From my winter Mexican retreat I read on various newspaper websites, that Brown is bringing back Milburn to tackle the lack of "social mobility".
It being apparent that several contributors to this site have been involved professionally in education, it would be interesting to hear their views on whether the return of Grammar Schools and competitive selection would solve be the answer?

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 41/46

Ii's a contentious issue Peter. Let me answer with a question. If it seen as important to have special schools and separate teaching for children with special needs ie learning difficulties why then is it considered by some to be inappropriate to recognise that brighter children have Special Needs, too?? Arthur

There was a time in the '70s when some educationalists wrote about and promoted support for making special provision for "gifted" children whom they claimed had special educational needs. Where these claims lie now I do not know.It would appear from what I have heard from the politicians that social mobility always means upward.(There are the examples of downward mobility.)A cause of under-achievement with many youngsters is the lack of desire to learn and improve because their little candle has been snuffed by the massive impact of youth media which promotes all manner of activities that divert their energies.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 52-60

Current location (optional) Lincoln

Terry. You are right about "gifted" children. All schools are required to keep a register of "gifted and talented" children. ("gifted" refering to children with all-round high ability, and "talented" refering to children with very high ability in specific areas - music, mathematics, art etc.). Inspecttion teams look at the provision schools make for these children and at the progress they make and report accordingly.
Sadly it's another thing that's become a bit of an industry and children are identified as being "gifted" or "talented" simply because they are rather more able than most instead of identifying just those children who are really outstanding in their abilities.
As for "social mobility" I wish Brown and Milburn would tell us what it means. I have friends who range from a postman to a son of landed gentry, from a fellow who is long-term unemployed to a fellow who was UK manager of a large Japanese company until his retirement. When I go to visit them am I being socially mobile?

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 58-65

Current location (optional) leeds

It's a pity that yet another Blair and Brown policy is a complete failure. Accoding to the Yorkshire Post the 'scheme' is not doing what was intended - unlike the '11+'. What a great idea - that Blair wanted 50% of children to go to university to study Psychology or Media Studies! Look what they've done to the country. The bulk of the Psychology and Media Studies graduates are now working in call centres or complaining that they can't find a job for their degree! I wonder why?

And 'No' Shaun you're not [socially mobile that is - what wit!] - in my 'umble opinion.

You would be, and are, since I assume that you managed to climb the ladder by ability, as did my late father-in-law, by winning a 'Free Scholarship' to KBGS in 1931.

I also became 'socially mobile' as my father was a floor moulder in a foundry who wanted me to better myself and both parents gave me all of the support that they were able to provide to do so.

It makess me feel sick when I see the state of the schools today - with certain exceptions that uphold the traditions of Grammar school education.

Blair and Brown have a lot to answer for. Why not check their backgrounds?

From memory, Milburn went to Newcastle Royal Grammar School from a disadvantaged family.

Now we get 'Academies' to replace 'failing' schools and what do they do? Fail themselves!

If we did it and he can do it then why not return to the system that was proved to be successful?

As for the 'gifted pupils' - well they're also being failed by the system (according to a Yorkshire Post article).

Sorry about the rant

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 59 -66

Current location (optional) Embsay

I was for three and half years Mathematical Advisory teacher for Bradford. In that capacity I met many bright children ill served by poor teachers. On one occcasion I was a part of a team that ran a weekend workshop for father and son to get parents involved in their children's learning. It was well attended and as a warm up activity we asked them to work together in small groups to determine in a knockout competition if there were 100 competitors how many games should be played, this involved byes and the like. We expected about 30 mins if not more. After 5 mins one boy put his hand up and declared that 99 games should be played. Goodness that was quick had he heard of the problem before? No! Well how did he work it out. 'If there were 100 competitors and only one winner then there must be 99 losers so 99 games.' He was 12.
Or the eight year old whose father had taught him negative numbers who carried this forward to develop his own way of subtracting without using decomposition or 'borrowing'. Now known as 'Martin's way'
Arthur

David. I know I was being flippant but had hoped it was clear that I was directing my flippancy at Brown, not in your general direction. The qualifications I gained (some because of my time at KBGS) and the skills, such as they are, that I have developed enabled me to do jobs which I, by and large, greatly enjoyed, and gave me an income well above the average. For that I am grateful.
One of my quarrels with Brown’s statement is that it confuses the socio-economic (level of income, job fulfilment etc.) with the socio-political (social class). I am not landed gentry or an oligarch so I am not from the Ruling Class. I am not a senior figure in big business nor do I run my own business so I am not Middle Class. I am paid for my work – so I am Working Class. I am neither ashamed of it nor aggressively proud of it. I just AM it.
If Brown would just say that he wants children from poor backgrounds to have a better chance of getting well paid jobs I’d say “Hear, hear” to that.
You’re right about call centres etc. and it’s not just Media Studies graduates in them. There are Business Studies graduates too and what would have been considered 40 years ago to be graduates in “proper” subjects - History, Geography, English, Biology etc. Part of me thinks it’s good that as many people as possible have the chance of education to degree level but part of me is concerned that we don’t seem to care what happens to them afterwards.
Arthur and Terry and Doug can often offer sage words that keep me optimistic about the future. Brown and Milburn can’t.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 58-65

