions to ensure that the article could not be considered biased. So lets improve the article in the ways I have indicated- but by using corrected referenced text not some tosh overheard at in a wine bar. --ClemRutter (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually that is a good point. This article could be transformed into a more analytical piece outlining each of the different aspects mentioned as well as describing the historical emergence and development of this type of school. And it could include a section on the controversies relating to secondary moderns like many articles covering contentious topics do. Marlarkey (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of points here- this article is really tied to Tripartite system and there already is a heavily tagged article on the politics of selection. All these articles need a lot of time spent on them, a good overview is given in [1] where many source documents can be found in full for instance Hadlow reports. While trawling for the correct infobox to use- I kept scanning many education related articles -each had days of copy editing to do. For instance Gymnasium does not use students ages but Americanisms such as Grade School, K-13, Freshman (I presume that is distinct from one that has been deep frozen, and microwaved before serving). The Grammar School article does not mention Maths Schools- and seems to be slanted towards a Headmaster Conference angle. If you wish to tackle a subject of such complexity, I suggest you start by looking at the articles I have mentioned and check their references for veracity. If the Tripartite system is beefed up, I think that this article will become do-able, Then as best practice draft up a new version in your sandbox and invite comment there.--ClemRutter (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It's perhaps a large topic. But still, I went to one in 1969 and, as I say, anyone from that era will be shocked at the false picture painted of the subject - and that's not encyclopedic. People on University Challenge haven't a clue sometimes about things that were standard first year knowledge in my day. And that point applies to society in general. I went later to a supposedly superior posh school and academically and in every way it was inferior to the sec. mod. We studied Vaughan Williams's works in first year just as one example.

Sec. mods. were just mainstream schools and people definitely did go there to work towards their ')'and 'A' levels, the same as anywhere else. They were mainstream education with grammars for the posh kids. I re-iterate my point about the curricula too. The article shouldn't push the standard Blair, leftwing anti-the people view that is the establishment view today. It should be non-POV. 212.219.249.5 (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

1969 was fairly late on in the history of secondary moderns. By then they were very different from what they were like in 1944. Marlarkey (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we should leave it at that. All that needs to said has been said.--ClemRutter (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Answering malarky: Can you tell me when they finished then. How long must something last before it should be excluded from a wkip article? Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't understand what you're getting at ? When they finished what ? As pointed out earlier there are various ways of looking at the subject of secondary moderns which could be covered in this article. One should not get a description of the historical origins of secondary moderns mixed up with a description of secondary moderns today. Especially if this article is going to maintain non-POV. Someone referred to what secondary moderns were like in 1969, what I was pointing out was that what they were like in 1969 was totally different from what they were like in 1944. Marlarkey (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Answering clemrutter: Do u mean the discussion or the article is finished? It says above "This article is related to WikiProject Schools, an attempt to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.

Start 	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Mid 	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been marked as needing an infobox." so somebody else including me must not think no more can be added. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

To clarify- I was suggesting we close the debate with the ip-user, as it is not going to reach a conclusion. Assuming a television trivia show is more than a little fun, and bringing in the names of politicians, who incidently were educated privately- is deflecting the issue. Close that debate.

• In 1972, colleges of Education ran courses titled 'Systems of Education' which prepared trainee teachers for the rolling change known as comprehensivisation that was already being rolled out on certain counties- I think Cambridgeshire was one of the first. The age of secondary school transfer was also being debated, with colleges traning up Middle School teachers among others- the Cert Ed, qualification was being deprecated as it was assumed that this would be inadequate to teach exam classes (Ó level) rather than CSE. Certain schools were already gearing up their Secondary Modern schools to make a seamless transfer and advertising posts- stating sixth form work would soon be available for suitable qualified candidates and taking students. This was a time of transition.

I am not against giving the article a good shaking- and have proposed that someone set it (or them) up in a sandbox. Tasks

• Set up a new article in a sandbox.
• Write a new Infobox Education systems.I can't find a suitable infobox for articles that are about a system of Education rather than a specific school.
• Read thoroughly the references this and all the others I have mentioned above
• Search for more statistics etc.
• Draft a structure

One further question was raised above. When did the last secondary modern school finish? The haven't. They still exist in Kent, Medway, Lincolnshire and I believe Cheshire where they are euphemistically called High Schools staffed by teachers of the highest quality who are castigated for not achieving identical results to school having the full ability intake.

