An Inspector Calls at St Giles Secondary Modern School

Compiled by Peter Harrod

From the Garton Archive: Item of Interest No 47

When the City of Lincoln Education Committee made the decision to support the formation of comprehensive schools in 1974, Lincoln Christ’s Hospital School (LCHS) began its life as a result of amalgamating four schools; Lincoln (Grammar) School, Lincoln Christ’s Hospital Girls’ High School, St Giles Secondary Modern Boys’ School (SGS), and Myle Cross Secondary Girls’ School (MCG).

Regular reader of my articles over the last six years will know how much I regret the fact that so few items have been retained from the rich heritage of the two St Giles secondary modern schools. Most of the records and other memorabilia were destroyed or have been lost. This has meant that the articles from the Garton Archive have, for that reason alone, been heavily weighted in favour of the grammar and high schools.

However, we are fortunate that most of the log books of the secondary modern schools are lodged in the Garton Archive. The present article looks back at an HM Inspection of St Giles Secondary Modern School (SGS), which was a mixed before separate boys’ and girls’ schools were formed in September, 1958. An inspection, of course, is always an interesting and often controversial part of a school’s history.

This particular inspection took place over seven days in November 1952, the year I entered Lincoln School as a fresh-faced youngster! More of that later in the article! The nature, scope and results of the inspection are faithfully recorded in the SGS Log Book in the flowing long-hand of the (unnamed) Chief Inspector (CI). The report numbered 43 quarto-sized pages, and it is evident from other sources that there was a team of four inspectors.

In setting the context for the inspection, the CI described the area of St Giles as a mainly residential housing estate, a large part of which was the result of ‘slum clearance’ (the CI’s words, not mine!) from other parts of the city of Lincoln. The sixteen acre campus, which included playing fields, was shared with an infant and junior school, and also a youth club attached to a community centre. SGS educated almost all of the boys and girls from the St Giles estate who were not selected for a education. The fact that some parents chose to send their daughters to a girls’ school such as Spring Hill, led to an imbalance between the number of boys and girls in the school, which may have been one factor governing the later decision to create the two separate schools.

At the time of the inspection there were 201 boys and 158 girls aged between 11 and 15 on roll, and the usual practice was for the pupils to leave school at the end of the term in which they reached the age of fifteen. On leaving school, and following visits from the Youth Employment Officer, the majority of the girls entered the ‘distribution’ trades as did several of the boys. However there had been a recent substantial increase in the number of boys going into engineering, and girls gaining employment in factories. Very few boys, but an appreciable number of girls, became clerical workers. Over the previous three years only 17 boys and 19 girls had entered the Lincoln Technical College on Monks Road after leaving school at the age of fifteen.

The School had opened as a ‘council school in 1934, and its premises and equipment were recorded in some detail in the report. In addition to the usual classrooms accommodating an average of about 30 pupils, there was a ‘sick’ room, cloakrooms, store rooms, headmaster’s room, a fair sized hall with a stage also used for gymnastics, and changing rooms with showers for boys and girls. In a separate (incorrectly spelt by the CI!) wing there was a woodwork room for the boys, a housecraft room for the girls, and a science laboratory and art room. A dining room had recently been erected, and there was a hard playing space for netball, and one tennis court.

The School at the time of its opening in 1934 taken from a newspaper cutting

The accommodation was described as ‘reasonable’, although several matters needed attention including the general appearance and decoration of the buildings, cloakroom accommodation, showers, toilets, art room furniture, and display and storage space. Further equipment was also needed including PE climbing apparatus, biology and craftwork resources, and an ‘electric gramophone’ (also incorrectly spelt!). Many of the books for English were described as unsuitable, and there was a dearth of good quality reading books, and almost no contemporary literature.

