11+

Another thought; in the past one university entry requirement was O level Latin for some subjects and French for others.

This was another barrier to pupils from Secondary modern schools who wanted go onto further education, if their school did not teach the subjects.

At least now pupils can choose from a wide range of subjects, regardless of their ability.

x

I am totally opposed to selecting children at the age of 11. Some are already at puberty and some are still very young and I read ages ago that children are mentally the age they are physically. If that is so then an advantage is given to some which has nothing to do with their intelligence.

At 11 I lived in an area where only about 5% of girls could get a grammar school place but about 20% of boys could. How is that fair? When I moved to another area 25% of children could go. Labelling children in this way was totally unfair and discriminatory.

In my opinion good comprehensive schools are better for all children. They can be streamed according to ability and possibly in different streams for different subjects. If there is an opportunity to be moved up or down a stream as necessary all children, of whatever ability, can get the best education for themselves regardless of external influences.

Life is not fair but we should do our best to make it as fair as we can.

The selective system in the 30 or so years when it worked as the 1944 Act intended was very different from what we have now. It is true that the 11+ was a blunt instrument and many children no doubt ended up in the 'wrong' school for their interests and abilities. But it wasn't about fairness to the individual, it was about producing workers with the right kind of skills for the nation.

J52, children who failed at 11+ were given the chance to retake at 13, my brother-in-law was one of the 13+ intakes and succeeded brilliantly in life.

It really comes down to teachers, a good teacher can instill a sense of achievement and pride in most children providing they have the support of a good set of Governors, a good Head and parents. This should be available in all levels of education, are we doing enough in training teachers?

And Anniebach if there were more Grammar schools then wealth of parents would be irrelevant, it's only because there are so few of them that they parents feel they have to pay for extra tutoring to give there children a chance at the few places available. And what does it say about primary education if it's necessary for extra tutoring to pass an 11+?

I'm from a poor area where there was a super-selective grammar school system.All of my parents' siblings passed the 11+. A grammar school education was the only way to improve your life in those days.

I passed too, but the school turned comprehensive while I was there. I did ok, went to university etc. However I do not believe my rather strict, rigorous education based on a narrow definition of "ability" is a patch on my dd' s state school education. She may simply have been lucky, but I feel the teaching is better, pupils are better-rounded and there are more opportunities for achievement both at school and extracurricularly (if that's a word)!.

I think the days of the Grammar School are over, and rightly so. Neither do I believe that state schools, in the main, are the awful places that they are made out to be.

I passed my 11+ and went to grammar school in 1973. A waste of a good education though as I wasn't encouraged to stay on and do A levels I was encouraged to get a job. Pregnant at 17 a mother at 18. My own fault.

aggie I don't agree. I don't think there were many unemployed in 'those days' for a start.
I did go to a grammar school, but lots of my friends from primary went to the local secondary modern and did very well indeed in their careers.
Some people are just later developers, or just missed passing the 11+ by perhaps a point.

Not many people went on to university in those days- about 5% of girls I believe - and many of us from both the grammar school and the secondary modern school ended up at the same technical college anyway, for A levels and other courses.

ps I should add that both the grammars and the secondary moderns in our town were single sex schools.

Now - does that make a difference, do you think?

Mine was a single sex grammar school rosequartz which is why I probably ended up pregnant at 17

Looking at all the replies and comments it leads me to believe that there is no easy answer, without a doubt it's teachers who provide the excellence regardless of the type of school they teach in, if a teacher is good it will make a difference.

To go off on a slightly different tack did anyone watch the documentaries where pupils from a private school went to a comprehensive for a week and vice versa, the thing that struck me was the head of the comprehensive was quite on the defensive about state education versus private at the beginning yet by the end of the experiment she could see benefits in the way the private system worked. most markedly, it seems, in the way that private schools encourage self belief and confidence in its pupils.

This argument could go on for a long time methinks!

Just interested to see the new grammar school extension is in Sevenoaks. It was hardly a town with too many problems in 1975; I did teach there for 2 years after several years in the East End. It was a different world.

I think the days of grammar schools have gone. Went to one myself and must say it wasn't perfect by any means.

In the whole thread I see no mention of Technical Schools. When I took my 11+ you either went to S.M. or you passed for the Technical School or the Grammar. All of which were single sex. By the time I reached 6th form the huge new comprehensive opened this school amalgamated the two S.M., two Tech, and most of the Grammar pupils I spent my last year of school in "the zoo" as it was known locally. You were only entered for the 11+ if your parents could afford the train fare. You couldn't get a travel pass as you were going there by choice.

Did anyone else have Technical schools in their area ?

I can't believe we are still having this argument. I thought selection at 11 purely on the basis of if you had a good day and managed to do better in some random tests than the rest of your year group had been well and truly sunk. How can anyone think that someone who scores 49% in a test is less academic than someone who scores 50%? Selection at 11 discriminates against late developers, children with specific disabilities such as dyslexia, clever children from poor backgrounds and many others. Of course ability should be encouraged and developed and streaming in comprehensive schools does this. So a child may be in a top set for maths because they are really able but in a lower set for literacy because they are dyslexic. Lets continue to strive for good levels of education for all children and not for a privileged few. Oh and I did go to a grammar school, passed my 11 plus and all, but I had very pushy working class parents who believed passionately in education and made me practise tests before hand. I have no doubt that there were brighter children in my primary school who failed because they weren't pushed.

gillybob
Mine was a single sex grammar school and very stuffy about teaching sex education, in fact taught hardly anything at all.
Which is perhaps why I didn't manage to get pregnant until I was 28

Do you think the problems encountered in some comprehensives are simply because they are too big?

I had no sex education at all rosequartz although my classmates did. My mum and dad wrote a letter forbidding me to take part in "that" lesson saying that they wanted to tell me themselves when the time came. They never did and I learned all I needed to know behind the garages at the other side of the estate where I lived.

gillybob

DM was truly embarrassed to talk about anything too, as was our biology teacher.

I appreciate we are getting a bit off topic here but...... my mum is/was so prudish that there was no way she was ever going to tell me anything herself, so it seemed really stupid for her to ban me from the sex education lessons. I was a bit of a laughing stock too as you can imagine.

Sex? In the Scotland of the 1950s? Don't make me laugh!

Non existent in London in 1960s . It did seem only plants had sex. We did see a film about Mary not going swimming all done in the dark with a film reel........No discussion girls!!!!

Oh yes we saw that film - nothing about sex though just periods if I remember correctly

Oh yes, pollination! I thought our science teacher seemed a bit embarrassed!

My parents never have me any chat either can't remember how I learnt. Must have been on the job as it were!

I don't think schools should allow parents to choose to remove children from sex education sessions.The subject needs properly prepared staff to deal with it.
I have no idea what happens and whether or not this would take place in single sex sessions. I can't help feeling it would be better to start off these sessions in single sex groups as early teens are often very shy about this, particularly if you had parents like mine.

Such sessions could be taught by properly prepared staff from the local young peoples health and support services.

Whitehaven and annodomini......same school then.