I went to the “Escuela Catolica de Ninos Malditos sin Corazon”, got kicked out in the first grade for cracking the teachers skull with an ink pot. Then my dad sent me to Public School were I soon learnt the fine art of blowing up statues of national heroes and burning down classrooms to avoid exams 🙂
I went to an all girls Borstal 🙂
So that’s where I met you Val; I was the caretaker’s apprentice, having been quite unfairly sacked from St Trinians. 😎
You may recognise me –
Crikey yes, I would recognise those caterpillars above your top lip anywhere, I recall you sported a camel hair coat as well 🙂
I did. I still have the photographs (and the negatives), but for an old friend I’d be prepared to not publish them for, say, a grand? 😕
George Cole?
Donald, what is your definition of a “public school”? It becomes rather confusing as it changes its definition crossing the Atlantic, for example, from the UK: probably 97% of Americans go to a public school (State school controlled by government) with the opposite being the case in the UK, according to the extremely confusing UK definition (viz: Private, fee-paying school, almost always boarding, with Charity status).
I took Right Brain back to where I had been incarcerated as a seven year old, which my erudite Guardian always referred to as Dotheboys Hall. He was closer to the truth than he realized! The lad showing me round was most impressed that I had “served” six years there – it had turned into a Juvenile Delinquent Detention Centre in the intervening fifty years. It had been the family home of premier Earls of Scotland in a previous incarnation, and led this seven year old to imagine that every home had a Billiards Room, a library, tennis courts, and a Ballroom.
The Headmaster must receive an invitation to the annual conference for the school to ‘qualify’ as a public school.
If you mean did we take the 11 plus, pass and then go onto a grammar school, yes.
Why?
CWJ, you could have bought it for a snip, this time two years ago. Well, £2 million anyway. When you described it as a ‘Juvenile Delinquent Detention Centre’, I think you meant to say a ‘school for children with special needs’.
The term public school is commonly used in the UK to refer, paradoxically, to a private school. This use of the term derives from its use to refer to some long-established boys’ boarding schools, which were founded or endowed for public use and subject to public management or control;[1] schools which were subsequently reformed by the Public Schools Acts. The term is now commonly used to describe private schools in general, particularly those that are members of the Headmasters’ and Headmistresses’ Conference
To clear any confusion!
Coldwater John – In South America, the Catholic School rules as the best form of education, one has to pay to get in and some of them also offer boarding rooms. Most start at 6 years of age and stay there until they are ready for state run University. But special exams are required in the final year before one can get into University
Public Schools are state run boys and girls schools and one simply walks into University after them. I only did primary over there and one year of high school, the rest I did here in Australia.
It’s been 41 years since I left but at the time all education was free, all books and other equipment was also free and so was University. I don’t know about now.
I forgot to mention – In Uruguay one only goes to school 4 hours a day, 6 days a week, 8am-12pm or 2pm-6pm, only the basic subjects are taught. Sports, PE and non essential subjects are not taught.
All children in Primary wear a special White Tunic with a huge blue ribbon, all High school children wear uniforms very much like those in Britain, Grey trousers, White shirt, tie and Coat with emblem on it.
Interesting comments, thanks all.
Pseu, Yes, that’s what I meant. Just a passing thought, really, sparked by an article in the comments section bemoaning a certain loss of social mobility:
The first post-grammar-school political generation has ended up being a public-school generation…
From 1964-97, every British Prime Minister, from Harold Wilson to John Major, was grammar-school educated.
Being a Forces brat I went to a number of Grammar schools, Kirkham Grmmar in the eponymous Lancashire town, Dover Grammar, Delamere Boys, Nairobi, Stratton Grammar in Biggleswade, Weston- Super-Mare Grammar and Dover again to finish it all off. My problem was laziness – I was bright enough to get by without doing any real work 🙂 Just wondered if Grammar School had been a leg-up for anyone.
Donald,I wore navy blue knickers with a pocket in them, not an ideal place to keep ones pure linen handkerchief 🙂
valzone :
Donald,I wore navy blue knickers with a pocket in them, not an ideal place to keep ones pure linen handkerchief
I love the ideals of Purity, knickers and little pockets 🙂
Oh, for gawd’s sake, will you two go and get a room!
OZ
🙂
And relax! Good afternoon, Bravo. For the record I went to a minor public (fee-paying) school. It was very traditional with all the proper core subjects, compulsory CCF on Thursdays and compulsory games on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday afternoons. Tuesdays and Fridays were a bit of a bugger, frankly, as we were in the classroom all day from 9.30 AM until 4.30 PM, but I loved it all and blossomed.
Many years later at the celebrations to mark the golden wedding of the Great Wolves I was proud to stand up and thank them publicly for having sacrificed so much to provide me and my younger brother with the one thing nobody can ever take away from you – a good, all-round education.
OZ
Hello Bravo: I’m not sure “Educated” is the right word but I went to Grammar School after 11+.
I had only two passions beyond the normal hormonal ones, Physics and Mathematics, all the rest were obligations, especially English Literature and various foreign languages. I have the distinction of failing Eng. Lit. “O” level three times, my bare pass came just in time to rescue my later education.
Like Bearsy I was a “Sandwich” course grad. in my case College based, so four years later I had two years work experience at four different companies, a year later I moved to Canada.
As my father said to me at the time “By leaving you are simultaneously improving the level of intelligence in Canada and the UK.” He was a tough old man.
My dad used to say, “School will only educate you, it is the world that will teach you”
I went to grammar school, but played truant and left when 15 to get a job.
Sipu – that PC-Speak for you: The ones I saw on our visit were teenage borstal louts!
L.W. re- parents’ words of encouragement – one of my first cousins in the USA was informed by his father that he would never amount to anything, as he left home. He was a millionaire by 30, on the board of a Fortune 500 company, and skippered a number of ocean-going racing yachts to victory, which was his real passion in life. He died last week aged 95 and a half…
Tom, I nearly left at 15 too, but I was too lazy.
Hello CWJ:
I’ll bet he enjoyed every minute of his 95 and a half years.
I’ve put a few miles in the wake of various boats in the last thirty years and have never regretted any long journey, including the first.
Blimey, is this the Chariot version of Oprah Winfrey?
Bravo.
Just for the record, as OZ said earlier, I was sort of educated at an Independent Girls’ school, which I didn’t rate at the time, but seems to have improved.