At this point I am unable to resist making a comparison between the accommodation and resources available for the secondary modern pupils and those taken for granted by the grammar school pupils down the road. Subsequent research has shown how much more money was ploughed into the prestigious grammar schools at the expense of their poor relations – just one of the many inequalities that existed at the time between grammar and secondary modern schools; a topical issue as I write. The availability of books was perhaps one of the most serious. The CI expressed the strong view that pupils should have access to books of quality suited to their age and understanding both for information and pleasure, and housed in an appropriate library space. It was made clear that these were sadly lacking at SGS.

Interesting comparisons might also be made between the training and qualifications of the staffs of grammar and secondary modern schools. At that time most grammar and high school teachers were university graduates, and many had also received professional training in teaching, although that was not a pre-requisite. Secondary modern staffs did contain some graduates, but most were trained over two or three years in what were known at the time as teacher-training colleges, and were awarded a Teaching Certificate. In 1952 the Headmaster of SGS, Mr Arthur Frederick Humble, who had served the School since 1941, was a graduate of Durham University. There was an assistant staff of 15 full-time ‘masters and mistresses’, and one part-time PE mistress.

The St Giles Boys’ Football team in 1946 with Headmaster Mr Arthur Humble on the top left The CI’s report was highly critical of the organisation of the School which favoured boys’ education over the girls’, and which failed to provide the fullest opportunities for the most able pupils. There was also little recognition of the particular needs of the least able children, and more general criticism of the lack of recognition of the needs of differing capacities.

The curriculum was described as ‘traditional’, with ‘basic’ subjects being taught by form masters and mistresses, with some specialisation in other subjects. In general the teaching was described as ‘conscientious’, but not always making sufficient demands on the pupils, who were too often cast in the role of ‘passive listeners’ who failed to learn habits of application to work, or to accept responsibility and to take initiatives.

The report gave the following potted summary of the achievements in the different subjects, which is interesting not least for the insight it gives into the nature of a typical secondary modern school curriculum of that era. The order appears as it does in the report.

Music was given credit for its achievements ‘in the main’.

Science was soundly taught.

Woodwork had aroused considerable interest and showed creditable results.

Gardening was ‘promising’.

Religious Instruction was, as one would expect, taken with great sincerity.

History and Geography might have made more vital contributions.

Mathematics was ‘painstaking but lifeless’.

Biology was attempted without any apparatus.

Technical Drawing , (and I quote) ‘as it is at present could well be omitted’.

Art was not entirely satisfactory, and Craft was narrow in conception.

Physical Education for the boys was limited, but the girls PE and Housecraft were showing signs of improvement.

Needlecraft was ‘reasonable’.

The standard of work in English was uneven. Much of the written English in all subjects was teacher-dominated, and it was clear that most of the pupils were capable of achieving a great deal more than was required of them.

Not what you would describe as a glowing report! Following that potted summary, the CI proceeded to elaborate on some of the issues.

The teaching of Religious Instruction was described as sincere and purposeful, but too much reliance was placed on question-and-answer techniques, and a more active role on the part of pupils was recommended, including dramatization and independent research.

English, as taught by form masters and mistresses, lacked sound continuity. Too much emphasis was placed on isolated exercises which lacked stimulation, purpose and relevance. Pupils read fluently on the whole, but not always with understanding. Dictionaries and discussions could have been used more extensively than they were. Praise was given to those teachers in the top forms whose techniques might well have benefited those teaching other forms. It was also recommended that pupils should be encouraged to correct their mistakes, and that carelessness should not be tolerated, platitudes which have punctuated inspections over the centuries!

It was recommended that thought be given in History to the designing of a syllabus that was appropriate to the needs and capacities of the pupils, and to the development of methods that would stimulate their interest and promote a more active part in lessons.

The lessons in Geography were carefully planned and presented in a painstaking way by two highly experienced teachers. However, on too many occasions the pupils were passive listeners, and too dependent on received knowledge and information. The prevailing practice of note-making and transcription from the blackboard was also criticised. Sadly, although pupils had a reasonable knowledge of the more distant parts of the world, they were not so well informed about their immediate surroundings. Map-making was perhaps one method in which such gaps in their knowledge might have been rectified.

