Wennington was first and foremost a school, with compulsory lessons; although at the time this was considered a minor interruption to one's main interests of mucking about down the woods or wherever; it is only with hindsight I realise that the teaching was the most important part of my time at the place so I shall deal with it is some detail.
For the first three or four years I was an complete academic failure. I made life utter hell for my teachers whether they deserved it or not - and there were some who did deserve it. A few quotes from my Term Reports will give a very good impression of the sort of brat I was.
"He is very young in behaviour"
[Autumn 68 - General Report - Brian Hill] "
... outburst of childish petulance ..."
[Autumn 68 - Form Master - Frank Burgess]
"Not an altogether happy start ..."
[Autumn 68 - French - Roger Gerhardt]
"... lacking in concentration and tidiness"
[Autumn 68 - History - David Martin]
I could go on - "produces work of a mediocre standard", "Behaviour problems impede progress", "comes to class in a sullen unco-operative mood", "He needs to realise the need for greater consideration of other people", "attends these lessons with a seemingly perpetual moan", "a poor start", "... disobedient, must learn to be tidier" - and that's just the first term! Fortunately it never occurred to anyone that all they had to do was beat me to death and claim it was justifiable homicide - and they would have got a medal.
What follows is a more methodical, subject by subject, review of the teaching at the school.
The first history teacher I remember was David Rothwell ( who, I believe, had taught at the school before ). He was the sort of person you like more in hindsight. I evidently did not make an impression on him; my one surviving report for the year states - "Robin has added a new dimension to my understanding of the word 'nullity'". My third year report, from his successor, was very hostile and in my forth and fifth years my reports, signed by Karen Dace, showed she was none too impressed with me either ( on one occasion she was waffling in class and I told here to "get on with it" - she took this is remarkably good humour, so she could not have been all that bad ).
So what did these assorted individuals actually teach. The usual stuff about British kings and queen. I do not remember been taught anything about ancient history - a subject that has always interested me but I do remember the O level stuff started with an incredibly dull treatment of the Franco-Prussian war.
Who could forget Roger Gerhardt ( known in the last few year as "Chief" ), he was certainly the most dedicated teacher I ever encountered at the school. He may have had his quirks but he really cared about the academic progress of his pupils - even the ones with no interest in progressing. It was a real shame that he was teaching such a duff subject. The French language is a crime against humanity and an insult to the intelligence any organism with more than one brain cell. You would have thought that a school claiming to be progressive would have taught Esperanto. One minor irritation was his insistence that there was no French equivalent to 'Robin' and so insisted that I be called Danielle in the class - I don't know why, but this really pissed me off!
At Wennington "English Teaching" was really a misnomer. Their idea of teaching English consisted of getting the pupils to write stories. I can remember only one occasion on which any attempt was made to teach any formal grammar ( and that was only when Brian himself had to stand in after we had driven out the previous incompetent ). One English teacher drove off in the middle of the night - never to return. The only teacher to stay the course was a trendy who appealed to the less motivated and only succeeded in instilling in me a life-long hatred of William Golding when he spent a whole term reading "Lord of the Files" to us instead of teaching.
This was another subject in which doing was considered more important that learning. No attempt was ever made to teach us about art appreciation, style, techniques or history. You were given a paint brush and told to paint. The teacher was Louis Jones, he had been at the school since God was in nappies - actually since the second term of the school's existence.
For the first three years Norman Easton was the teacher; he was succeeded by Phil Munton ( "Gorilla" ). Both teachers were competent. As usual I make no real effort in this subject - one of the few cases where I regret my inattention.
This etymologically valid term has now been replaced by the tautological 'Home Economics'. The teacher was Janet Wainwright - whose avowed passion in life was meat and potato pie. The idea of forcing boys to do DS as well as the girls was definitely a good one. I also liked it because it was the only time you got food that was actually edible.
My one real memory of the subject was from the very first month. The task for the class was to make stuffed animals. Janet drew out the patterns; I pointed out that one of the animals would end up with eight legs - she would not listen. Two weeks later she had to take a pair of scissors to it - I don't think she ever forgave me for being right.
This included woodwork, metal work and, in the fifth form, technical drawing. All of which where taught by Frank Burgess ( "Wazzo" ). Frank was an able teacher and knew his stuff. In principle I approve of the idea of girls being taught workshop skills along with the boys the only problem is you end up with the metalwork workshop clogged with females twisting bit of wire claiming they were "making jewellery".
In general my reports concentrate on my work so I must he been to busy to be a real pest. I do remember one incident in the Technical Drawing class - there was a diagram in the book which I said was wrong - we argued for some time and we eventually ended up in the workshop drilling holes in a block of wood to duplicate the object in the drawing. Needless to say I was proved correct.
| Home | Site Map |