SCHOOL STANDARDS, TRANSITIONS: GRAMMAR TO COMPREHENSIVE etc.
Here are a few recollections of the political background
to the changes to the Royal Liberty School. The basic political divide was
that Conservative governments and councils were broadly in favour of grammar
schools but permitted Labour councils to convert grammar schools to comprehensives
whereas Labour councils were
generally in favour of converting grammar schools to comprehensives and the
Labour government from 1964 applied great pressure on councils to convert
grammar schools to comprehensives.
Up to 1965, Education came under Essex County Council. However, there was
a special committee for Romford which was dominated by Romford Borough Council
which, during 1952-65, was Labour dominated. At various times during the late
'fifties, there were proposals to make all schools comprehensive. This would
have necessitated grouping some existing schools together and have some multi-site
schools.
On one occasion in early 1959 the Liberty Forum condemned the proposal as
it affected the RLS. In consequence, I wrote to the Education Department on
school notepaper expressing our views. When I received a reply at home from
the Education Officer I should have realized something was amiss. Newth expressed
to me his opinion that it was not the sort of issue that the Forum should
have considered.
In 1964, I was elected as a Conservative to Havering Council which took over
Education in 1965: from 1964-68 there was an anti-Labour majority of two;
from 1968-71 there was an overwhelming Conservative majority. Hopes of preserving
grammar schools in Havering were dashed by the significant Labour victory
at the 1966 general election. Anthony Crosland, the Education Minister, expressed
the policy to 'shut down every fucking grammar school in the country'. I'd
organize a group to go and jump up and down on his grave, but the bastard
was probably buried at sea! The fact that some grammar schools have survived
show that governments were not all-powerful. However, these areas probably
had councils determined to preserve grammar schools and to apply the necessary
pressure to the Education Office. Where the political control of councils
changes frequently there is the danger that policy is made by the permanent
officials, who are there much longer than the councillors. In Havering, in
1971 I was deselected, the Conservatives lost my former seat to Labour, and
Labour gained control of the council.
I believe that the pressure to abolish sixth forms resulted from the creation
of so many comprehensive schools trying to maintain sixth forms. Some time
during the 'eighties the Conservative-controlled Essex County Council abolished
sixth forms, except in the Brentwood area, where the excuse was the need to
compete with Brentwood School, although the Chairman of the Education Committee
represented Brentwood! By this time I was living in Epping. At a meeting of
the local Conservative Committee I tried to stir things up by pointing out
that the age range the Conservative government had chosen for the new City
Technology Colleges was 11-18, which cast doubt on the policy of making secondary
schools 11-16. Which schools in Havering have sixth forms? I believe that
St Edward's and Campion do. What about
Coopers / Coburn?
Looking back I appreciate how fortunate my contemporaries were in having a
section system at 11+ that was not so closely linked to the neighbourhood
in which one lived. We were fortunate in going to a grammar school with an
age range of 11-18 and being taught, from first form upwards, by teachers
who taught to A level.
It may be that comprehensive schools provide a better opportunity to pupils
who would otherwise go to secondary moderns. It's just a pity that this can
only be tested by first abolishing grammar schools, which have been the State
systems best attempt to compete with public schools. And we may be permitted
to be cynical about a government intent on destroying the remaining grammar
schools whose ministers went to public schools themselves or are sending their
children to public or church schools. (J. Alan Smith)
There are two or three themes coming out of the discussion.
The role of the man, the nature of the school, and the external framework
within which the school operates. Brief comments if I may on the last two:-
Personally I did not favour the change to a Comprehensive School model - and
argued against it rather strongly! In the end it was imposed and 25 years
on, in a wider context (i.e. beyond the boundaries of Havering) it can be
seen working and not working.
My son went to a local comprehensive (1200 pupils) and was, on the whole,
well served - it is now a Beacon School of Excellence - and a good model of
what is possible. It must also be said that the intake is skewed positively
by the geographic location of the school. I still keep an active interest
in education by being a School Governor.
My daughter went to a Havering School, Coopers. She did well at her GCSEs
and then made the mistake of telling the school that she did not wish to go
to University, but wanted to train to be a Nurse - not top go to University.
The disaffection became mutual - say no more! Coopers is also a good school,
but was never vaguely close to being comprehensive - in intake or in attitude.
HMI have said that THE key factor in any school is the quality of the Head
Teacher. (Steve Hartley + GHRN was indeed a tough act to follow.) I would
add another criterion for a good school. Genuine parity of esteem for all
the pupils attending it.
Moving from the micro level of schools and pupils (YES the most important
one) to the macro level and the Framework in which they are required to operate...
I had left Havering and Education by the time the Sixth Form College was created.
I was told by the then Director of Education that there was in fact no real
choice for the Borough - its A level results were amongst the worst in the
London area and too may children entering sixth forms in the comprehensive
school were failing for all the well known reasons.
But the question now is what has happened to those 11 - 16 comprehensives.
We know how badly one has faired. There is a fair amount of turmoil in the
education service in the borough - and it would not surprise me if other 11
- 16 schools were in difficulties. Time to survey the OFSTED reports.
I suspect the quality of the team of Chief Officers in an LEA and their capacity
to provide strong leadership and guidance (upwards to their political masters,
and downward to their senior management) has greater influence on the educational
outcomes and experiences of millions of children than is widely recognised.
I have my suspicions that the concept of a team is rarely applied when making
appointments at this level! But a Director of Education cannot really be effective
without the active support of Legal, Financial, Planning and Social services.
Listening to the different perspective of the discussion on these pages it
is possible that the RLS was in the wrong condition in the early 70's to weather
the 25 year storm that has followed. And to bring the argument full circle
I know several brilliant young Deputy Heads - but they have their sights set
on a strong 11 - 18 school for their Headships! (Bill Broderick)
A glance at the staff matrix http://snurl.com/staffmatrix
reveals
A.G.F Elwood was Second Master until 1950
E. Pilling Second Master 1950 - 1960
then a quick succession in the 1960s:
S.G. Graham Second Master 1960 - 1963
J.R. Fox Deputy Headmaster 1963 - 1964
J. Morley Deputy Headmaster 1964 - 1969
F.E. Holmes Deputy Headmaster 1969 - 1970
All had been at School since at least 1949.The transition to Comprehensive
status was in 1974 I think. Andy Lee (1959-1966
I think that the accepted view, at least until the mid 60s, was that if you were good enough, you continued into the 6th form and then, possibly to university, and if you weren’t good enough, you went and got a job.
Possibly, from the mid 60s on, the combination of a new headmaster, who came from a conservative 1940s/50s background, and a desire by young teenage boys to be 'fashionable', was an accident waiting to happen. Until that time, the gulf between teenagers and their elders was not so apparent. I suspect that George Newth breathed a sigh of relief when he retired and realized that he'd 'got out' in the nick of time.
Who would have thought that the decline of RLS was all down to some oiks who couldn't be bothered to get a haircut. Cor!! (Derek Humphrey)
…the whole point of Grammar School was to prepare us for further education, so the curriculum was academic, and yes, in the hands of an uninspired teacher, dry and boring. It suited lots of us fine, though, and my memories of the RLS are of a school that I enjoyed going to.