And they still exist in Buckinghamshire where they are known as community schools. Marlarkey (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree about the castigation. Certainly in Wirral that was not the case. As I said before, secondary moderns performed pretty well in league tables. When I taught at one I was impressed at how highly the students performed and I think that was a general view. In the year before I started there, some secondary moderns outperformed some with the full ability intake, so they are not going to be castigated for failing to do so 8-). Obviously things change. There were times when the 11+ separated out a small proportion to attend grammar school, whereas at other times much higher proportions attended (in my school cohort it was 40% attending grammar school). The split point when I was starting to teach was around IQ 107.5 (iirc). I fully support any attempt to make this article reflect different periods in the development of the tripartite system. Francis Davey (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I am away from my reference books until Wednesday.

--ClemRutter (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Biased article 2

(The above is now very long to read on a screen - and so I'm starting this subsection for any further discussion of this point.)

I've just re-read the article and I still say the same. Someone coming to it with no knowledge - say a kid at school researching this matter - will get a wholly false view of Sec. Mod. schools. And anyone who attended them - at least in later years - will be offended by the false Dickensian depiction of them. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

While I am not opposed to the article reflecting the way secondary modern schools have evolved and the educational opportunities they have provided in more recent years, I feel it is vital that it does not lose sight of the situation as it was when the majority of the population passed through them. I left a secondary modern in 1969 with CSEs though, even then, the 5th year in which CSEs were taken was optional and the majority of my contemporaries left in mid 1968 (at the end of the 4th form) having had no opportunity to sit for qualifications of any sort. I believe only two of us went on to university (via 'O' and 'A' levels taken at a technical college). I eventually gained a PhD and a university lectureship so the system as a whole did not fail me. However, I am convinced that a number of my contemporaries - my intellectual equals or better - were educationally short-changed. Perhaps I can also throw some light on the degree to which the curriculum was locally decided: all boys at our SM were taught navigation, hardly a likely choice for a nationally chosen curriculum but entirely appropriate for a school, like ours, located in a fishing village.--ColinSMill (talk) 10:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

25% go to grammar school??

I had neard that the percentage of kids who went to grammar school was not fixed nationally but varied with local authority. 25% seems very high to me - I thought it was more like 10% in many places. 92.24.181.78 (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Correct the lead paragraph is very poorly written. For instance it uses the past tense while they are very much a reality in swathes of GB. If the lead were written better it would say that they were intended to cater for XX% but Local Authorities had the final discretion in those days. Before I would make any correction to this page, I would need to be surrounded by notable sources as each comma will be challenged.--ClemRutter (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be hardly any analytic content either in the article or the discussion page - this includes ignoring a flexibility of policy and practice.

There is research to suggest that when the pass rate for 11-Plus exceeded the places available in local grammar schools the pass mark was re-adjusted to a higher level in order to make sure a more manageable size was deemed to have passed the exam. Secondly, my secondary modern school offered 'O' Levels after which some pupils went on to a comprehensive school 6th form or FE college for their 'A' Level studies.There were many examples of 13-Plus also being offered to some students because either they were adjudged to be more suited for grammar schooling or it was felt that their 11-Plus performance must have been an off day for them. So please be a little more critical in your approach to the topic in hand.

I agree. Wirral's criteria (when I studied and taught there) was based on a particular point on the IQ/reading test scale which was varied on several occasions. In the late 90's (I thin) it was about 1 standard deviation. When I attended school a larger proportion were admitted to grammar schools for some reason, so my year was unusually big. Something like 1/3 attending a grammar school would not have been unusual at all at some periods of time in Wirral. Similarly pupils were moved between schools where they were found not to fit in; many pupils moved from one of our secondary moderns to our grammar school 6th form to study for A-levels and attend university. Nor, as I have said earlier, was the taking of exams or any other activity particularly stereotyped. In my O-level chemistry class we had students getting A grades but at least one taking a CSE because he struggled with O-level. Etc. Francis Davey (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Pass mark. I'm not certain there was an eleven plus pass mark in the accepted sense. As the number of children suitable for a grammar school education far exceeded the number of places available, children throughout the LEA were ranked in a kind of "league table" and the n highest scoring pupils across the LEA were offered the n available places. The number of children in each successive year cohort differed from year to year but the number of grammar places was fixed. So any pass mark would have to vary widely from year to year.