I also went to a Grammar School. Frankly there wasn’t much difference but the Grammar School was probably on balance the more academic of the two.
LW, Google “Stitches Explorer”, or “Sailing in Stitches”, by Dr John Cocker, a recent owner of the yacht which was designed and built by my cousin JT in the early/mid sixties.It was originally called “Big Toy”. At the time, it was one of the largest single hull fibreglass yacht in the world (the mast was 80 feet) – at that time apparently they weren’t sure you could build something that size safely for all sea conditions. He was quoted an extortionate amount to build it by a boatyard in St Petersburg, Florida. He bought the boatyard, had them build it for about half the price quoted, and then sold the boatyard for a profit! I have spoken to Dr Cocker, in the past, on behalf of JT, who tells me that he’s taken it round the world twice, and it is as solid as a rock – well over-engineered! Cocker built a cabin at the back, and all sorts of other creature comforts. JT was bemused to see that the skipper was not out in the elements when steering! He and his wife would sail it by themselves, but Cocker has been taking a large number of volunteer young crews with him on his circumnavigations. It is now with a new owner berthed in San Diego, California.
I went to a girls’ grammar school, which was recognised as very academic. The two fee-paying girls’ schools were generally for those who hadn’t passed the 11+ and whose parents didn’t want them to go to what were called Junior Secondary schools in Scotland. Most of these were perfectly good schools, probably a heck of a lot better than many of today’s comprehensives. Then the Labour Town Council made all the secondary schools comprehensive. League tables now show that my old school features far lower in the rankings than the two fee-paying schools, a complete turnaround, and it is also known locally as Harlots’ Academy. ’nuff said!
For the avoidance of doubt –
I went to an Independent Grant Grammar School, established in 1215; our Headmaster was a member of the Headmasters’ Conference, making us a (minor) ‘Public School’ (in Brit-speak; “private” in Strine or Yank).
I was a scholarship pupil at this (otherwise) fee-paying school. The opportunities I was privileged to enjoy no longer exist, I understand. Shame.
I won a scholarship to one of the 179 direct grant schools in England and Wales at age 10. Like Bearsy’s school it was a “Public School” (GDST) and was deemed to be one of the best girls schools in England.
Excellent education – excellent opportunity – and downright disgusting that the system was discontinued so that only those with the money to pay for quality education could avail themselves of what should be every child’s right.
I am going to stick my neck out here, Boa and ask why should it be every child’s right? If it is a child’s right to have the best education, why should it not be a child’s right to enjoy every other privilege that the wealthy and or hard working and ambitious are able to offer their children; bigger, more comfortable homes, better medical treatment, better diet, holidays, toys, entertainment, extra mural activities, treats etc? Surely, one of the main reasons that parents work so hard and sacrifice so much is so that they can provide their children with advantages that others do not have so that those children will be better able to succeed when they become adults. If one negates the efforts of the parents, their sacrifice becomes pointless and they will no longer strive. That in fact is exactly what has happened in much of Britain. Because the majority of children are given a bog standard education courtesy of the government, parents see little point in trying to improve their lot. Any effort that all but the most able make, will still lead to a lousy education, but they will still pass their exams. It is pointless making an effort. If on the other hand there was more competition for places at better schools, and those schools were indeed better, then parents would strive to send their children there. The point to remember is there has to some advantage in sending their children there. So, even in the grammar school scenario, the majority of children are not going to have the right to attend, either because they are lacking or their parents are lacking. It requires more than just money and brains, it requires good parenting. Please do not misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that there is any merit in having lousy schools. I am not. British and indeed Western schooling in general needs to be improved dramatically at every level. What I am saying is that the standard of education a child receives should depend to a fairly large extent on the efforts, sacrifices and abilities of the parents as well. Otherwise you break the generational chain between parent and child. Human nature dictates that we procreate and strive to give our children the best opportunities for them to procreate. If our efforts as parents are rendered pointless by the state, we cease to be parents. Children do not have rights other than to be given the best opportunities that their parents can give them not what the state can give them.
Ask the Victorians, Sipu. Free (and compulsory) education for everybody. Not out of altruism, but in order that there be trained staff for the workforce.
Think outside the box of inherited, unearnt wealth; outside the class-driven ‘make the buggers work’ ringfence; think, dear fellow, of enlightened self-interest.
By the way, don’t you have a return key on your keyboard? Paragraphs do make your rants far more readable. 😉
Sipu
The majority of things that you mention: bigger, more comfortable homes, better toys, holidays entertainment are purely short-term material benefits and do not have any long term advantages to society at large.
Medical care and education benefit not only the individual but also the wider community, and, for that reason, I firmly believe that neither should be rationed according to the size of one’s wallet or purse. Society can ill-afford to have large numbers of sick and ill-educated people – as Britain is finding to its immense cost now.
There is, in my opinion, a meanness of spirit in those who want to visit the deficiencies of parents upon their children – and that is precisely what you are suggesting. By depriving children of the education necessary to provide for themselves adequately in adult life is simply punishing them for having the misfortune to be born to inadequate parents.
Providing good quality education to all benefits everyone – not just the individual.
I apologise for the lack of para breaks. I agree it does make well constructed arguments difficult to follow.
I am all for having an educated workforce, one that meets the needs of economic climate and enables individuals to strive for achievable goals. But those goals must be vaguely achievable. It is not fair to train nuclear physicists when there is no chance of a a nuclear industry, or anything like it for them to work in. Just as CWJ pointed out with his daughter’s physio degree. Cuba has one of the best educated populations in the world, with more doctors per capita than most countries. But they cannot find work that meets their education. It leads to extreme depression. In Africa, millions of kids achieve secondary and even tertiary education, but the lack of jobs in the sectors they aspire to work in leads to high unemployment and great dissatisfaction. Meanwhile the more menial jobs that they could otherwise be fulfilling go to China and the rest of Asia. Unemployment rises and the vicious cycle continues.
What you ignore is that fact that it is human nature for parents to pass on the accrued benefits of wealth, wisdom and privilege to the next generation. I do not imagine for one minute that you will leave your financial assets to the Australian underclass, if that is not a tautology, so that it can be used to educate them. You, like millions of others, will leave it to your descendants. Can you honestly say that you did not want, even if you were unable to achieve it, your children to have the best education possible? Of course you did. And you would like your grandchildren to have the best available to them. Best means better than what available to most. Granted, we may not all agree on what constitutes the best education, but the fact remains that is what you want for them. That is no different to what generations of Britons, the Victorians in particular, wanted for their descendants. That is why they built up vast wealth and accrued titles and privileges.