Perversely perhaps, I now don't approve of segregated schools (whether by sex, or educational orientation), and I would prefer by far to send my children to a decent comprehensive! (I'd also vote for the abolition of charitable staus for private schools, double taxation of income spent on school fees, and a massive increase in public education spending, so perhaps I'm in a radical minority here!) (Martin Jacobson)
In "self-discipline" you've coined the very crux of why I left the RLS. I needed self-discipline, not imposed discipline. This is for me the greatest failure of the Coles reign; dictatorially imposed discipline. John Coles's own personal failure was this failure to respect the integrity of others and to trust them to achieve by their own steam and self-discipline. He trusted no-one, took no chances. He called the shots or else. End of discussion. Take it or leave the school.
But you use the magic words "self discipline" in respect to George Newth. Can't you tell us more what you mean by this and how you felt it or saw it? What could "self discipline" possibly mean to an RLS boy back then? It was a foreign language during my time. Or is it me? I can open my heart and say that I'm still struggling with why I was such a complete and utter w*nker to go to an all-boys school. Did I go there with the dream of it being something else because of it's fantastic reputation created during Newth's time but all twisted and contorted by JPC? (anon.)
Was it all as bad as you all appear to say. Did nobody enjoy their schooling, respect any of the staff or indeed realise the privileged position they were in at RLS in the 50's and 60's (K.L. Saxby)
I think you will find that the majority of attendees at RLS before say '63 will reply "No, it wasn't that bad" They will probably also say "We did respect the Masters." If we are seeking a turning point it would appear to be when Scruff left. Hidden among the thousands of posts there are stories about individual Masters telling how they went out of their way to help pupils and how they dedicated much of their spare time to the events that took place after school hours. Not that these stories are restricted to events before '63 but the majority do seem to involve those earlier years.
There were few Masters in my day who were not respected or
actually feared. I've said before, Scruff himself was an example of a man not
to be crossed under any circumstances. Alan Guy, when I knew him, was respected
and quite liked by all. Taffy Thomas was respected and liked and Stan Smith,
well Stan Smith was (and still is) Stan Smith, a man you would never think of
challenging. Johnny Bell, although he whined a lot, was very decent.
It was said recently that events and people change and that's what happened at RLS. Yes, it did. I for one however will always say, without embarrassment, "I enjoyed most of it and it helped me survive the years that came directly after leaving."
Under the Cross and Crown are the words "Semper Procedens" It would be unfair to say that after 1963 the school didn't live up to these words, it always went forward although perhaps not quite in the way that we of the '50's had imagined it would. This Group is about RLS. Whatever happened is valid and we are the better for learning about it. (Mike Merry)
...in my view, in the 50's, at any rate, the overwhelming majority of staff were enthusiastic, decent and competent and provided a liberal but disciplined regime under George's understated but effective leadership. There were a few incompetent and sadistic teachers. They did not spoil a generally good experience for me. The upside as far as they were concerned is that we have a wealth of stories to tell and memories to evoke. (Geoff Smith)
It seems to me that the
The problem with the RLS was a problem inherent in the
secondary school system of the time - having been pigeon-holed by the 11+, you were pretty much stuck with what you got. If you were
bright enough to get through the 11+ and ended-up at the
'Concerning classroom instruction, it appears today's young people have far more options than we had at the RLS in the dark ages.
We could choose Latin or Spanish (I made the wrong choice I
guess as Spanish would have been handy in the
I can only think that illustrates the difference between the war and the post-war periods. In my time - starting only three years after the war - RLS was remarkable for the range of choice:
a.. four languages being taught in years 2-5, with Greek and Russian available in the 6th;
b.. an option of mechanics in Year 4
c.. a 6th form choice including not just history and economics but economic history and 'British constitution' too, to say nothing of Dan Reekie's geology, which was a rarity at the time and probably still is.
d.. best of all, one could escape from art and woodwork after Year 3!
So, no Media Studies, perhaps, and no computers and not much 'social and personal education', but they didn't seem like 'dark ages' to me. But then, I shall probably have to own up, like Ken Saxby, to being another boring prize-winner. (Graham Jackman)
I agree, Graham, about the variety the RLS encouraged, also w.r.t. how deeply one wished to pursue certain subjects, by allowing for a kind of streaming on selected subjects (maths, science). An excellent system considering the times!
However, I have encountered many barriers between 'subjects'
in the univ. world... the institutionalisation of a
subject (eg. history, political science, philosophy,
pedagogy etc. etc.) makes cross-fertilisation very difficult much of the time.
Much the same applies at the school level... so I cannot understand why our
educational systems do not go for the tutorial model more, now that the
Internet can provide all the basics, systematic pedagogy etc. On the tutorial
model, there are projects, cross-disciplinary themes etc., where one is guided
by a tutor (even
I see the school of the near future as a place for socialisation - group projects, monitored social interaction like art, games, visits and participation in society through giving some voluntary service etc. The learning will be done mainly with the aid of technology and web-based pedagogy. Far more effective individualised work. (Robert Priddy)
David Maltby asked: I do wonder, however, about Ian's sweeping statement I believe the transformation of those two '67 terms had no parallel for such radical exchanges over such a short period in RLS history. What is the basis for believing this to be true?
Well David, being there was one of them. The changes were radical, as described. The defiant individualism with which growing numbers of pupils resisted the old order (glad to receive a better expression, but you all know what I mean) could hardly be missed. The overturn in the older style respect for masters and head. The open questioning of the traditional rules and the unspoken rights of head & prefects. It was all turned topsy-turvy. Clothing, attitudes and much more. We were surrounded by masters who'd been at the school a much longer time than you, and were able to share their views with us. etc etc.
Having read the various posts on this board for some months, I've seen nothing similar from younger years except comments about falling standards. The comments from the older years have mostly shown a kind of dismay and almost disbelief for the changes we from the mid-sixties describe.
I make no pretension of knowing it all, and that's why I asked: "I was hoping some of the 'older' and 'younger' lads from other generations might provide some feedback on the '67 experience or their own versions." (anon.)
... in 1968 here in
GRAMMAR TO COMPREHENSIVE
Brian's comments about the standing of the
RLS in the early sixties leads on to the question, "What happened
to the School?" Yes, I recall the comparisons with the
Again, although I was not in the CCF, a number of friends were, particularly in the RAF section. They would go through arduous selection processes at summer camps and the very best in the country would be given flying lessons courtesy of her Majesty. Even 40 years later, I recall that at one time we had 17 private pilot licences in the school not counting very many more gliding licence holders (to be honest I do not remember if we had 17 all at once or that was the running total).
I left in '63 and did not have any contact until I was back
in the
Messrs Hartley and Newth founded and developed the school along conventional Grammar/Public School lines - high academic and sporting standards; a Cadet Force; discipline (self- and imposed) with corporal punishment for transgressors; uniform with caps; prefects; teachers wearing academic gowns; etc. All acceptable - indeed, expected - concepts in the social climate of the 1920s, 30s, 40s and 50s.
J.P. Coles took over the reins in 1963 and maintained all those things to a large degree (as far as my memory serves to 1966). But the social climate was changing very quickly and (as we have heard often) he was a very different character - what we might call today a 'control freak' (or perhaps he just wasn't very good at delegating responsibility).
In 1974 the school changed to Comprehensive. Regardless of the relative merits of the old and new systems (we've debated those before) the important thing from the "what happened" point-of-view is that - as I understand it - JPC didn't like the change, fought it, and struggled on for another 15 years with a foot in both camps - wanting to continue with the old ways (with a bit of modernisation perhaps) while under pressure from the authorities and colleagues to do things the new way.