Dividing the topic chronologically

I strongly believe that, as has been suggested above, the article needs to be divided chronologically if it is to describe the secondary modern school over its entire existence (i.e. 1944 to the present day) This would allow many of the issues that are currently contentious to be resolved. There are a number of statements with highly time-dependent validity- for example "Secondary moderns prepared students for the CSE examination ..." which is untrue prior to the introduction of the CSE in 1965, partly true between 1965 and 1972 while the 5th year in which the CSE was examined remained optional, and true from 1973 until the CSE gave way to the GCSE in 1988.

The article does not even mention the significant dates in this sort of progression or give any statistics relating to them. For example, the proportion of secondary modern leavers with some sort of qualification was almost zero in 1944. By 1970 (when approximately 56% of all school leavers had some qualification) somewhat over 40% of secondary modern levers must have obtained some qualification. Given that only about 1% of today's school leavers are unqualified the qualification rate in secondary moderns probably continued to rise. In its current form it would be difficult to incorporate this sort of information without casting each statement with time-line related caveats and rendering the thing almost unreadable.

As an aside, there seem to have been a number of euphemisms used for secondary mods. even in their hay-day. Mine, for example was a "county secondary" and became a "community college". I'm sure this adds to the difficulty of properly allocating schools to this category.--ColinSMill (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Secondary modern schools today

The article currently states These schools may be known colloquially (though not officially) as high schools (Medway and Trafford), upper schools (Buckinghamshire) or simply all-ability. What other terms were used elsewhere and does anyone know what the official equivalent replacement term was/is? Do we have any refs for this? -- Trevj (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know there are no official terms at national level. Practice has always varied from one place to another. This is the same as with "grammar schools": some schools that used to be selective at 11, but are now comprehensive, still call themselves "grammar school", while others that are still selective are _not_ called "grammar school". Others with that name are in fact now independent and not part of the state system at all. So the name of the school does not necessarily mean anything. My recollection from the 1960s, when there were more of them than now, is that some, maybe most, secondary moderns did not call themselves that. In my own area they were just called "(Insert name of place) School". -- Alarics (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Message to new editor

Hi, I see you are being bold and attempting to edit Sec Mods- this is a difficult one as it is so politically charged. Words like evil and deceit are not allowed here- which limits the options! I have looked at this in the past and not had enough time to sort the article. Also I dont have enough of the books I need to give the references.

I am currently working up the Abraham Moss Learning Centre which similarly needed love and attention. But what is wrong with this piece. * Structure. * Content and * References. * Breadth and Perspective. It lacks all four, Look at AMC to see how each fact is referenced. Look at the {{sfn}} system (short foot note)

• Structure- I have made a couple of changes here that may help.
• Content- This is limited to one of the three strands of education: Building design, curriculum and financial constrictions. In Abraham Moss Learning Centre#References there is are two excellect sources both available on line

Peter Toft CDT piece answers the question- What do schools do-- teach the plebs to be compliant, teach the manual labourer to read/rite/and rithmetic but no more, provide the compliant bureaucrats ands clerks needed to work in a bank..... The English heritage book on school design in the last century is rich in insights and references.

• References- We don't write our views, but merely report other peoples views- so the rule of one reference for each paragraph and one for each WOW fact applies to all wikipedia writing. Particularly on politically charged topics.
• Breadth and Perspective- This article lacks statistics, there is nothing here explaining funding/ expansion and contraction due to that and declining birth rate. Further there are no design details to show the internal organistion or the DES space guidelines that governed them. ROSLA, ROSLA blocks... There are no details of the curriculum studied or CSE- CSE mode three- what it brought to the GCSE. No details of playing field requirement and the effect on town planning in new estates.

Here are the two starting point

• http://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/SDEC/article/download/1060/1027 Peter Toft The Social and Historical Constraints on Curriculum Development in CDT
• Franklin, Geraint (2012). England's Schools, A Thematic Study (PDF). Research Report Series. Vol. 33–2012. Taylor, Simon Whitfield. English Heritage. ISBN ISSN 2046-9799 (Print) ISSN 2046-9802 (Online). {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Unchallenged Criticism

I have transfered the unencycylopedic comments below, from a previous version of the article where they were inappropriate, to here -so they can be considered. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC) −

The Secondary Modern system has not been judged either fairly or objectively, nor too Grammar Schools for that matter. There is no data, so far as I am aware, that has attempted to quantify or measure the comparative outcomes for secondary modern and grammar school students relative to their respective potentials.

