I am writing about how the theory of education, the politics and policies of the post-war period and the buildings shaped the people who were labelled as secondary modern pupils, classified as vocational and educated in secondary modern schools.

The actual experience of going to these schools was not necessarily one of unending failure, constant misery and class war. The representation of the secondary modern school that appeared on TV, in films, in books, in the national media and in academic educational research may be seen as part of a story, a cultural narrative. The creation of Blackboard Jungle literature and accounts of 'life at the chalk face' by teachers and sociologists, psychologists, educationalists and many other 'experts' missed out a very large part of the experience of school. The pupils' perspectives and their aims were absent and much of this literature was decidedly political. WHY?

It is interesting that a mass of Government research to counter the instances of educational failure focussed on boys in the period 1944-76. A blame culture was created: the Home, the child and the School were each held up as faulty. Not all homes, children and schools, of course, but working-class and ethnic homes and children and secondary modern schools. Much of this research had ulterior motives. Reform of the education system had less to do with what was best for teacher and learner and more to do with Labour/Tory wrangling for and against Comprehensive re-organisation. The secondary modern was unfortunately the butt of this Party Political tussle. Everyone wanted Grammar schools or comprehensives; no-one advocated the secondary modern!

The gendered nature of education and educational research has not been questionned significantly. Now it is a commonplace to say girls are outperforming boys in examinations at secondary school and that middle-class pupils outperform working-class and ethnic students but these assumptions must be questioned. They are based upon institutionalised meanings and static 'common sense' theories about the nature of success and failure. Girls did not outperform boys in this period, perish the thought! But then, they were not 'expected' to achieve so, therfore, they could not fail. When applying this idea to the whole of the education system, notions of success and failure must be seen as relative, subjective and most importantly institutionalised!

What is the meaning of 'success' and 'failure'?

In education, is it the difference between a pass and a fail on an examination? The number of assessments and categories in schools has grown steadily since 1944. Why do pupils need continuous assessment or even paper qualifications? What is the difference between jobs, vocations and professions? Who decided what rank and what knowledge was valuable and what was not? Why is academic knowledge still of paramount importance in the institution of schooling?

In the discussions about the organisation of the education system, educational achievement and the curriculum in the last 60 years, the question of the PURPOSE of education continually cropped up. This question was never properly addressed because of the obsession with success and failure and their institutionalised and unquestioned meanings.

I have set myself a mammoth task, but a worthy one and one that was needed.

Please help me....

Fill in my questionnaire or contact me. I'd like to talk to people, ex-teachers and pupils, and discover their experiences of secondary modern schools.

Many thanks

Naomi Breen