I'm prepared to believe that it was perfectly possible for a
good Grammar School to transform into a good
JPC retired in 1989 and was succeeded by L.B. Thomas. This, I understand, was when standards and reputation really tumbled - to the depths. We have heard from Hon. Members who, once proud to have declared their attendance, were now embarrassed to admit it in front of people who were unaware of the school's previous reputation and standing. How much of that was due to Coles' legacy and how much to Thomas'
management? Who knows.
Thomas lasted until 1996 and was replaced by
It would be wrong to blame JPC for the total decline as I suspect it had more to do with the change to a comprehensive system without a sixth form but I will not pre-judge that issue just yet. (Michael P. Large)
Our era at the school was somewhat transitional (even pivotal!) in that we were early intake of comprehensive education. We escaped the 11 plus by no more than a year or two but were segregated into 2A (top stream Danes/Normans), 2alpha (top stream Romans/Saxons and 2B & 2beta (others respectively). This streaming was based on our first year exam results. In other words, we had a twelve plus instead! - We remained pretty much in these streams throughout although, if I remember, 2B/Beta were further broken down in the third year. 3/3, 3/4 & 3/5. (Mark Francis)
I enjoyed my time at the RLS. It is possible that a major shift in attitude came with those who were born sufficiently long after the War to see it as history rather than current affairs. Many of us who lives were conditioned by the War may have more realistic expectations. In the 'nineties, when a colleague was complaining to me about some aspect of life that was adversely affecting her 4-year-old daughter, I replied that when I was her daughter's age the Germans were dropping rockets on London. (J. Alan Smith)
Being at RLS between 1970 and 1977, I witnessed the
transition from Grammar to Comprehensive status which happened, I believe, in
Sept. 1973 after a lot of indecision by the LEA and the then Education
Secretary Rt Hon MH Thatcher (bar). I cannot remember
any radical change to School routine as a pupil in the grammar intake. JPC
recruited a second deputy head - Mr Gregson, I think,
to advise on the transition. Gregson was notable for
saying "Good Morning Boys" at the start of assemble on Friday
Mornings - an unheard concept at the time. Looking back, I think the RLS was
not prepared for the transition.
It was some time before they realised that not all first formers could read!
This led to a remedial reading unit being set up in the old 6th form hut (next
to the rifle range). What we did benefit from was a spate of building to
coincide with change in status - brand new sixth form block, art, design &
tech and language block in the play ground (others can bear testament to the
quality of workmanship and fabric of the building as the Fifth Form occupied
the first floor!).
There was a new sports hall and the old gym was converted to a metal work lab -
this was specifically for the comprehensive intake.
About the same time, the computer was taken out. The Sixth form remained, I am
pleased to say.
The new block was well equipped with a stereo and we had light lunches and
snacks cooked for us by a delightful lady - Mrs Finbow
(I think).
There were certainly new staff taken on but I do not recall a mad exodus. If
anything we lost more staff when Coopers-Coburn moved from Bow to Upminster the
year before. We were all taught French every day on arrival. My year then had
to take a second language in yr. 2. I don't know if this carried for the
comprehensive intake. (Michael Jamieson)
Transition: Not much to add to Michael's fine summary. I don't remember any Us and Them syndrome. How many others remember Margaret Thatcher's nickname from the 70's? - Milk Snatcher. She earned this when she phased out free school milk. Mrs. Finbow (Sixth form cook) was a gem. Not the healthiest of menus, mind... Chips, beans, toast and egg being the only items I recall. (Ian Puxley)
As a member of the '72 intake I believe we were the last Grammar school boys. I don't remember any more friction resulting from Grammar vs. Comp boys than usual between the 'old hands' of the 2nd year and the new intake. However, there seemed to be far more boys that knew each other, due to the intake coming from a closer area than the Grammar boys. Consequently they seemed more confident 1st formers than I remembered most of us being. I think that maybe this 'confidence' led to more unruly behaviour occurring earlier than was the case before, especially towards the female staff members (there were at least 6 female teachers at this time) who were all young. I'm not sure when the 6th form ceased to exist but I don't remember a closing date being issued when I left in '78. (Neil Trusler)
My last year in the upper sixth (73-74) coincided with the first year of four form comprehensive entry. I can only bear witness to that first year and remember being amusement by the distress Jake had with one 11 year old in particular ( I can't remember his name) who was uncontrollable and totally unresponsive to the brand of discipline we had grown up with. Jake began to soften before our eyes. (Andy Ellis)
Re Andy Ellis' entry: I was in the lower 6th in 73-4 and got roped into helping with "remedial reading classes" for the brand new intake. The name Cantle springs to mind. Probably today we would just call it hyperactivity and offer our sympathy and understanding. At the time it was indeed very distressing to all. (John Phillips)
I find it hard to believe that this transition was the sole
reason that the school appeared to lose much of its 'glitter'. From what I can
gather, reading through (as David S did), the postings, it seems to me that the
serious changes started in the late 1960's. At that time, as I recall from my
observations during vacations every two years or so, many established codes
were thrown out of the window and a more permitting society emerged. It always
came as a shock to me to get off an aircraft at Heathrow and see how people
were behaving differently, dressing differently and even talking differently.
The old "personal"
As one gets older one does tend to remember only the pleasant things,
relegating the hard and difficult times to a dark corner of memory. However, in
the case of RLS my mind is very clear and so I can say with some certainty that
the 50's inputs were not so different from those of the 40's or even 30's,
whereas my observations seem to indicate that they were very much different to
those of the 70's and forwards.
I do not say this is a bad thing. Progress cannot make everyone happy. In a
nostalgic way of course it is nice to be able to look back and remember when
life was far more carefree than it is today. Boys entering the school in the
'70's and '80's had to contend with different problems than we did in the 50's
and therefore they approached them differently. The same goes for the staff I
imagine, and, underneath is the change from the "friendly"
What is important is that we try to understand these changes and keep up with
what's going on today without losing our values of yesterday, for what those
are worth in this ever-changing world!
I am grateful to the members of this group that continue to improve my
knowledge of RLS and indeed the
Quote: "The big change to schools in Havering happened
when the VIth forms were closed and moved to a
separate college, not when they became comprehensive. This achieved created two
disasters at a single stroke..."
This structural change, which took place after I left Havering, is one to which
I was totally opposed. That said, at the time, the comprehensive arrangements
were not serving the Borough well either and in terms of A level results, I was
told, it was the worst, by a significant amount of all the outer
The problems that had to deal with, I believe, had their origins in a botched
up implementation of the Comprehensive System...The year was 1973, I believe.
Stan Smith retired so as to provide an opportunity for the school to re start
with a new "Modern" mathematician. One of the great difficulties was
that the "Grammar" Boys were flushed out, but their teachers (and the
Headmaster) were not. It was a different profession and not all
"Grammar" teaches were suited to it. (Bill Broderick)
I must agree that I saw the school in an "us &
them" way. Looking at the library photos now I am struck by the youth of
so many of those "old teachers". I can only recall one person trying
to jump from us to them, and his name escapes me at present. Towards the end of
my time at the School, an old boy returned fresh from Uni
to take the role of a teacher for a term. We were never deceived, knowing that
he was really one of us - well he was an ex-pr*f*ct, so where did they fit in
to the scheme of things?