− In defense of secondary moderns it has to be remembered that the vast majority of teachers in secondary moderns were professionally qualified unlike the vast majority of teachers in grammar schools. A great many of the teachers who attended the two year emergency teacher training courses after world war two were those students who had themselves been deprived of a university education themselves by virtue of the war. These courses were demanding and challenging and reflected a renaissance in education and pedagogy shared amonst the country's schools of education in our universities. As well as the practice of education in trainee's particular subject specialism there was the study of the history, sociology and philosophy of education. Because so many grammar school staff passed directly from their degree studies into teaching they missed out on this all important training. Their practice was, in effect, to teach in the same way as they had been taught, whether it worked or not.

− There was a great deal of bad practice in grammar schools as there was good practice in secondary moderns. What each had in common, however, was streaming. Streaming in itself is a form of segregation, whether in a secondary modern or in a grammar and carries with it it's negative consequences of success v. failure.

− Anecdotal evidence suggests that as many pupils suffered the fate of not achieving their potential after a grammar school education as did those leaving after five years in a secondary modern.

−

Secondary moderns did offer academically able students routes to pursue their own paths both through the 13+ examination and or at post 16 studies. Typically secondary moderns offered CSE examinations in the fifth year withe option to take O levels in an optional sixth year.

A View from the Coalface

This article is very misleading. I was a "baby boomer" who found himself shunted off to a secondary modern in 1960, along with some very bright children, simply because there were so few grammar school places for us all. Selection for secondary modern education had little to do with ability, it was a product of rationing the very limited number of grammar places. Pupils within secondary moderns were streamed. In our school (in Surrey) the top stream all went on to take GCE O levels and had done for many years. The second stream took the Royal Society of Arts (RSA) school leaver exam, replaced by CSE in 1965. The school had a sixth form offering A levels and some pupils went on to university. Hardly the dumping ground for factory-fodder which this article suggests. I do agree, however, about the lack of encouragement to take A levels or progress beyond O levels. I bitterly regret the fact that no teacher invested so much as one minute of their time post-GCE to advise me on further education options. We were just left to leave and find a job.

That sounds as I understood the system operating in that period. The problem with this article is it presents a picture of a secondary modern school when in fact they operated very differently at different times and in different places. I taught for a while in a secondary modern and there were A-level students. By contrast, the grammar school I attended had a significant number of secondary modern students arrive in the 6th form to take A-levels (they were certainly not left behind) but this is a decades and a decade after your experience respectively. One significant factor was the proportion of children who attended grammar school (it varied widely). Another factor was investment in secondary modern schools. In some places they were underfunded "dump" schools. In others they were very well funded and great care was taken to give students a good education. Generalisations are therefore misleading. Francis Davey (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion the failure to realize the vision of the Butler Act stemmed from two factors: a. The reluctance of local authorities, for a variety of reasons, to build Technical Schools b. Failure to plan adequately for the post-war birth-rate spike. As I understand it, the intention of the 1944 Act was to provide academic, technical and general education school places in line with the ability-mix of the school population. There was intended to be a pyramid structure with around 20% of pupils receiving academic education, a further 30% receiving technical/scientific education and 50% receiving general education; broadly in line with the work-force which post-war industrial Britain would need. However, the “baby-boom” spike greatly increased the size of the pyramid without a corresponding increase in the number of grammar places. As a result there were enough grammar school places for only about 10% of the school-age population, and in the absence of the technical schools, around 90% of children were forced into the over-crowded and under-resourced secondary moderns. This included a very large number of children for whom a grammar school education would have been more appropriate. As a result, classes of 40+ were the norm in the early '60s. The secondary moderns’ response was to replicate the intentions of the Butler Act by creating their own pyramid structure through streaming children into academic, technical and general streams. Duncanharrington (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

---

Duncanharrington---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duncanharrington (talk • contribs) 16:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Parking a comment

I attended Glastonbury High a secondary modern school from 1977 to 1982. It was located on the St Helier estate in the London borough of Sutton. I must say it provided limited opportunities and had an academically low achieving curriculum. The school suffered from disorderly classrooms and frequent bouts of teacher issued corporal punishment which were used to restore order. Glastonbury high school closed in 1989. Edit by @Neil Tierney: Thank you it just got put in the wrong place. If you have any more opinions about St Helier estate or Glastonbury, or details of what happened to it, can you post them here or on my talk page @Alarics: I wish you had done what I have just done and TX to the talk page. These comments can provide useful clues when searching for references and building up the two articles I have flagged. Happy New Year- ClemRutter (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Secondary modern school. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110705051412/http://www.management.stir.ac.uk/research/economics/working-papers to http://www.management.stir.ac.uk/research/economics/working-papers
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041216005414/http://education.independent.co.uk/schools/story.jsp?story=371862 to http://education.independent.co.uk/schools/story.jsp?story=371862

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

History

Just cleaning up some errors in the uncited history section at the start.