Science teaching for the ‘A’ and ‘B’ streams received a glowing report, largely because it was taught by an experienced and knowledgeable teacher whose lessons were practical, interesting and effective. The ‘C’ streams were also taught by keen and enthusiastic teachers, but the CI’s report was critical of the fact that the two upper streams focused almost entirely on physics and chemistry, while the ‘C’ forms were confined to biology. Such specialisation was described as ‘undesirable’, and it was recommended that a syllabus be formed to cover both the physical and biological sciences for all pupils. That discrepancy was also compounded by the fact only the ‘A’ streams had access to the laboratory, whilst the ‘C’ streams were taught in a classroom with an ‘almost complete absence of equipment’, a situation hardly conducive to practical work and experimentation.

Mathematics was looked upon as a form subject to be taught by the master or mistress attached to each form. Inevitably, because of varying differences in ability, experience and knowledge of the teachers, this led to considerable variability in teaching. The fact that the syllabus was limited in scope and to a large extent arithmetical in character also invited criticism. There was some algebra taught to the upper streams, but inexplicably the girls dropped that subject on entering the fourth year to concentrate more exclusively on arithmetic. It must be remembered that, in those days prior to a national curriculum, the schools themselves had the responsibility for drawing up their own syllabuses. The first year seemed to be spent on simply revising junior school work.

However, the CI did congratulate the School’s ‘commendable attempt’ to cater for the special needs of the less able pupils, and to devise a realistic and relevant scheme of work for them. Overall, however, the scope of the work in mathematics was too narrowly conceived, and the standard of work lower than might be expected.

Technical Drawing, needless to say, was reserved only for the boys in the 1950s. Even at St Giles Junior School, which I attended in the early 1950s, the boys did ‘craft’ while the girls had ‘needlework’. Two periods per week were devoted to Technical Drawing for all the boys. The two masters who taught the subject at SGS had had neither industrial experience, nor training in professional techniques and draughtsmanship. One had received training in woodwork.

In general the standard of work produced was low, due partly to the lack of qualifications of the teachers, poor resources, and over-use of normal classrooms for teaching the subject. The main focus was on the drawing of woodwork exercises, and many boys had little or no conception of line drawing. The CI concluded that it was an opportune moment to reconsider the place of the subject in the curriculum, and to decide whether the present resources of staffing and equipment were sufficient to do justice to the subject.

One double period per week was devoted by all boys in the school to Gardening, the teaching of which was shared by two masters, one of whom was well qualified in the subject. Both were keen and knowledgeable gardeners with the ability to impart their enthusiasm to the boys. Two-thirds of an acre of land was available for the purpose, supplemented by beds around the school buildings. All boys were given instruction in a variety of types of vegetable and many, but not all, were involved in the laying out of flower beds and the growing of flowers. A greenhouse was being constructed.

Despite the fact the forms 1 and 2 did not at present receive any time allocation for Woodwork, opportunities were afforded for advanced work among the older boys. The workshop, which was well organised and efficiently maintained, had good natural lighting, although the floor space was reduced by heavy machinery and other equipment. Little metalwork was taught, however. The master in charge was highly experienced, and was an enthusiastic and committed teacher. However, too much time was spent on formal methods of class instruction which inevitably resulted in a lack of variety and hands-on experience. Despite this, a good standard of craftsmanship was achieved especially among the older boys, who quality of work and confident enthusiasm were a particularly noteworthy feature of the overall effective training.

All forms had a weekly Art lesson, and most had a Craft lesson. The CI report suggested that the separate schemes be revised and co-ordinated to meet the needs of the pupils’ creative powers. There was an urgent need to appoint a well- qualified teacher to take responsibility for Art and Craft, and to establish a sense of direction and purpose in the subject. Once again, the report was critical of a lack of resources including inappropriate teaching space, too few storage cupboards, and unsuitable display areas.