Looking back now, most boys spent seven years at the RLS, longer than the total
years of schooling of the first year students! When I look at the years of
internment of such at Bill Groves, my first head boy, 1953 - 1961,I did not
commence infant school until 1954! No wonder there was such a gulf between the
lower and upper schools.
Time is a strange animal. I'm sure all members believe that the years are
shorter than they used to be. Those school terms seemed to go on for ever!
(John Hawkins)
"TONY BLAIR sounded the death knell for comprehensive education yesterday, admitting that it had failed many pupils during the last 35 years." He must have been reading some of these posts! (Mike Merry)
His spokesman also coined the ultimate insult for all future failing comprehensives "the bog-standard comprehensive" - a phrase which a Welsh (he'd HAVE to be a Welshman, wouldn't he!) colleague of mine informs me is a "misuse of the English language", the correct phrase being a "box-standard" whatever, straight out of the box! (DGM)
I don't believe we as mere second formers were ever given the reason for the CCF being disbanded. At that time RLS was due to change to comprehensive status which may have been a factor, perhaps School funds were needed to build the Sports Hall, language/arts block and the six form block (all of which were built around that time) rather than subsidise the CCF. Coupled with that Alan (Dan) Guy who was, by then, the driving force was not getting any younger and none of the newer masters seemed interested - either they were all peace loving hippies or DFR had got to them! (Michael Jamieson)
I can make guesses about how the new first years were different, but I might be wrong. What was it that was different about them? How did you and your peers react to them? And their reactions to you?
The only contact I had with them was at the remedial reading class. John Phillips has referred to that as well. I do remember one new boy, Cantell by name, who used to shout out at Jake during assembly. I think we were both amused, but rather disturbed by the whole thing. Teenagers, for all their protestations of radicalism, tend to be deeply conservative around issues that affect their own lives. I think that as much as we were intellectually in favour of comprehensive education, the arrival of boys who were certainly not willing to "play the game", to misbehave in clever, creative ways shook us deeply. We pushed the limits of the School's discipline, but, really truly, did not enjoy seeing it so directly and unthinkingly challenged. (Stephen Snelgrove)
The Times annually published a league table of schools' success in Oxbridge entry exams. The RLS was proud to be the only State school to make the top ten, year after year. I had the impression that this was the chief goal of the School. I felt that those, like myself, who did not proceed to further education had somehow failed the School. (John Hawkins)
John Hawkins wrote: "During my time at the RLS the 'owners' changed from Essex Education Committee to London Borough of Havering. Did this have any practical effect on the school, e.g. recruitment area?"
Not really any practical effect Havering was in fact
division of
I personally don't have a problem with the state of RLS at present, in fact some of the teachers that came into the school as I was leaving gave the school a good reputation. To cite a few examples of this, I would point to Mr McGonigle, who was perfect for the job, as he was in tune with the kids. Also Mr Stannard, who although he hated by a long of kids, was only treated this way because of his no nonsense approach. If you kept on the level with him, he treated you very well. As for the old timers, Mr Bristow, Ms Buzzard, Mr Marshall, and so on, they kept on doing the job in their own particular styles and the kids never suffered for it. Perhaps the younger generation are happy to be out, or are not looking to keep in touch with ex-classmates by means of this group. This comment (Below) is open-ended and by no means states my own final prognosis. Some of the younger members of the group may have something to say on this. Question "Is it that by the 1980's the school had declined into such a state that no one wants to look back?" No matter what we thought at the time, the fact that between us all we have such a wealth of memories of the school means that RLS obviously left an impression on all of us. I know one guy who got straight A's in all his GCSE's and failed his driving test. Perhaps if he had done the test at RLS he would have passed that too! Although, I admit I was not on good terms with most of the other pupils during my 5 years at the school, I learnt some vital lessons from my time and miss a lot of the teachers, because they did have some great moments when I was there and I don't mean ones they should be ridiculed for, more praised for. I do hope that more of the younger pupils turn up here in this group. Believe it or not the future of the school and continued success for RLS is more important now, as an adult who had the benefit of the school to me, than when I was there. If it wasn't for Mr Meech and Mr Quinlan, I would never have thought about kicking a football at Wembley, never mind actually doing it. (Ben Levy)
As a retired Head of a comprehensive school - highly rated but academically not out of the top or even second drawer - I offer the following thought - League Tables are like beauty, in the eye of the beholder and there are some pretty ugly OL's around with pretty short memories- even 40 years. Perhaps you forget the tag of "failure or thick" which used to be attached to some fellow pupils who were in the "F" stream. Actually it was supposed to mean not taking a second foreign language but the alternative uses of the letter were rife. Not wanting to do two foreign languages or having joined the RLS late was not actually a sign of lack of academic ability but since my time at RLS and before labels and figures have "nice and easy" to use, just as the stick was. When we see true "value added" then perhaps the value of all three will be easier to ascertain. (Ken L. Saxby)
David Maltby wrote: "Attitude, motivation and behaviour in any school finds its level, rather like water, downwards - not up as was fondly expected in the early days of comprehensivisation - and a majority of bad influences inevitably outweighs the good."
Can we take a look at ourselves, us older chaps? The old Coles' Grammar School RLS was a regime of violent abuse and humiliation. We're the fools for even going to a boys-only school, let alone for sticking it out for as long as we did. Academic results? Pooh!
How many of our lives have been disturbed by our inability to grow up with girls, and how many would have been improved by co-ed?
How many of our lives have been darkened by accepting the regular sadistic canings and beating by teachers and pr*f*cts alike, and how many would have been improved by learning "THIS IS WRONG!"?
How many of us would have had a better "Attitude, motivation and behaviour" if we'd gone to a school where these were encouraged?
How many of our lives have been disturbed by the war of humiliation, be it snobbery, sadistic hair-rules and meaningless detentions and how many would have been improved by teaching fairness and respect?
Yes David, you're right: "a majority of bad influences inevitably outweighs the good" I couldn't agree more. But not for your reasons. And John, let's hear it then: "Shut Them All Down!" Where else would we associate Handel's Messiah with caneing. (anon.)
I remember taking part in the Debating society (it could have been the house competition) and having to second the proposal that Grammar schools were best. I said 'having to' because since i was at the RLS, I have been in favour of Comprehensive or Wide Ability. The Grammar school can effectively write-off 75% of 11 to 16 year olds. Although resources are a lot more evenly spread across schools than they used to be, there can still be a bias towards Grammar schools because of the 6th form funding - but they can sometimes take more than their share of 'better' teachers (although not always). In Kent County and Medway Unitary Authority areas we still have Grammars, Community Schools alongside a couple of Comprehensives. In fact the SAT results at age 11 are normally worse than should be expected because of the impact of 11+ type exams.
It is also probable that RLS suffers because of its size. There are significant cost-effective benefits of a larger school as funding has to follow pupil numbers (although there can be other problems with larger schools). This was probably not the case when RLS was Grammar and it could have got more?s per pupil than High Schools. The Comprehensive school where I have been a Governor for many years indicates some of the best and worse aspects of being large - 1,600ish pupils. There is a 'grammar' stream in each subject for the brighter pupils, but Master and Mistress Average can sometimes suffer. The budget is approx. 4.5M a year. (Chris Fribbins - past member of Medway Authorities Education Committee)
"When we see true "value added" then perhaps the value of all three will be easier to ascertain."