I'm preparing the 1940s sub-article of Rab Butler's biog at the moment, so have been doing a fair bit of reading about this.

Specifically:

I'm not aware that the Fisher Act of 1918 had anything to do with setting up selection for the secondary level. It extended the school leaving age to 14, but most kids in state and voluntary (i.e. church) schools were educated from infancy through to 14 at that stage. Hiving off older kids into separate schools from the age of 11 was recommended by the Hadow Report of 1926 and was only very slowly implemented because of financial cuts in the early 1930s.

The Butler Act of 1944 was mainly concerned with nationalising the church schools, appeasing the CofE by making RE compulsory, and enshrining that there should be separate state schools from the age of 11, with an aspiration to get the school leaving age up to 15 (a move postponed from the 1936 Act) and then to 16 eventually (not implemented until the early 1970s). However, contrary to myth, it did not say anything about separate schools. Selection was simply the educational doctrine of the time (Butler later wrote in his memoirs - 1971 - that he approved of academic selection but that he had never said that the 3 "types" of kids necessarily had to be educated in different schools).

Citations please, if somebody thinks otherwise.Paulturtle (talk) 04:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

My dad was, for what it's worth, a secondary modern headmaster ....Paulturtle (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC) He was a Congregationalist by upbringing (lots of the NUT were nonconformists in those days) although he upgraded himself to CofE during the war when he earned a commission. He's been dead over 30 years, but I remember him talking about how he had helped to prove that kids' perfomance at IQ tests could be improved by coaching (presumably proving that they were not a magic bullet to eliminate middle-class privilege from selection) and how provision had to be made for kids who blossomed academically in their teens to sit O-Levels rather than CSEs. I think he supported the existence of grammar schools though.Paulturtle (talk) 02:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Go for it, WP:BOLD do try to add references. ClemRutter (talk) 07:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The so-called "Green Book", prepared under Butler's predecessor Herwald Ramsbotham and published in June 1941, recommended separate grammar, technical and "modern" schools (s.5)

http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/greenbook1941/greenbook.html#01

There was then a "White Memorandum" early in 1942, after Nonconformist lobbying (the NUT was heavily influenced by nonconformists in those days), but I can't find the text of that online.

The 1943 White Paper, from which the 1944 Butler Act was prepared, stated (s.31) that there should be three types of "school" but that they could in principle be on the same site or even in the same building. That is the passage which Butler later quoted in his memoirs, and it reads like an elastic compromise drafted after lobbying.

http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/wp1943/educational-reconstruction.html#02

However, who did the lobbying, or why, I couldn't say.Paulturtle (talk) 02:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Using the talk page

When we get to discussing the reliability of sources the talk page is very helpful. The facts are in the wrong paragraph. The addition of the stats is useful- especially to those of our readers who weren't there at the time. I have seen those figures before but can't remember where: I threw out all my History of Education books and notes in 1978.--ClemRutter (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

12 plus

This edit has been reverted back in despite my challenge[2] and despite my pointing the editor to what is required per WP:ONUS on my talk page[3]. The section is about the tripartite system and the 11+ exam, which is, to my knowledge, always called the 11+ (and that is how our Eleven-plus page describes it, with no exception for Buckinghamshire). Moreover, Buckinghamshire was by no means unique in having middle schools with a later changeover. As per my reply to the editor, Surrey also used this system and other places did too. Why an exception in the text just for Bucks? The Hansard debate is talking about school entry at 12 but not the name of the exam, and at a time where secondary modern schools had long since been abandoned in other counties, so the discussion is exceptional in that regard and does not evidence this anyway. Thus we have no evidence that the exam was called 12+ in Buckinghamshire at the time. I will revert this again now, and unless proper evidence is presented that (a) it was called that and (b) it was an exception only in Buckinghamshire, this edit must not be reasserted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)