Of course, I was expecting a dig from you about inheritance and class. The truth of the matter is that your own class prejudice is as unbecoming as the snobbery and arrogance that you believe exists in those with different background to yours. People strive to improve their lot in life. They want more for their children they had themselves. You might not believe it, but some of my ancestors were as common as yours. One of them was a gardener. He married a local girl of similar background. Through his hard work and talent, he achieved great things. His daughter married well and his grandchildren even better. You may have heard of him. Capability Brown.
Boa, I have to go out. I will try and respond later.
But it doesn’t need long comments of obfuscating meanderings, Sipu, it’s dead-set easy –
You wish to deny children the opportunity of a good education unless their parents –
have inherited wealth, or
work their butts off.
Boadicea and I don’t.
By the way, your undergraduate attempt at a jibe –
the Australian underclass, if that is not a tautology
only serves to illustrate your self-demeaning bigotry; it does not further your cause.
Is there anyone notable in British history from whom you are not descended? 😎
No, I do not wish to deny anybody an education. All I am saying is that children do not have a right to an education any more than they have a right to be born rich, beautiful, healthy or intelligent. I was just lucky.
As for jibes, check the log in your eye.
I have no cause. I am not a polemicist like you. I enjoy debate.
There are a few from whom I am not descended, but you would not have heard of them.
I had thought that the idea that universal education and healthcare was a general good had been long since settled. How those goods are provided might be another matter, but I would support the idea that we should agree that there is a base level of both that should be available to all, that we should support such through agreed and general taxation, and that both should be free at the point of delivery.
It rather pisses me off that I had to pay for my children to receive the same quality of education that I and my contemporaries – those who went to Grammar schools and those who went to Secondary Moderns, those who chose University and those who opted for apprenticeships, or Technical Colleges – received free, (at the point of delivery,) through State schools.
At least as far as education goes, and I suspect as far as Health Services go also, we did have acceptable systems in this country once. What has been achieved once can be aspired to again.
Boa, imagine that there is only one place left to study history at Oxford. Two students are applying for it. Their claims are identical in every measurable sense, the only difference being that the parents of one can afford to pay the tuition fees while the parents of other cannot. Would you deny the child, whose parents have scrimped, laboured and saved for those fees, the right to that place ahead of the child who parents made no such effort? Or would you say they have an equal right and toss a coin to decide? Or perhaps you would do something else?
As an aside, if you have not read them, I think you would find the books of Malcolm Gladwell very enjoyable. They are in essay form. They include, ‘Outliers’, ‘The Tipping Point’, ‘What the Dog Saw’ and ‘Blink’. ‘Outliers’ has a piece on applications for Harvard University.
An interesting post which looks like it will run and run, given the slight Southern Hemispherean disagreement which it seems to have engendered.
I would like to open a second front and am opting for internecine attack instead – it’s something at which we Jocks have always been adept.
cwj claims at #8 that the definition of a public scool in the UK is ‘…….. (viz: Private, fee-paying school, almost always boarding, with Charity status).’
This is, with the utmost respect to him, a total pile of keech (smiley thing cwj, in hope of avoiding any offence and so that you will be clear that I’m in joshing mode). That is indeed the definition in England, possibly, as zen says in #68, as a result of the Public School Acts 1868 and 1973. Said Acts applied solely to England and presumably Wales.
In Scotland, the Scottish Parliament of 1696 passed an Act ‘compelling the heritors of every parish to provide a commodious house for a school and a small salary for a schoolmaster.’ – ‘The History of Scotland’ by Professor John Mackie (no relation)
Education was made compulsory for ages 5-13 by the Education (Scotland) Act 1872. Can’t find a google of the Act to check definitions but I cite from c.62:-
 ‘Every school under the management of the school board of a parish shall be deemed a parish school , and every school under the management of the school  board of a burgh shall be deemed a burgh school, and all such schools are hereby declared to be public schools within the meaning of this Act. . . . There shall be provided for every parish and burgh a sufficient amount of accommodation in public schools available for all persons resident in such parish or burgh.
Our educational history explains why our national Bard (happy birthday, Rabbie, by the way), the son of a tenant farmer, was able to attend various public schools where he was taught French, Latin, Mathematics et alii and could hold his own in the salons of Embra in due course.
It also explains why Sheona and I both attended public schools while cwj was at private or independent schools in Jockspeak. Like Sheona, I was grammar school 11+ pass.
In third, it explains why I stand foursquare with Boa and Bearsy in the other conflict. The Scots tradition is that every child, regardless of the rank or wealth or aspiration of their father, should have access to the best education possible.
Mind, I do think that Sipu, being of part-Jockish persuasion, is definitely not far away from being in slight joshing or even seriously stirring mode in his comments on this post. On this day of days, I refer him to one of the finest songs of our late compatriot.
‘The rank is but the guinea stamp, the man’s the gold for a’ that.’
Sorry for the length of comment. This is why I will never be on Twitter.
JM, never forget that Rabbie Burns sold his soul for the King’s shilling. He was a tax collector.
Wee, sleekit, cowrin, tim’rous beastie, O, what a panic’s in thy breastie!
Where’s your bleeding dosh?
Joshing and stirring, definitely go hand in hand as far as I am concerned. Life would be too tedious otherwise.
The brother of a friend of mine is excessively wealthy. Being a Scot, he tried to set up an educational foundation in Scotland, but was rejected. The SNP did not want his Tory money. So he spent it in Newcastle.
JM, never forget that Rabbie Burns sold his soul for the King’s shilling. He was a tax collector.
Hi. Sipu. Have never forgotten it and equally have never forgotten that he would have been a slave overseer if he had actually got on that boat to the West Indies, that he could have been run in for Jacobin sentiments in some of his poetry, butthat he also joined the Volunteers when French invasion was expected and penned the lines:-
‘Be Britain still to Britain true,
Amang oursels united!
For never but by British hands
Maun British wrongs be righted.’
In truth, the boy Rabbie was all things to all men and whatever he needed to be to any woman he came across. None of which alters the fact that he was a great poet.
Or the fact that, in my opinion, whatever our class, politics, creed, education or wealth, the overwhelming majority of Scots that I know share his belief that we are all Jock Tamson’s bairns and just as good as and/or the equal of anybody else and should probably all have a ‘fair go’ when it comes to education.