Oh Lord help us! This is a little jargon phrase that rolls so neatly off the tongues of government ministers, Ofsted inspectors, advisers, headteachers (current and retired) and union officials - all for their own varied reasons, and it represents such a lofty, pie-in-the-sky notion, but how is such an ideal to be accurately measured, uniformly across the country and within the wide diversity of types of schools?
How can schools even lay claim to be responsible for the total "value added" that any pupil may show, when there will be input from a variety of other sources?
How do you "average" your individual "value added"s across a year group - or a school - to arrive at any meaningful figure? Even if you could measure it, how do you compare "value added" in a leafy suburban GM school with that of an inner city school for severe learning difficulties?
And should yet more teaching time be sacrificed, more unnecessary stress be placed on pupils and ever more paperwork be added to the workload of chalk-face workers to satisfy all the required testing for baseline and "value-added"?
I wonder when the policy-makers and jargonists will finally reach the conclusion that education is rather more than having pupils and teachers jump through hoops to satisfy arbitrary targets that are statistical and meaningless.
"Value added" is for processed meat in supermarkets. Realistically you'll NEVER see 'true "value added"' and God forbid that we'd ever want to simply to arm the politicians and statisticians with yet another stick to lay across the back of education, yet another hoop to hold up. (David Maltby)
The Kentish Orator is pleased to note that the discussion is more balanced than it was two years ago when practically nobody spoke about comprehensive schools in a positive manner. Those who joined this group after January 1999 may not appreciate that following poor
results by the RLS in the league tables two years ago, this subject was discussed at such a level that the Orator, despite his grammar upbringing, was compelled to write post #1533 in an attempt to broaden thinking. He is also pleased to have had the foresight to see that as new members to this site will come from both backgrounds, all were welcome and supported as they are today. Thus spake the Kentish Orator
To answer Colin's question: "You would not know if any RLS leaver went to Oxbridge now. The school teaches only to Year 11 (Fifth form)"
The reasons for the current poor performance of the RLS are manifold; it is doubtful if the blame can be laid at any one door. Examples are poor intake, poor resources, poor level of aspirations of both intake and staff and school policy. You can think of more. Poor intake? I blame parents as much as the boys (are they given adequate encouragement?), the catchment area is smaller than in grammar school days, give a dog a bad name, local culture etc. Poor resources? I thought the school's physical resources were adequate and the teaching staff very good when I visited with Vince in July (especially one lady teacher). Maybe not, I am not a teacher. Aspirations? This is peer group pressure, considered so important in my essay of early January 1999. The boys may expect little, the staff probably expects not much better from them. School policy? One example. Perhaps the Head teacher has decided that, given his raw material, he should concentrate on non-academic studies to prepare the boys for life. Let's face it, where are the noble plumbers, electricians and train drivers- essential for living - to come from? We cannot have 56 million brain surgeons in UK (although a few more would help). I thought Morrall was doing a great job last July. He was brought in to stop the school being closed, it was so bad. The RLS is one of the very few of a large number of schools so threatened to show marked improvement. It is not surprising it still bumps along the bottom. It was oversubscribed for 2001/2.
In grammar school days, the cream is/was taken off the top of the milk. Best results were expected and probably attained. Those left under the cream (the majority) felt rejected (ref my siblings). The comprehensive system attempts to homogenise the milk so that all have an equal chance. Academic results will not be as good. My difficulty is whether the recipe needs homogenised milk or cream and skimmed. Competition for places at good universities is still extraordinarily high; despite or because of comprehensive education? (David Silverside)
Ken, that may well be the case, but the fact remains that in the 1952-1957 period, those in the F stream were invariably those who had demonstrated a distinct inability to cope with yet another language in addition to French. They could not even cope with that most of the time! This does, of course, beg the question as to why there were so many in our L stream who couldn't cope with Latin but survived to VL! (David Gregory)
I wonder when the policy-makers and jargonists will finally arrive at the conclusion that education is rather more than having pupils and teachers jump through hoops to satisfy arbitrary targets that are statistical and meaningless. "Value added" is for processed meat in supermarkets. Realistically you'll NEVER see 'true "value added"' and God forfend that we'd ever want to simply to arm the politicians and statisticians with yet another stick to lay across the backside of education, yet another hoop to hold up. (David Maltby)
I was never abused violently, nor did I feel humiliated. In general I was treated fairly and I learned to respect those pupils and staff who earned it. I tried to earn it myself. I was encouraged and motivated and I responded accordingly. There may be a few exceptions (OK ... the meaningless detentions were irritating; the odd clip round the ear; Daddy Scho's swimming lessons) but the statements above represent my overall impression. Call me a goody-goody swot if you will, but life at RLS in the early/mid 60s didn't have to be as dark as Ian paints.
I record the following facts not as a claim to being the perfect human being but to demonstrate that attendance at a boys-only school does not necessarily disturb, twist or warp one's later life. In spite of temptations I have been monogamously faithful (rare it seems) to the same woman since I met her 33 years ago. There have been difficult times but I think we can claim to have a successful marriage. We have three children who, having been helped over the normal childhood and teenage hurdles, have grown up to be well-rounded, respectable young adults. Some may think all that dull - I regard it as something of an achievement. Of course, I will never know how much of 'me' is attributable to school, how much to family upbringing, to other factors, to sheer good luck. I am undoubtedly a mixture of them all. If you've got this far, thank you for your attention. I feel better now. (Andy Lee)
Well said, Mr Lee. Who are all these people who keep carping on about the so-called 'abuse and humiliation' at RLS. The teachers there in my time may have been an odd lot but their heart was in the right place, even though we didn't realise it at the time. From all reports, it seems to me that the school in its present state bears no resemblance to the school that I attended, apart from the actual buildings, which were never very well looked after anyway. When they publish exam results in the newspapers, I can never find RLS, presumably because their results are so bloody awful.
What David M said was absolutely spot-on. We're encouraging young people to stay at school when most of them would be better off out in the real world earning a living and finding out what life is all about. And don't talk to me about 'gap' years!
Anyway, Andy, reference your remark:- ' In spite of temptations I have been monogamously faithful (rare it seems) to the same woman since I met her 33 years ago.' Believe me, it's not that rare, I beat you by 4 years! (Derek Humphrey)
Andy has written a good defence of RLS as a basically healthy institution for socialising boys to a decent life.
It agrees with my own experience of the place... Things may have been different later, as the large amount of writings against Coles, Reynolds and others tend to show. The 60s were a time of youthful dissent and revolt, far more than the 40s and 50s (‘Just William’ was about the quality of any revolt) with which existing disciplinary and other means at RLS were unable to cope without excess. There seems to be a divide between the body of masters who started before 1950 and seemed to hold the fort until about 1960, and those who came to prominence after 1960 too. (Robert Priddy)
I think, it was my
fight against the Hair Rules (which were truly humiliating for most of the '65
intake, at least) which would prove so decisive, as that would bring me in
direct contact with Michael Ward and family. Thanks to the RLS!
Michael Ward, then
Governor, and his wife Lilian became the role-models
for me as parents, and as family members together with their charming
daughters, Alison and Susan. They had
inadvertently (?)
much more positive effect on me than anything I'd experienced in my own family.
Alison's contribution as my First Love opened the doors to a fairly quiet, soft
but very lively young man and loving partner that exists in me more strongly
today than ever. Never more than today have I felt so well-prepared for a
lasting monogamous relationship with own children.