Current location (optional) leeds

Hey! If we look where we started and where we finished we were pretty upwardly mobile. !! I have no complaints. Arthur

Shaun, what Brown means by social mobility is, getting people to aspire to and become doctors, engineers, teachers,dentists, airline pilots,high-ranking service officers and similar without giving them any better education. If he is aiming at male students he has the problem of the number of women who ,over the past thirty or so years have taken up a lot of these professions as a result of womens´lib, and who mostly came from middle class families in the first place.
I left KBGS with aspirations and a belief that there were opportunities in this world, but whether they came from school (where it was considered quite normal for a number to go to Oxbridge each year, and other top universities)or from my family, I do not know. What I do know is that the Grammar School in S,Yorks where I did my 6th form had no such high aspirations or examples. I believe that in my time KBGS was a great stepping stone to social mobility.
What I cannot understand is how a political party that is prepared to spend millions on a few talented athletes in order to win, maybe, a couple of gold medals in the Olympics,can be so reluctant to accept the need discover, develop, and foster intellectual talent to the same degree. Just think of the far greater benefits to the country that this would bring.

.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 41/46

That there are graduates working in call centres may be no bad thing. They are not nailed down there and are able to move on when a better opportunity arises. Meantime, their experiences in their present employment could be improving for them. Working as a doffer in the mill, bottom of the pile, I found to be a salutary experience. OK, I knew it was not for ever, but my musings, thoughts and observations at that (and other times in menial employment) did a lot to prepare me for the tasks and challenges I was to meet over many years in my chosen profession and in representing my colleagues. Ex Call-centre graduates may prove more rounded exponents of their skills than callow first appointees who are immediately post-grad.The more of our people with a wider employment experience, the more we may become socially cohesive - if not mobile.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 52-60

Current location (optional) Lincoln

I'm a bit uneasy with this, Terry, mainly because 'graduate' has become a much broader term than it was not too long ago (certainly much less than 50 years - pace Alec!). At one time, it was some sort of 'gold standard' in Britain - it hardly mattered where the degree was obtained, but now you have to ask 'where from?' and 'in what subject(s)?', because the educationally-challenged policy makers in the 'Broons' governemnt (and Yogi's before it) have created a four-division degree-awarding system (modelled on the football league, of course) which leaves many 'graduates' semi-literate (and I do seem to come across quite a number of these whenever I have the misfortune to hit a 'call centre'). When you were doffing and I was opening and shutting the crossing-gates at Dammems, we could at least spell our own names and were not fixated by our mobile phones...

In this age of 'transparency' the checks and balances that ensured homogeneity of standards have been whittled away to pure forms largely lacking in substance (at least in Leagues Division Three and Four). The external examiner system was a pretty solid safeguard but now it has been suborned in all sorts of 'transparent' ways. Many universities now hold 'training' days for their 'externals', so that they can 'better understand the 'missions' and needs of University X' - days in which blandishments and tacky rhetoric are doled out in equal measure to encourage blindness or charity among the 'externals'. But if that fails and an external's final report is largely damning, the damning bits can safely be ignored when the coarse leader (?) compiles his own, over-all report - which is invariably full of eulogy, with token caveats, and is the only report to be made public. And have you noticed how the median degree has now become the IIi, not the IIii it was in our day - so that four-fifths of our graduates are deemed automatically to be above-average in knowledge and fitness to enter the world of work (including the 'call-centres').

It's hardly surprising, though. Because of the ways in which universities are funded (on results, especially research and publications - which are thin on the ground in under-funded institutions) and because League Three/Four universities in general pick up the worst-qualified entrants, they have to guarantee a 'good degree' to anyone who signs up to their courses. Any falling off in student take-up puts jobs on the line. Like all 'cons' it is as immoral as it is largely lacking in substance. The emphasis is on 'transferable skills' rather than on 'subject' and, in educational terms - though not necessarily employment terms - it sells young people short. It most certainly does not represent equality of opportunity. Anyhow, much more eloquent than I on these thorny points is Laurie Taylor on the back page of the Times Higher, with his chronicles of the University of Poppleton...

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 1951-58

In my latter years I was lecturing at Margaret McMillan in Bradford and I was given a wodge of essays to mark, about 40. I was temporary and part -time so unused to the politics of the place. I failed 5 of the essays because they were rubbish, complete with coffee rings and fag burns. I kid you not! Head of Department called me in. Can't fail these, he told me. Why not? Questions will be asked. It reflects on the department. etc etc.I refused to mark anymore. They were rubbish and the rest were not much better but at least well presented and they had spelled their names correctly. Arthur

Was Margaret McMillan a teacher training college? Did it close? Or amalgamate?

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 58-65

Current location (optional) leeds

Teacher Training College affiliated to Bradford University and still going strong as far as I know. Arthur

See Roy Hattersley's piece, "The equality delusion", on p. 32 of today's "Guardian" - excellent stuff. Clearly not impressed with Milburn's remit or his boss's claims and aims.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 1951-58