We could, of course, all be wrong.
JM
“He was all things to all men”, a “Catcher in the rye”.
Re your last para, but one. I am being ‘misunderestimated’ again.
Equality is not sustainable. As noble a sentiment as it might be, it just isn’t. Equality in education, as in all things, falls apart far sooner than we would hope.
We live in a hierarchical world.
We do not have rights, we have expectations and the ability, to a greater or lesser extent, to achieve them.
Thomas Jefferson was wrong. So was Robbie Burns, but Robbie was a poet, so we can forgive him.
I wish nothing more than for happiness in this world, but deception is wrong. Telling all men that they are equal is a deception.
Sipu.
I’m just joining in this debate, so forgive me if I am not fully conversant with that which has been said before but..
I agree, we are not all equal but I feel that society as a whole, would benefit from an education policy which educates each person to the best of his or her ability, regardless of their social or economic standing, or indeed, that of their parents.
Sipu, my apologies for allegedly misunderestimating you.
But, I personally feel that we are on a two street street here. At no point am I advocating equality in anything including education. I am, however, firmly in favour of equality of opportunity wherever possible, especially in education.
And I do not believe that Robbie was wrong in his estimation of the worth of an honest man, however humble or poor in ‘hierarchical’ terms, which is what the song is all about, in my opinion.
Sipu
Re your ridiculous hypothetical question. It is exceedingly gratifying to know that you would willingly give up your place at Oxford for me because my mother made more sacrifices for my education than your parents made for yours. However, I am opposed to any system which uses the parents of any child as a indicator of that child’s worthiness to receive an education.
You talk of equality. No one here has claimed that “all men / women are equal”. They patently are not. However, all are entitled to be given the opportunity to develop their latent abilities – regardless of what or who their parents are.
JM
Thanks for the support!
It seems that others – Araminta and JM – have made my point about ‘equality’ far better than I have.
Ara – Educating everybody to the best of his ability may seem fair, but it can also lead to problems. Education needs to be appropriate to the society and the economy. As has often been said on this site Britain produces too many graduates of media studies and not enough engineers. If every child across the world was educated to the best of his ability, there would be no manufacturing, crops grown, no one to clean the streets or your bedpan. Everybody would be presenting art shows on TV.
JM, I apologiuse, it was late last night when I wrote that stuff and I was feeling a bit tired and emotional having had to hold up a bar for a considerable length of time. Perhaps I went off piste a bit. However, I certainly agree with you and Mr Burns in the ‘worth of an honest man’ whatever his background. The point I have been trying to get across is that parents are ambitious for their children. It is natural that they will try to ensure that their children do not just get a good education, but the best education.This will lead to their children having greater opportunities in life than their peers. It leads to a hierarchical situation. Employers and employees.
What constitutes a good education? The ability to read, write and do sums, or being able to perform integral calculus and read Ancient Greek? British children for all their lousy education, are far better off than most African kids. Africans would consider British children to be well educated. It becomes relative and therefore competitive.
Lets assume that Reading Grammar provides a good education and Eton provides an excellent education. If I can afford to send my child to Eton I will do so, thereby giving him an advantage over the children sent to Reading. Is that an immoral position? Have the children been given equal opportunity? Should public schools be banned? Oops, Labour did something like that and ended up with the bog-standard comprehensive!
Boa, I believe that is called ‘reductio ad absurdum’. It is a way of making a point with a minimum of explanation I was berated earlier for my more long winded ‘rants’. I certainly would not willingly give up my place for you, however, it seems logical to me that the university would prefer you to me, based on the fact that you are paying your way and I would be a cost.
If you believe all children have an equal right to an education, why stop at British children? Should not British taxes be paying for the education of all children, wherever they may be in the world? Why should the inadequacies of their parents/government/culture be visited on them? If your theories apply in a national sense then they should apply in a global sense. If on the other hand you believe that the education of African children is the responsibility of African children and has nothing to do with Britain, I would respond that the education of my children is my responsibility and has nothing to do with you. And vice versa.
It really gets on my proverbials when people talk about their rights. Who or what exactly gives children these rights to a decent education? In Britain, most of them are not getting one and there is no jurisdiction anywhere that is going to compensate them for a breach of contract. All we have as individuals and as a society are aspirations and abilities. We hope for a good education for our children and we strive to provide them with one, but it cannot be guaranteed. It is foolish to talk about rights in this context.
Why should the British pay for an good education for only British children – quite simply because it is the British taxpayer who is paying for the education – even those who pay no income tax pay VAT and other such levies. There is more than enough money going to the “poorer countries” as it is – Charity should begin at home…
You fall into the trap that so many people do – education is not about preparing people for a specific job – it is about training them to learn, think analytically and acquire a whole heap of skills which will enable them to be better citizens, to participate in society and, incidentally, to make them more flexible in the changing work environment. Your idea seems to be that we should simply educate people to be factory / office fodder. Perhaps you, like my father, believe that there is no point educating women since they will only end up at a kitchen sink?
When I talk about a good education – I am talking about primary and secondary education – and not about the Mickey Mouse qualifications that are laughingly called degrees these days. Half the courses on offer are worthless – but just what will the country do with thousands of youngsters whose literary and numeracy skills barely reach the standard of the old 11+ ?.
No, I have not fallen into any trap. I am well aware of the purpose of education and I am also very aware that the academic aspect is only a small part of a child’s overall education. Much of what he needs to know must be learned, not just outside of the class room but outside of the school. Too many children are protected from the realities of life and no amount of academic learning is going to help them deal with it. Ultimately though, children become adults and do need to earn a living and in most cases in Britain, qualifications help in that regard.
Re ‘charity begins at home’, that is precisely what I am saying. Your argument falls apart.
I do just want to clarify one point about my position. I do not maintain that children, because of the status of their parents, are any better or worse individuals or more or less deserving than those children whose parents’ status is markedly different. To that extent, I am with JM and Robbie Burns. But, the status and ability of the parents are very likely to effect the opportunities afforded the child and there is no getting away from that.
Sorry to check in late – we’ve been away for a few days. I took the 11+ exam and went to a genuine grammar school – a ‘direct grant’ school, I recall – which also offered a no. of fee-paying places. My Mum left school at thirteen to look after the house and her siblings while her mother worked. My Dad went to a technical school and was apprenticed as a mechanical engineer. My generation of cousins was the first to get ‘academic’ educations, including university. So it’s arguable that the availability of grammars made that possible, given that ‘public school’ was beyond our means.