So thanks in that
respect to the RLS, since these qualities are an inheritance to build upon
throughout life. Fortunately, I left at the right time to take my 'A's at Rush
Green. I needed the free environment and the co-ed life. I knowingly and
actively took the best of LS with me. JPC spent much private time with me
before I left helping me to think and talk through the positives I'd learned,
and for the rest of my life I've used his "Freedom Through
Discipline" inspiration in my own version - "Freedom Through
Self-discipline". My 'A'-level results and much afterwards bear witness to
that.
(Historical aside:
It was almost unheard of in 1970 that "obvious Oxbridge Material" from
the top academic 5th yrs left the school. The honours boards at the back of the
Hall were there to be filled! The departure of Messrs Macauley
and Morton caused a storm, not least due to my private connection with a then
RLS Governor).
On a lighter note,
when I met Mr. Coles summer 1972, he did tell me off for gaining an Oxbridge
Scholarship just for the hell of it and then choosing the salary of a sponsored
degree at Hatfield Poly instead, but he laughed warmly with me at my sheer
defiance and determination to prove The World's My Oyster! And "Yes"
I did openly share with him my thanks and gratitude for my years at the Lib,
the academic inheritance, and his help.
If we ever reach
that situation, then I'll also take flowers to his grave to say
"Thanks" again. No hard feelings.
Well, chaps. If you're still here, what say you of your experiences? I guess that was self-indulgent, but I enjoyed sharing these nice thoughts with those few of you who may be interested. (anon.)
Hopefully not too
rare a breed, Derek. We're called The Real World, ex-RLS style. I'm on +46 70
685 20 23, if you're still in doubt.
The Real World UK
has deemed it illegal, for rather good reasons, to cane young boys for standing
up for things in which they believe or for being plain naughty sometimes. Like
it's illegal for older boys to cane or beat up younger boys for being silly.
Like it's illegal for sadistic art masters to whack defenceless 11-year old
boys around the head from behind for laughing at something funny. The Real
World Sweden has deemed it illegal for parents to do this, too.
Nice to know,
Derek, that this is just "so-called" abuse in you world.
"The teachers
there in my time may have been an odd lot but their heart was in the right
place, even though we didn't realise it at the time."
Heart? What about
their right hand behind your unsuspecting head? It wouldn't by any chance have
occurred to you that your evident inability to grasp the truth of the violent
abuse at the RLS (65-70) might just be making you look like one of the victims
of said abuse?
Or perhaps, you
were genuinely lucky, and it was better "in your time".
"From all
reports, it seems to me that the school in its present state bears no
resemblance to the school that I attended"
A fact for which
many ex-pupils and the courts of law are eternally glad.
"What David M
said was absolutely spot-on. We're encouraging young people to stay at school
when most of them would be better off out in the real world [sic] earning a
living and finding out what life is all about."
Glad to see you've
found The Real World, Derek. We wouldn't be talking about that place where
uneducated children are exploited at work before having a decent chance at
gaining an education, now would we?
But wait, I think I
see the light now. We use the money we save on their education to build extra
grammar schools for upper-class schoolboy twits to avoid the real world,
continuing at university, subsidised by all the others now out there working,
to finally carry on being upper-class schoolboy twits for the rest of their
lives in all sorts of super places in society. Nice one!
(repeat) "What
David M said was absolutely spot-on."
Oh really? Perhaps you two would care to share with us your own experiences of sending your own children to work at 14? Derek, no apologies. It was irresistible. (anon.)
As an old timer in
the group (RLS 1940-1946), I can only say that I was not abused during my stay
at Hare Hall. I was caned twice on the rear, in the HM's study. Once for
throwing a soccer ball around a classroom during the lunch hour. The second
time for making a terrible noise, again during the lunch hour. We lifted the
hinged desk flaps and then with arms extended we ran to the back of the room
knocking those flaps down. It was pretty noisy.
I got six on my
pants from Mr. Jobling. Oh well, I am sure I thought,
we were caught so we got the punishment.
I don't recall any
instances of bullying by older boys on younger boys. I don't recall any
prefects abusing their status and/or so-called power.
Alan Murley was School Captain, a thoroughly decent person in my
memory. Chaps around him were looked up to. Bruce, Winston, Munro, etc., were
always affable.
Schofield was the
gym master. He had his small "circus". I don't remember that he
abused anyone or slapped a boy with hand or slipper.
The only really
crabby person was Miss Bibby, Latin and R.I., and it
is doubtful in my memory if anyone liked her.
Spedding was highly respected. We all loved Harry Saville, but Bert Pead was
another matter, not a bad chap, but definitely not one to warm up to.
Gussie Hartley was
a prince in my view. The best of the best and he knew almost every boy by name.
Minter was the
senior math master and not a person to fool with, but apart from a few verbal
insults I never saw him touch anyone. Pilling was a little twit and liked to
make smart remarks. Smith (French) was a great guy and most often smiling and
approachable.
Dr. Witt was
austere, unapproachable, and yet a good and demanding teacher.
I can honestly say I
learned discipline, good manners, and how to benefit from working, not that I
always measured up. "He can do better" is frequently found on my
reports, all of which my Dad preserved for me, and which I still have.
Of course, I also
had good manners instilled in me at home. The school just reinforced what my
parents taught me.
Long hair, rock
music, extra curricular activities (apart from soccer, model airplanes,
reading, and an occasional movie, etc.) were severely limited by the events of
1939-1945.
The first
"real" money I had in my pocket came from my earnings at three
harvest camps (Great Bentley, Towcester, and Blagdon) in 1943-1944 and 1945 respectively.
Overall I think I
had it better than the chaps who came to the school in later years.
I would be interested to hear the views of Eddie Pond and John Jennings concerning their years and their impressions at the school. (Geoffrey Styles)
I attended RLS from
1966 to 1973, to determine the historical perspective, so have no view on RLS
either before or after these dates. I consider myself an intelligent human
being. I care deeply about my family and friends. I am (reasonably)
well-balanced (ok, I read Billy Bunter books, but I did say
"reasonably").
My first two years
at RLS I passed in an oblivion of not caring about what school system was
crushing me in its gears, or taking me to its bosom, dependent upon your
viewpoint. From about 1969 onwards I became increasingly disgruntled with the
RLS mechanism, although most of this is specifically to do with JPC - I still
cannot mentally disentangle the two. My parents were going through their
(rather messy) divorce from about then on, my relationship with my father
having deteriorated so far that it was almost open warfare. We as a family were
strapped for cash, and my school shirts were a touch too frayed for JPC's liking, so I was subjected to more than one diatribe
on how I should present myself in public. What with persistent letters home
about length of hair (too short, then too bl**dy long) over the next couple of years, whether rings were
allowed, identity bracelets, beads, etc. it was quite clear to me that we
seemed to be concentrating on the wrong things. When I was young and needed
support I got ridicule, when I was older and really did want to learn (because,
all you disbelievers, I was actually interested!) I got a moral straitjacket.
My mother persuaded
me to stop on at the RLS for my A levels, rather than go to a 6th form college.
As I respected her opinion, I did so, and considerably enjoyed the mental
stimulation - but all this despite the attentions of a sociopath whose sole
purpose in life seemed to be to determine whether one's hair touched the
collar. I distinctly r call one day in the lower sixth in JPC's
study when I had the temerity to say "yes, but does it bl**dy matter?"