Standards achieved in both Housecraft and Needlecraft were described as adequate, but failing to achieve high standards of craftsmanship. As in other subjects there was a criticism that the work was too directed, with insufficient opportunities for individuality of choice. A recurrent criticism focussing on over-directed formal class teaching was clearly a recurrent leitmotif through the report. In my own experience in teaching and teacher-training I have observed that, when teachers or trainees are being observed, they do tend to adopt a more formal approach possibly because they believe that the observer wants to see them teach, rather than make inferences about what the children are learning. Currently in Ofsted inspections, the emphasis is quite rightly on the children’s learning, but all teachers know that there is a symbiotic relationship between the two.

Following on from such negative reports, it was pleasing to read that the teaching of Music received high praise. Boys and girls were taught separately by two experienced and able teachers with a real enthusiasm for their subject. Apart from an inappropriate gramophone, the School was well-stocked with song books and sheet music. Two periods a week were allocated to music, and work in the classroom was stimulating and vigorous. The pupils developed considerable skills in music-reading, and their repertoire included ambitious two and three-part singing. A voluntary evening choir of present and former pupils was run by the music mistress, and instrumental work was well-established. The music master was responsible for the out-of-hours string and wind class teaching, and the orchestra played with ‘good style and fair intonation’. The enterprise was described as ‘most commendable’.

The conditions and resources for the boys’ Physical Education were described as ‘adequate’. However, the lack of a fully equipped gymnasium and of proper storage accommodation was clearly a ‘handicap’. The need for climbing apparatus was paramount. The hall was used for indoor lessons and the playground for ‘minor games’. The nine-acre playing field was shared with the junior and infant schools. The two masters gave generously of their time in organising and supervising out-of- school activities, but lacked advanced training in the subject. In particular, the teaching of gymnastics and athletic field events would require the appointment of teachers with specialist training.

Spectators at sports day

Girls’ Physical Education had suffered from changes in staffing. The temporary part- time mistress was praised as ‘willing and competent’, but there were hygienic issues such as the need for regularly laundered garments and for showers ‘as a matter of routine’. The main recommendation concerned the need to appoint a full-time mistress fully competent in all areas of PE as a matter of considerable importance.

The report concluded with a reference to Corporate Life. The daily act of corporate worship was attended by the whole school, and the School’s orchestra frequently played the hymns and ‘incidental music’. The School was divided into houses, with inter-house games competitions. Prefects, who supervised the orderly movement of pupils around the school, were appointed by the Headmaster, and some of the older girls had been trained in welcoming and looking after visitors. There was a flourishing Parents’ Association, shared with the other schools on the campus, and a range of out-of-school activities. There was no old pupils’ association.

Recommendations were made for improving the appearance of the School’s dining room, and for affording pupils the opportunity for social development during meal times. The annual school journey, organised and run by the Senior Mistress, was judged to be a strong feature of the School’s calendar, providing valuable opportunities for social training.

There followed a brief conclusion in which Her Majesty’s Inspectors, in forming their judgements and making their recommendations, had in mind the ‘very real problems’ presented when a number of boys and girls from widely divergent backgrounds were brought together to live in a school community.

Despite these problems, the Inspectors felt that, whilst much had been accomplished, the standard of work in the School was ‘…not commensurate with the potential abilities of the boys and girls.’ They recommended that further attention be directed to the creation of an environment which offered practical training in civilised living, in care for property, and in consideration for personal appearance. Moreover, the team felt that greater efforts could be made to emphasise habits of industry and attention to a task well done, and to the development of a responsible and responsive attitude towards all aspects of school life.

Some of the buildings as they are today with the addition of a school gymnasium (photo by Catherine Forbes)

In reflecting on this report, I am minded to return to the discrepancies which existed between the education provision at SGS and the more privileged education that I and others received at the grammar school down the road. I must confess to my own prejudices against selection at eleven, not only because of the differences in equipment and resources, staff-pupil ratios, class sizes, and teacher qualifications, but also because of the lack of valid and reliable tests to separate ‘sheep and goats’ at eleven, and the insidious life-long handicap of having the word ‘failure’ attached to your name. At that time you either ‘passed’ or ‘failed’ the eleven-plus, sometimes referred to as the ‘Scholarship’. There was also the 1950s equivalent of the ‘post code effect’. In Lincoln, which was well served by grammar schools, about 20% of any given cohort obtained places at the two boys’ grammar schools and the two girls’ high schools, whereas in Stoke on Trent the figure, for example, was as low as 8 per cent.