Boadicea's Chariot 
Howzit Bravo, I think everyone except me 😉
Perhaps I’ll write a poem about it 🙂
I went to the “Escuela Catolica de Ninos Malditos sin Corazon”, got kicked out in the first grade for cracking the teachers skull with an ink pot. Then my dad sent me to Public School were I soon learnt the fine art of blowing up statues of national heroes and burning down classrooms to avoid exams 🙂
I went to an all girls Borstal 🙂
So that’s where I met you Val; I was the caretaker’s apprentice, having been quite unfairly sacked from St Trinians. 😎
You may recognise me –
Crikey yes, I would recognise those caterpillars above your top lip anywhere, I recall you sported a camel hair coat as well 🙂
I did. I still have the photographs (and the negatives), but for an old friend I’d be prepared to not publish them for, say, a grand? 😕
George Cole?
Donald, what is your definition of a “public school”? It becomes rather confusing as it changes its definition crossing the Atlantic, for example, from the UK: probably 97% of Americans go to a public school (State school controlled by government) with the opposite being the case in the UK, according to the extremely confusing UK definition (viz: Private, fee-paying school, almost always boarding, with Charity status).
I took Right Brain back to where I had been incarcerated as a seven year old, which my erudite Guardian always referred to as Dotheboys Hall. He was closer to the truth than he realized! The lad showing me round was most impressed that I had “served” six years there – it had turned into a Juvenile Delinquent Detention Centre in the intervening fifty years. It had been the family home of premier Earls of Scotland in a previous incarnation, and led this seven year old to imagine that every home had a Billiards Room, a library, tennis courts, and a Ballroom.
The Headmaster must receive an invitation to the annual conference for the school to ‘qualify’ as a public school.
If you mean did we take the 11 plus, pass and then go onto a grammar school, yes.
Why?
CWJ, you could have bought it for a snip, this time two years ago. Well, £2 million anyway. When you described it as a ‘Juvenile Delinquent Detention Centre’, I think you meant to say a ‘school for children with special needs’.
The term public school is commonly used in the UK to refer, paradoxically, to a private school. This use of the term derives from its use to refer to some long-established boys’ boarding schools, which were founded or endowed for public use and subject to public management or control;[1] schools which were subsequently reformed by the Public Schools Acts. The term is now commonly used to describe private schools in general, particularly those that are members of the Headmasters’ and Headmistresses’ Conference
To clear any confusion!
Coldwater John – In South America, the Catholic School rules as the best form of education, one has to pay to get in and some of them also offer boarding rooms. Most start at 6 years of age and stay there until they are ready for state run University. But special exams are required in the final year before one can get into University
Public Schools are state run boys and girls schools and one simply walks into University after them. I only did primary over there and one year of high school, the rest I did here in Australia.
It’s been 41 years since I left but at the time all education was free, all books and other equipment was also free and so was University. I don’t know about now.
I forgot to mention – In Uruguay one only goes to school 4 hours a day, 6 days a week, 8am-12pm or 2pm-6pm, only the basic subjects are taught. Sports, PE and non essential subjects are not taught.
All children in Primary wear a special White Tunic with a huge blue ribbon, all High school children wear uniforms very much like those in Britain, Grey trousers, White shirt, tie and Coat with emblem on it.
Interesting comments, thanks all.
Pseu, Yes, that’s what I meant. Just a passing thought, really, sparked by an article in the comments section bemoaning a certain loss of social mobility:
Being a Forces brat I went to a number of Grammar schools, Kirkham Grmmar in the eponymous Lancashire town, Dover Grammar, Delamere Boys, Nairobi, Stratton Grammar in Biggleswade, Weston- Super-Mare Grammar and Dover again to finish it all off. My problem was laziness – I was bright enough to get by without doing any real work 🙂 Just wondered if Grammar School had been a leg-up for anyone.
Oops, link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8277371/How-politics-got-posh-again.html
Donald,I wore navy blue knickers with a pocket in them, not an ideal place to keep ones pure linen handkerchief 🙂
I love the ideals of Purity, knickers and little pockets 🙂
Oh, for gawd’s sake, will you two go and get a room!
OZ
🙂
And relax! Good afternoon, Bravo. For the record I went to a minor public (fee-paying) school. It was very traditional with all the proper core subjects, compulsory CCF on Thursdays and compulsory games on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday afternoons. Tuesdays and Fridays were a bit of a bugger, frankly, as we were in the classroom all day from 9.30 AM until 4.30 PM, but I loved it all and blossomed.
Many years later at the celebrations to mark the golden wedding of the Great Wolves I was proud to stand up and thank them publicly for having sacrificed so much to provide me and my younger brother with the one thing nobody can ever take away from you – a good, all-round education.
OZ
Hello Bravo: I’m not sure “Educated” is the right word but I went to Grammar School after 11+.
I had only two passions beyond the normal hormonal ones, Physics and Mathematics, all the rest were obligations, especially English Literature and various foreign languages. I have the distinction of failing Eng. Lit. “O” level three times, my bare pass came just in time to rescue my later education.
Like Bearsy I was a “Sandwich” course grad. in my case College based, so four years later I had two years work experience at four different companies, a year later I moved to Canada.
As my father said to me at the time “By leaving you are simultaneously improving the level of intelligence in Canada and the UK.” He was a tough old man.
My dad used to say, “School will only educate you, it is the world that will teach you”
I went to grammar school, but played truant and left when 15 to get a job.
Sipu – that PC-Speak for you: The ones I saw on our visit were teenage borstal louts!
L.W. re- parents’ words of encouragement – one of my first cousins in the USA was informed by his father that he would never amount to anything, as he left home. He was a millionaire by 30, on the board of a Fortune 500 company, and skippered a number of ocean-going racing yachts to victory, which was his real passion in life. He died last week aged 95 and a half…
Tom, I nearly left at 15 too, but I was too lazy.
Hello CWJ:
I’ll bet he enjoyed every minute of his 95 and a half years.
I’ve put a few miles in the wake of various boats in the last thirty years and have never regretted any long journey, including the first.
Blimey, is this the Chariot version of Oprah Winfrey?
Bravo.
Just for the record, as OZ said earlier, I was sort of educated at an Independent Girls’ school, which I didn’t rate at the time, but seems to have improved.