As I was so fed up
with the shenanigans, I was pleasantly surprised at the delicate shade of
purple that spread over JPC's face and neck. A
further breakdown then developed in my relationship with JPC, and this is one
that probably is not widely known (unlike the differences regarding hair, which
applied to a good many of us). He seemed to think that I should go to Oxbridge,
and was aghast when I told him I had no intention of applying, apparently
thinking I had some kind of duty to the school to do so. He seemed to have
absolutely no idea
of what I was talking about when I attempted to explain (without moving my head
too much, as I had rather a large amount of hair tucked inside my collar at the
time) that I wanted to study at a place where the proportion of hooray Henry's
was somewhat lower (apologies to any hon. member who attended Oxbridge, I
merely report my feelings of the time, not make generalisations that may rile).
Anyway, following a number of somewhat
heated discussions,
and after a point blank refusal on my part to learn "German for
scientists" (more heated debate), my UCCA form went in with no sign of the
words Oxford or Cambridge thereon. If possible, the Coles/Howe relationship
cooled further. I attempted to spend the remainder of my years at the RLS
ignoring him (luckily he didn't teach science A level - actually, he never
taught me any subject in my whole seven years at RLS, so I can make absolutely
no comment on his actual abilities as a purveyor of information).
I did do well at my
A levels, and yes, I do think that the RLS gave me a good education, but only
in the narrowest sense of the word. When I got my first class degree I got a
congratulatory letter from JPC, but even then, 5 years after I had left the
RLS, I could not bring myself to reply to the man.
My brother is 7
years younger than me. He went to the local comprehensive school in Collier Row
from 1973 to 1980, although my mother fought for him to go to the RLS, even
going to see our local MP about it. But, alas, then we worked on catchment areas, not 11 plus results, so the RLS was spared
my brother. He wore his hair longer than me at the same ages, he drank more
than me at the same ages. But he got a first class degree too, in a subject
that
I believe is more
difficult than the one I graduated in (for those who wish to take up the
respective cudgels, he took Chemistry, I took Psychology).
What am I trying to
say? A supportive environment at home is the one common factor that my brother
and I both had, albeit only one parent. (I don't want to get into the
nature-nurture debate here, suffice it to say that whatever you're born with
has to be encouraged.)
I am not, repeat
NOT, joining in the debate regarding comprehensive versus grammar school
education. I draw no conclusions. All I do know is that my stay at RLS was
spoilt by one man, and one man only. I honestly believe that I achieved despite
his attentions, not because of them.
Of those who have
posted prior, I am not sure on whose side I come down. I will say, however,
that there is absolutely no substitute in my mind for a loving supportive home
environment where individuality and endeavour is encouraged. It is this which
will continue to result in well-rounded individuals with the intelligence to
use whatever they have, well.
Sorry about the vitriol! I wasn't aware that my feelings still ran so high! On a lighter note, following on from Hon. Member Stratford's musings regarding the infamous Rotring pens - I wondered then and I ask now: what exactly does the ability to colour a map in neatly have to do with the fundamentals of physical geography? (this from one who obviously couldn't afford the bl**dy pens!) (ash howe)
RLS and the world
at large changed dramatically from 1950 to 1970. I attended RLS at a time when
young people were really starting to flex their muscles and use their (somewhat
limited) purchasing ability. I saw the effect of burgeoning 'pupil power' (and
joined in). But looking back from a great distance, I can see that it was the
start of a great slippery slope, and we still haven't reached the bottom.
Yes, I know that
the so-called 'permissive society' will continue to roll on, despite what I say
or think, but letting people do what they like, when they like, to allow them
to 'express themselves' only leads to
anarchy and decay. I repeat - I never experienced any great abuse, humiliation,
deprivation, loss of liberty or events that younger persons might now be
consulting their legal advisors about (apart from CCF camp Pirbright
1960 - David M please note). And that includes an un-named master at RLS
brushing my cheek and telling me what a nice little boy I was.
A short sharp
shock, whether it be from a parent or schoolteacher, can and does work, and
'progressive' governments (including the Swedes, who've really led the world,
haven't they - ha-ha) should stop interfering in things that are part of human
nature and shouldn't be subject to 'politically correct' legislation.
Is this called 'healthy debate'? If so, I'm in very rude health. (Derek Humphrey)
I can empathise
with Ash's point of view. I sailed through my junior school days coming top in
every year but one with very little effort. But RLS was a different matter and
I had to struggle to come up to standard. I can remember little support or
encouragement (not to say that it wasn't there at all, only I don't remember
it) but I do remember the put downs and big stick approach by certain people.
Then in around
1969, there was the fashion for longer hair, and about the same time I
discovered that there was an opposite sex and that my energies were turned from
school work to pursuit of the young ladies from RCH (or anywhere else for that
matter). I therefore fell foul of JPC on two fronts, the lack of effort and the
hair issue. The only support and encouragement I had from then was to be told
to pull my socks up. This did not help a young lad between the ages of 14-16
with the sap rising at an alarming rate and resulted in a downward spiral which
ended with 3 O levels, not I understand a school record, but not too far short.
I sometimes wonder
what I might have achieved under a different ethos. Would I have been different
form the career under-achiever that I am today? But it doesn't bother me
greatly.
I have been married
to the scary woman for 26 years (including one or two happy moments), have 2
children who have turned out ok, have a job which provides me with a comfortable
living and am thoroughly content with my lot,
especially with
You're moving the
RLS abuse debate in a good direction when you tie it to the home base.
Reasonable to see how RLS complemented good sides of home life, but worsened
problems of non-so-good home life? You and I are the vocal types, but what
about the quiet academic boys
pressured by their parents to conform and perform well academically? - typically well-off highly educated families, and a tinge Hoorah Henry? I remember many such boys from my years who suffered in silence with no release from the combined pressure from school and parents, and definitely no girlfriend to help sooth it. Desperately trying to break free from the RLS conformist straight-jacket which others amongst us appeared to do with such ease, but catching hell from JPC and parents alike the second they put a step out of line for simply being a boy. Here I go again... (anon.)
I'm very well aware
of the value of teachers' work and the fact that it is immeasurable. We don't have a unit to measure Good
Education although you know if you've had one and you know, equally, if you've
contributed to one. Unfortunately it is that very immeasurability that
virtually ensures that teachers won't get recognition for a large area of their
efforts and that's what annoys me. If it
can't be turned into a statistic, it doesn't count. Perhaps we're almost
arguing from the same standpoint after all? (David Maltby)
David, I agree, GHRN and his times were hard. They wouldn't be allowed today. I just hate to think though if we had not received a few clips round the ear and a few whacks, what would have happened. I believe because in those days boys would have taken terrible advantage. So, I agree with David about leniency with kids. (Mike Merry)
Apart from parental
pride, I don't really know why I went to RLS at all! I always knew what career
I wanted and that only required four O levels, I achieved five. I too was a
star at primary school and it came as a shock to discover I was only average or
worse at RLS. Had I wanted university I may have tried harder but, apart from
every report saying "could do better", nobody ever pushed me. That
said, RLS was character building, did offer limited extra curricular activities
and did teach discipline. On balance I suppose I did enjoy my time there and I
think most of the masters were OK, I can't remember any that I actually feared
or hated.