Many people, including those who went on to achieve greatness despite ‘failing’ the exam, retained the stigma of failure throughout their lives. As the celebrated children’s writer Michael Morpurgo, who ‘failed’ the eleven-plus himself, recently put it in an article in The Guardian, “It was like having a dagger thrust into my heart.” I also recall that it had an effect on friendships. Those of us who were fortunate enough to ‘pass’ the eleven-plus not only lost good friends who ‘failed’, but became starkly aware of the division caused by the selection process. We soon learned not to venture onto the St Giles estate in Lincoln wearing our pristine new grammar school uniform because it evoked football terrace-like chanting of, “ Grammar, grammar, cryin’ for your mamma’, or “Tech, Tech, wash yer mucky neck” if you wore the City School uniform. The latter referred to the other boys’ grammar school in Lincoln universally known as ‘The Tech’ because of its original association with technical education in the tripartite system which never fully materialised in Lincoln.

Those issues were highlighted by Arthur Wickstead in Mills (1989).

‘Lincoln was distinctive in its policy towards the secondary modern schools. Here, it has been argued, there was positive discrimination against these schools. The 1944 (Education) Act stipulated that, in principle, authorities were there to provide three types of education; grammar, technical and modern. In practice rural authorities, along with many county boroughs, provided their technical strand within the walls of secondary modern schools. However, owing to the strong views of Arthur Sutcliffe, previously head of the City School, now chief education officer, not only were there to be no technical schools….but also money was spent on technical facilities in the grammar schools. The secondary modern schools, moreover, were starved of the graded posts needed to attract the best staff……Consequently the policy of the education committee was not to provide for external examinations in the secondary modern schools.’

With hindsight, perhaps the team that inspected the St Giles Secondary Boys’ School in 1952 might have showed a greater awareness of the difficulties and constraints faced by such schools at that time. Cynically, I am tempted to wonder if it was an historic example of a team of inspectors focusing on selected data without due concern for the broader context.

Many decades later, Lincoln Christ’s Hospital School, a mixed serving its community, offers the same experiences and challenges as two of its antecedents, Lincoln (Grammar) School and Lincoln Christ’s Hospital Girls’ High School. Opportunities are afforded for the most able students to gain places at Oxbridge, the so-called Russell Group of universities, and the full range of alternative higher education institutions.

Moreover, the School also offers opportunities for those who are less well equipped academically to have every opportunity to fulfil their potential in the range of public examinations available in the School, including subjects such as Art and Drama. If the celebrated actor Sir John Hurt, who was a contemporary of mine at Lincoln School, had had the opportunity to nourish his exceptional talents in those subjects which were sadly neglected at Lincoln School, he might have had a more positive perception of his education in Lincoln. In summary, LCHS offers a much more varied and relevant curriculum for all its students than any of the four schools that combined to form it in 1974.

Conundrum

The grainy photograph below appears on page 204 of the book referred to above, and referenced below. It was taken in 1935 from the top of St Giles Church when the estate was being built. The caption suggests that the junior school is out of sight on the left, while in the foreground is the St Giles Secondary Modern School in Lamb Gardens. Those of us who were born and brought up on St Giles might beg to differ!

The school in the foreground was in fact the St Giles Junior School, and in the background is the Infant School. The secondary school was out of the picture to the left, on Macaulay Drive.

References

The St Giles Secondary Modern Boys’ School Log Book, November 1952

Wickstead, A ‘Education for All Children’ In: Mills, D R (1989) (Ed) Twentieth Century The History of Lincolnshire Committee