I also went to a Grammar School. Frankly there wasn’t much difference but the Grammar School was probably on balance the more academic of the two.
LW, Google “Stitches Explorer”, or “Sailing in Stitches”, by Dr John Cocker, a recent owner of the yacht which was designed and built by my cousin JT in the early/mid sixties.It was originally called “Big Toy”. At the time, it was one of the largest single hull fibreglass yacht in the world (the mast was 80 feet) – at that time apparently they weren’t sure you could build something that size safely for all sea conditions. He was quoted an extortionate amount to build it by a boatyard in St Petersburg, Florida. He bought the boatyard, had them build it for about half the price quoted, and then sold the boatyard for a profit! I have spoken to Dr Cocker, in the past, on behalf of JT, who tells me that he’s taken it round the world twice, and it is as solid as a rock – well over-engineered! Cocker built a cabin at the back, and all sorts of other creature comforts. JT was bemused to see that the skipper was not out in the elements when steering! He and his wife would sail it by themselves, but Cocker has been taking a large number of volunteer young crews with him on his circumnavigations. It is now with a new owner berthed in San Diego, California.
I went to a girls’ grammar school, which was recognised as very academic. The two fee-paying girls’ schools were generally for those who hadn’t passed the 11+ and whose parents didn’t want them to go to what were called Junior Secondary schools in Scotland. Most of these were perfectly good schools, probably a heck of a lot better than many of today’s comprehensives. Then the Labour Town Council made all the secondary schools comprehensive. League tables now show that my old school features far lower in the rankings than the two fee-paying schools, a complete turnaround, and it is also known locally as Harlots’ Academy. ’nuff said!
For the avoidance of doubt –
I went to an Independent Grant Grammar School, established in 1215; our Headmaster was a member of the Headmasters’ Conference, making us a (minor) ‘Public School’ (in Brit-speak; “private” in Strine or Yank).
I was a scholarship pupil at this (otherwise) fee-paying school. The opportunities I was privileged to enjoy no longer exist, I understand. Shame.
I won a scholarship to one of the 179 direct grant schools in England and Wales at age 10. Like Bearsy’s school it was a “Public School” (GDST) and was deemed to be one of the best girls schools in England.
Excellent education – excellent opportunity – and downright disgusting that the system was discontinued so that only those with the money to pay for quality education could avail themselves of what should be every child’s right.
I am going to stick my neck out here, Boa and ask why should it be every child’s right? If it is a child’s right to have the best education, why should it not be a child’s right to enjoy every other privilege that the wealthy and or hard working and ambitious are able to offer their children; bigger, more comfortable homes, better medical treatment, better diet, holidays, toys, entertainment, extra mural activities, treats etc? Surely, one of the main reasons that parents work so hard and sacrifice so much is so that they can provide their children with advantages that others do not have so that those children will be better able to succeed when they become adults. If one negates the efforts of the parents, their sacrifice becomes pointless and they will no longer strive. That in fact is exactly what has happened in much of Britain. Because the majority of children are given a bog standard education courtesy of the government, parents see little point in trying to improve their lot. Any effort that all but the most able make, will still lead to a lousy education, but they will still pass their exams. It is pointless making an effort. If on the other hand there was more competition for places at better schools, and those schools were indeed better, then parents would strive to send their children there. The point to remember is there has to some advantage in sending their children there. So, even in the grammar school scenario, the majority of children are not going to have the right to attend, either because they are lacking or their parents are lacking. It requires more than just money and brains, it requires good parenting. Please do not misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that there is any merit in having lousy schools. I am not. British and indeed Western schooling in general needs to be improved dramatically at every level. What I am saying is that the standard of education a child receives should depend to a fairly large extent on the efforts, sacrifices and abilities of the parents as well. Otherwise you break the generational chain between parent and child. Human nature dictates that we procreate and strive to give our children the best opportunities for them to procreate. If our efforts as parents are rendered pointless by the state, we cease to be parents. Children do not have rights other than to be given the best opportunities that their parents can give them not what the state can give them.
Ask the Victorians, Sipu. Free (and compulsory) education for everybody. Not out of altruism, but in order that there be trained staff for the workforce.
Think outside the box of inherited, unearnt wealth; outside the class-driven ‘make the buggers work’ ringfence; think, dear fellow, of enlightened self-interest.
By the way, don’t you have a return key on your keyboard? Paragraphs do make your rants far more readable. 😉
Sipu
The majority of things that you mention: bigger, more comfortable homes, better toys, holidays entertainment are purely short-term material benefits and do not have any long term advantages to society at large.
Medical care and education benefit not only the individual but also the wider community, and, for that reason, I firmly believe that neither should be rationed according to the size of one’s wallet or purse. Society can ill-afford to have large numbers of sick and ill-educated people – as Britain is finding to its immense cost now.
There is, in my opinion, a meanness of spirit in those who want to visit the deficiencies of parents upon their children – and that is precisely what you are suggesting. By depriving children of the education necessary to provide for themselves adequately in adult life is simply punishing them for having the misfortune to be born to inadequate parents.
Providing good quality education to all benefits everyone – not just the individual.
I apologise for the lack of para breaks. I agree it does make well constructed arguments difficult to follow.
I am all for having an educated workforce, one that meets the needs of economic climate and enables individuals to strive for achievable goals. But those goals must be vaguely achievable. It is not fair to train nuclear physicists when there is no chance of a a nuclear industry, or anything like it for them to work in. Just as CWJ pointed out with his daughter’s physio degree. Cuba has one of the best educated populations in the world, with more doctors per capita than most countries. But they cannot find work that meets their education. It leads to extreme depression. In Africa, millions of kids achieve secondary and even tertiary education, but the lack of jobs in the sectors they aspire to work in leads to high unemployment and great dissatisfaction. Meanwhile the more menial jobs that they could otherwise be fulfilling go to China and the rest of Asia. Unemployment rises and the vicious cycle continues.
What you ignore is that fact that it is human nature for parents to pass on the accrued benefits of wealth, wisdom and privilege to the next generation. I do not imagine for one minute that you will leave your financial assets to the Australian underclass, if that is not a tautology, so that it can be used to educate them. You, like millions of others, will leave it to your descendants. Can you honestly say that you did not want, even if you were unable to achieve it, your children to have the best education possible? Of course you did. And you would like your grandchildren to have the best available to them. Best means better than what available to most. Granted, we may not all agree on what constitutes the best education, but the fact remains that is what you want for them. That is no different to what generations of Britons, the Victorians in particular, wanted for their descendants. That is why they built up vast wealth and accrued titles and privileges.