I went on to
Merchant Navy training in an establishment where stupid rules were rigorously
imposed solely for the purpose of their being imposed. We questioned this but,
in the late 60's, we didn't push too hard. Some of the rules were explained and
can be seen to make sense, in a life or death situation you don't question
orders, you do as you are told and, at sea, life ands death situations happen
somewhat more than ashore and there's only so many people available to resolve
them. When told to jump, only once in the air do you ask "How high?"
Co-ed or not? I
believe that, socially, I would have gained from co-education. How that would
have affected education I cannot say. What I can say is that my daughter's
education suffered no end as a result of co-education, all the girls at her
school spent their entire lives vying for the boys' attention. Perhaps it's
worse for girls than boys.
Current
(comprehensive) schools and attitudes? Pah! My
daughter was severely beaten up by two other girls, for which, despite my interventions,
the headmaster decided that a one hour detention was sufficient punishment.
When we took the case to the Police the girls were found guilty of ABH. We
later discovered that expulsion a) looks bad on the school's record (league
tables) and b) looses money as funds are allocated purely on a bums-on-seats
basis.
During one visit to
the school I observed a teacher telling a student to tuck his shirt in. His
reply? It's gone
This is not an
inner city deprived area, this is a "good"
suburb with high employment and good housing. At
Having
said that, I see girls from the local (expensive) convent school walking around
town in uniform, smoking and generally being rude to the population.
Leave school at 14
and/or go to university? If more relevant things were taught I believe that
there are those who would benefit from an early release from somewhere they
don't want to be. Perhaps, if more relevant things were taught they wouldn't
want to leave in the first place.
Example: a pal of
mine was a maths teacher who got the bottom stream at the worst school. Rather
than teach them pure maths as per the syllabus he taught them about borrowing
money, interest rates and other maths necessary to live, he gave them something
useful and got their respect. Why not teach paper hanging, painting, wiring a
plug, car maintenance?
Regarding tertiary
education and university I regret that I see too many youngsters today taking
this option not because they have an aim in life but because they have no ideas
or ambitions and it buys them a few year's time before a decision has to be
made. I'm not saying all of them but certainly a good proportion. My daughter
left school ASAP and has settled into a career and is achieving NVQ's at work, I was an apprentice, work mixed with study,
it worked for us.
As has been said
before, discipline starts at home and is something that is no stranger to my
daughter. Like other OL's I have been married for 25
years, hard work but worthwhile. Perhaps this helps.
Situation today? I don't like it and think that the pendulum has swung too far. I'm not saying that my childhood was perfect but I don't like modern attitudes and the fuck you society that has developed. I read that in Portsmouth a disco has been arranged, using ratepayers' money, for 14 - 18 year old homosexuals of both genders however smoking and drinking will not be tolerated! (Chris Broadbridge)
I can identify with many of your sentiments and I am sorry your daughter took a beating. I hope the psychological and physical effects no longer trouble her. More ramblings: My two daughters went to an all-girls grammar school in Maidstone where they vyed (sp) for boy's attention outside the gates (which may have stopped a lot of the felony and anti-social behavior (but not all)) and spent a great deal of time actually competing with each other to do better (ref some of my earlier postings about two years ago for examples). At the all-girls school, they could concentrate on their studies without macho boys upsetting their work eg there were no boys to shove them off the computer seats or heckle them for being boffs. The boy/girl academic achievement tables bear the fruits of single sex schools. They did great despite my encouragement and sometimes less-than-loving remarks about getting on with their homework. It is very difficult to form an opinion about comprehensive/grammar and single/co-ed simply because of the circumstances in which I find myself. I try to stay neutral but as I was brought up, as were my wife and daughters, at grammar/single sex, it is difficult to appreciate other philosophies. But leave school at 14? I could barely understand the mumblings of mine at this age, let alone get any sense from them. Flooded with hormones in the coca cola steam, they were. We would apologise to the teachers on parent/teacher evenings. But I think it might be OK if the money saved from their missing a couple of years were put to subsidising a proper apprenticeship scheme for those who actually wanted to leave. I am pretty scared that there will be too few properly trained craftsmen by the time my kids are self-sufficient*. My brother, a machine tool fitter with his own company at one time, was forced to sell out earlier this year because he simply could find absolutely nobody suitably qualified to employ. The apprenticeship system fell away about 30 years ago and most m/c tool fitters are now comfortably retired. Oh yes: Still married to the first and only wife for 23 years or thereabouts. (David Silverside)
Reminiscences about the "good old bad old days"
are fraught with danger. In the 50's all I can say is that I thoroughly enjoyed
my time at RLS. I was not aware of bullying in the school and the only real
rivalry I recall outside of Houses was the positions of the Teddy Boy and
others - I remember Steff Turner with his DA and hair
streaming out behind him in the interhouse swimming
gala with Daddy Scho going apoplectic. It must have
been a reasonably tolerant regime for during my time I wore without too much
aggro, a blue corduroy jacket, no badge and a knotted tie in navy and blue
although the stripes were parallel with the ground.Despite
this and a degree of failure at O level which would not be contemplated now, I
did stay on into the Sixth Form, became one of the guilty ones, introduced navy
blazers for p.e.c.s.and worst of all obtained a place
at Cambridge after 2 years in the Sixth Form. I am sure I see it all through
tinted glasses but I have many pleasant memories of RLS and George despite
being caned en route. When he met my wife to be (still married after 36 years)
his first remarks to her were "Do you know what you are taking on? He's a
real bolshie, that boy." Sorry about this for in
the years that have followed I have become one of the country's strongest
comprehensive advocates but from what was available to me in 1950, I do not
believe there was anything better and I thoroughly enjoyed it. On the question
of League Tables the RLS was twice second in the 1950's in the tables published
by The Times for open places obtained at Oxbridge, only
Ken Saxby wrote: "I know it is deemed not PC to think of one's past or one's school with anything other than disapproval but as I have written before I enjoyed my life at RLS as indeed I have all my life except for the 2 years spent wasting my time doing National Service and the Historian in me appreciates an accurate record of the past even if it is one man's record"
I think our esteemed colleague has grasped the wrong end of the stick here. If we do not think of our schooldays with anything other than disapproval, then why and how does this site exist? I grant that we "younger" members are more willing to call a spade a spade where bad behaviour by Masters and boys is concerned, and that one or two members manage to make RLS sound like Feltham Borstal (indeed I can think of one or two non-members who might actually have been better served by 7 years in Feltham, but that's another story.) However it certainly wasn't all bad - cf the recent postings paying tribute to Aubrey Pope, and the many postings (going back over the life of this group) saying similarly positive things about Stan Smith and Francis Holmes, to name but two.
Despite the unfortunate publicity he sometimes brought upon himself and the school, J.P. Coles was by no means the ruination of the school as has been suggested on occasion. Indeed for the first 4 years of my time, before the "hair wars" began in earnest, RLS was a remarkably peaceful and civilised place. By comparison, there were persistent rumours that discipline had been largely unknown at the end of Newth's reign, although these were impossible to verify. I certainly never felt threatened or in danger so long as I knew certain people weren't behind me! I only ever recall being set upon once in seven years, and since I suffered no more than a snowball or two down the collar (and the perpetrator later became a pr*f*ct) no harm was done on that occasion.
The real changes in the school were merely reflections of the changes going on in wider society at the time - the end of automatic deference to authority for example. That, and the later changeover to the comprehensive system in 1973, are the real authors of all that followed. But it was still fun, most of the time! (John Bailey)