Of course, I was expecting a dig from you about inheritance and class. The truth of the matter is that your own class prejudice is as unbecoming as the snobbery and arrogance that you believe exists in those with different background to yours. People strive to improve their lot in life. They want more for their children they had themselves. You might not believe it, but some of my ancestors were as common as yours. One of them was a gardener. He married a local girl of similar background. Through his hard work and talent, he achieved great things. His daughter married well and his grandchildren even better. You may have heard of him. Capability Brown.
Boa, I have to go out. I will try and respond later.
But it doesn’t need long comments of obfuscating meanderings, Sipu, it’s dead-set easy –
You wish to deny children the opportunity of a good education unless their parents –
Boadicea and I don’t.
By the way, your undergraduate attempt at a jibe –
only serves to illustrate your self-demeaning bigotry; it does not further your cause.
Is there anyone notable in British history from whom you are not descended? 😎
No, I do not wish to deny anybody an education. All I am saying is that children do not have a right to an education any more than they have a right to be born rich, beautiful, healthy or intelligent. I was just lucky.
As for jibes, check the log in your eye.
I have no cause. I am not a polemicist like you. I enjoy debate.
There are a few from whom I am not descended, but you would not have heard of them.
I had thought that the idea that universal education and healthcare was a general good had been long since settled. How those goods are provided might be another matter, but I would support the idea that we should agree that there is a base level of both that should be available to all, that we should support such through agreed and general taxation, and that both should be free at the point of delivery.
It rather pisses me off that I had to pay for my children to receive the same quality of education that I and my contemporaries – those who went to Grammar schools and those who went to Secondary Moderns, those who chose University and those who opted for apprenticeships, or Technical Colleges – received free, (at the point of delivery,) through State schools.
At least as far as education goes, and I suspect as far as Health Services go also, we did have acceptable systems in this country once. What has been achieved once can be aspired to again.
Boa, imagine that there is only one place left to study history at Oxford. Two students are applying for it. Their claims are identical in every measurable sense, the only difference being that the parents of one can afford to pay the tuition fees while the parents of other cannot. Would you deny the child, whose parents have scrimped, laboured and saved for those fees, the right to that place ahead of the child who parents made no such effort? Or would you say they have an equal right and toss a coin to decide? Or perhaps you would do something else?
As an aside, if you have not read them, I think you would find the books of Malcolm Gladwell very enjoyable. They are in essay form. They include, ‘Outliers’, ‘The Tipping Point’, ‘What the Dog Saw’ and ‘Blink’. ‘Outliers’ has a piece on applications for Harvard University.
http://www.gladwell.com/dog/index.html
Hi, bravo. A good Nrew Year to you.
An interesting post which looks like it will run and run, given the slight Southern Hemispherean disagreement which it seems to have engendered.
I would like to open a second front and am opting for internecine attack instead – it’s something at which we Jocks have always been adept.
cwj claims at #8 that the definition of a public scool in the UK is ‘…….. (viz: Private, fee-paying school, almost always boarding, with Charity status).’
This is, with the utmost respect to him, a total pile of keech (smiley thing cwj, in hope of avoiding any offence and so that you will be clear that I’m in joshing mode). That is indeed the definition in England, possibly, as zen says in #68, as a result of the Public School Acts 1868 and 1973. Said Acts applied solely to England and presumably Wales.
In Scotland, the Scottish Parliament of 1696 passed an Act ‘compelling the heritors of every parish to provide a commodious house for a school and a small salary for a schoolmaster.’ – ‘The History of Scotland’ by Professor John Mackie (no relation)
Education was made compulsory for ages 5-13 by the Education (Scotland) Act 1872. Can’t find a google of the Act to check definitions but I cite from c.62:-
 ‘Every school under the management of the school board of a parish shall be deemed a parish school , and every school under the management of the school  board of a burgh shall be deemed a burgh school, and all such schools are hereby declared to be public schools within the meaning of this Act. . . . There shall be provided for every parish and burgh a sufficient amount of accommodation in public schools available for all persons resident in such parish or burgh.
Our educational history explains why our national Bard (happy birthday, Rabbie, by the way), the son of a tenant farmer, was able to attend various public schools where he was taught French, Latin, Mathematics et alii and could hold his own in the salons of Embra in due course.
It also explains why Sheona and I both attended public schools while cwj was at private or independent schools in Jockspeak. Like Sheona, I was grammar school 11+ pass.
In third, it explains why I stand foursquare with Boa and Bearsy in the other conflict. The Scots tradition is that every child, regardless of the rank or wealth or aspiration of their father, should have access to the best education possible.
Mind, I do think that Sipu, being of part-Jockish persuasion, is definitely not far away from being in slight joshing or even seriously stirring mode in his comments on this post. On this day of days, I refer him to one of the finest songs of our late compatriot.
‘The rank is but the guinea stamp, the man’s the gold for a’ that.’
Sorry for the length of comment. This is why I will never be on Twitter.
JM, never forget that Rabbie Burns sold his soul for the King’s shilling. He was a tax collector.
Wee, sleekit, cowrin, tim’rous beastie, O, what a panic’s in thy breastie!
Where’s your bleeding dosh?
Joshing and stirring, definitely go hand in hand as far as I am concerned. Life would be too tedious otherwise.
The brother of a friend of mine is excessively wealthy. Being a Scot, he tried to set up an educational foundation in Scotland, but was rejected. The SNP did not want his Tory money. So he spent it in Newcastle.
Hi. Sipu. Have never forgotten it and equally have never forgotten that he would have been a slave overseer if he had actually got on that boat to the West Indies, that he could have been run in for Jacobin sentiments in some of his poetry, butthat he also joined the Volunteers when French invasion was expected and penned the lines:-
‘Be Britain still to Britain true,
Amang oursels united!
For never but by British hands
Maun British wrongs be righted.’
In truth, the boy Rabbie was all things to all men and whatever he needed to be to any woman he came across. None of which alters the fact that he was a great poet.
Or the fact that, in my opinion, whatever our class, politics, creed, education or wealth, the overwhelming majority of Scots that I know share his belief that we are all Jock Tamson’s bairns and just as good as and/or the equal of anybody else and should probably all have a ‘fair go’ when it comes to education.
We could, of course, all be wrong.
JM
“He was all things to all men”, a “Catcher in the rye”.
Re your last para, but one. I am being ‘misunderestimated’ again.
Equality is not sustainable. As noble a sentiment as it might be, it just isn’t. Equality in education, as in all things, falls apart far sooner than we would hope.
We live in a hierarchical world.
We do not have rights, we have expectations and the ability, to a greater or lesser extent, to achieve them.
Thomas Jefferson was wrong. So was Robbie Burns, but Robbie was a poet, so we can forgive him.
I wish nothing more than for happiness in this world, but deception is wrong. Telling all men that they are equal is a deception.
Sipu.
I’m just joining in this debate, so forgive me if I am not fully conversant with that which has been said before but..
I agree, we are not all equal but I feel that society as a whole, would benefit from an education policy which educates each person to the best of his or her ability, regardless of their social or economic standing, or indeed, that of their parents.
Sipu, my apologies for allegedly misunderestimating you.
But, I personally feel that we are on a two street street here. At no point am I advocating equality in anything including education. I am, however, firmly in favour of equality of opportunity wherever possible, especially in education.
And I do not believe that Robbie was wrong in his estimation of the worth of an honest man, however humble or poor in ‘hierarchical’ terms, which is what the song is all about, in my opinion.
Sipu
Re your ridiculous hypothetical question. It is exceedingly gratifying to know that you would willingly give up your place at Oxford for me because my mother made more sacrifices for my education than your parents made for yours. However, I am opposed to any system which uses the parents of any child as a indicator of that child’s worthiness to receive an education.
You talk of equality. No one here has claimed that “all men / women are equal”. They patently are not. However, all are entitled to be given the opportunity to develop their latent abilities – regardless of what or who their parents are.
JM
Thanks for the support!
It seems that others – Araminta and JM – have made my point about ‘equality’ far better than I have.
Ara – Educating everybody to the best of his ability may seem fair, but it can also lead to problems. Education needs to be appropriate to the society and the economy. As has often been said on this site Britain produces too many graduates of media studies and not enough engineers. If every child across the world was educated to the best of his ability, there would be no manufacturing, crops grown, no one to clean the streets or your bedpan. Everybody would be presenting art shows on TV.
JM, I apologiuse, it was late last night when I wrote that stuff and I was feeling a bit tired and emotional having had to hold up a bar for a considerable length of time. Perhaps I went off piste a bit. However, I certainly agree with you and Mr Burns in the ‘worth of an honest man’ whatever his background. The point I have been trying to get across is that parents are ambitious for their children. It is natural that they will try to ensure that their children do not just get a good education, but the best education.This will lead to their children having greater opportunities in life than their peers. It leads to a hierarchical situation. Employers and employees.
What constitutes a good education? The ability to read, write and do sums, or being able to perform integral calculus and read Ancient Greek? British children for all their lousy education, are far better off than most African kids. Africans would consider British children to be well educated. It becomes relative and therefore competitive.
Lets assume that Reading Grammar provides a good education and Eton provides an excellent education. If I can afford to send my child to Eton I will do so, thereby giving him an advantage over the children sent to Reading. Is that an immoral position? Have the children been given equal opportunity? Should public schools be banned? Oops, Labour did something like that and ended up with the bog-standard comprehensive!
Boa, I believe that is called ‘reductio ad absurdum’. It is a way of making a point with a minimum of explanation I was berated earlier for my more long winded ‘rants’. I certainly would not willingly give up my place for you, however, it seems logical to me that the university would prefer you to me, based on the fact that you are paying your way and I would be a cost.
If you believe all children have an equal right to an education, why stop at British children? Should not British taxes be paying for the education of all children, wherever they may be in the world? Why should the inadequacies of their parents/government/culture be visited on them? If your theories apply in a national sense then they should apply in a global sense. If on the other hand you believe that the education of African children is the responsibility of African children and has nothing to do with Britain, I would respond that the education of my children is my responsibility and has nothing to do with you. And vice versa.
It really gets on my proverbials when people talk about their rights. Who or what exactly gives children these rights to a decent education? In Britain, most of them are not getting one and there is no jurisdiction anywhere that is going to compensate them for a breach of contract. All we have as individuals and as a society are aspirations and abilities. We hope for a good education for our children and we strive to provide them with one, but it cannot be guaranteed. It is foolish to talk about rights in this context.
Why should the British pay for an good education for only British children – quite simply because it is the British taxpayer who is paying for the education – even those who pay no income tax pay VAT and other such levies. There is more than enough money going to the “poorer countries” as it is – Charity should begin at home…
You fall into the trap that so many people do – education is not about preparing people for a specific job – it is about training them to learn, think analytically and acquire a whole heap of skills which will enable them to be better citizens, to participate in society and, incidentally, to make them more flexible in the changing work environment. Your idea seems to be that we should simply educate people to be factory / office fodder. Perhaps you, like my father, believe that there is no point educating women since they will only end up at a kitchen sink?
When I talk about a good education – I am talking about primary and secondary education – and not about the Mickey Mouse qualifications that are laughingly called degrees these days. Half the courses on offer are worthless – but just what will the country do with thousands of youngsters whose literary and numeracy skills barely reach the standard of the old 11+ ?.
No, I have not fallen into any trap. I am well aware of the purpose of education and I am also very aware that the academic aspect is only a small part of a child’s overall education. Much of what he needs to know must be learned, not just outside of the class room but outside of the school. Too many children are protected from the realities of life and no amount of academic learning is going to help them deal with it. Ultimately though, children become adults and do need to earn a living and in most cases in Britain, qualifications help in that regard.
Re ‘charity begins at home’, that is precisely what I am saying. Your argument falls apart.
I do just want to clarify one point about my position. I do not maintain that children, because of the status of their parents, are any better or worse individuals or more or less deserving than those children whose parents’ status is markedly different. To that extent, I am with JM and Robbie Burns. But, the status and ability of the parents are very likely to effect the opportunities afforded the child and there is no getting away from that.
Sorry to check in late – we’ve been away for a few days. I took the 11+ exam and went to a genuine grammar school – a ‘direct grant’ school, I recall – which also offered a no. of fee-paying places. My Mum left school at thirteen to look after the house and her siblings while her mother worked. My Dad went to a technical school and was apprenticed as a mechanical engineer. My generation of cousins was the first to get ‘academic’ educations, including university. So it’s arguable that the availability of grammars made that possible, given that ‘public school’ was beyond our means.