11+

We did have a grainy black and white film shown in the school hall at my all-girls grammar school, supposedly about 'reproduction'.

Apart from the clips of a wedding day and the voiceover 'when a man and a woman love each other very much...' the rest consisted of diagrams of the male and female reproductive systems and only a very vague explanation as to how the sperm actually got into the woman's body!

I think the final bit was a woman sitting up in a hospital bed holding a baby, with doting father looking down at them rather sheepishly

That wasn't until the Fourth Year, though - or was it the Fifth?

We had 'the birds and the bees' lesson taught by our gym teacher, an unmarried, grumpy woman who particularly disliked girls. We were 13 and had been waiting for several weeks for this lesson as the rumour was it was 'sex education'. Miss was embarrassed from the outset and proceeded to show diagrams of pollination of plants. She made a couple of references to birds and bees and that was it.
My mum did tell me about periods but the sex advice was to repeat what her mum told her. Don't let boys 'go down there' because they won't be able to stop. Stop what we wondered…..

I think you and many others have totally misunderstood what I was saying nelliemoser. I worded my thread very carefully as no way am I against comprehensives as we have excellent ones which I would be more than happy for them to go to. I was merely stating my thoughts about the fact that their direction and choices in life could be different as there are differing attitudes and possibilities at the two types of school. As it happens both my grandchildren did actually pass their 11 plus yesterday, (and neither of them were tutored for it) and one of the major choices my grand daughter needs to make now is which grammar school to choose. If she chooses one she will be encouraged to do more music (which she would love) as that is something that that school offers more than the other one which is more science based. The boy has to make the decision to choose a grammar school that does more sport versus one that is also more science based. This proves what I was trying (maybe not as well as I could) to say that whatever school they go to their direction in life could be influenced.

There was a film (made by Kotex?) which our embarrassed science teacher had to show us because presumably he was the only teacher who knew how to use the projector. It told us about menstruation, but nothing about what that had to do with sex! I learnt about periods when our boxer bitch came into heat for the first time and we were besieged by boy dogs.

We had a boxer bitch as well, anno, and I found it strange that when she was spotting blood all over the floor the boy dogs couldn't keep away, yet it seemed to be the opposite for human beings!

No response to the last sentence of my post today at 14.33.
Not complaining about being ignored (that's another thread) but I am really interested to know the answer.

Yes ninathenana I went to a tech in Bromley in the sixties. I actually passed my 11 plus but the headmistress of the grammar school didn't think I would cope because my mother was a single parent...... Think I prefer the less discriminatory attitudes of today. I hated the school.

Ha, ha, Ana, the same thought occurred to me but my mother had no explanation.

annodomini - our science teacher didn't stand a chance when teaching sex education. His name was Doctor White!!

missdeke from 1972-1978 I went to 3 large comprehensive schools (2 in Scotland and one in England) and at each school pupils were streamed by ability. The only time I was taught in a mixed ability group was during PE lessons and Home Economics (cookery and sewing). At the end of the 2nd year I sat exams as part of choosing my O Level subjects. If you didn't pass the exam, you couldn't study for an O Level in that subject. Later I chose my A Level subjects based on my O Level results and again, if you didn't get a grade A-C at O Level, you couldn't study for an A Level in that subject.

Perhaps because you went to a grammar school you were not aware pupils were streamed by ability in many comprehensive schools.

In case anyone missed the link to the myths about the 11+ posted by Leticia on page 1, here it is again

Grammar School Myths

A few posters still seem to believe some of the myths or are wearing rose tinted spectacles.

nanapug most comprehensive schools with academy status do focus on specific subject areas. The school near me is an academy with a special focus on graphics, art and design. My old school was one of the first academies and offers a Technology specialism as well as holding Training School Status. You can see the specialisms on the signs outside each school.

Having spent a little time helping my dgd prepare for 11+ I found myself considering Howard Gardners (possibly controversial) model of multiple intelligences. The 11+ exam seems to focus on mathematical/logical intelligence type. I then found myself considering Steiners suggestion that abstract thinking (required for this type of exam) wasn't really a reliable human function before puberty. At this point I thought I should seek out some more modern research, but haven't yet done so. However, regardless of educational theory and the politics of education, doesn't 10/11 seem a tad young to be determining a child's educational future???

I failed the 11+ and was written off at that age. Only two children in my year passed and they went to the grammar school. I've since learned that there weren't many places at the grammar school where I lived. In fact if you look into it the whole 11+ scheme, it was completely flawed.

I was lucky enough to have the chance to go back into education as an adult. I did GCSEs, A Levels, a degree and a post-grad. Not bad for someone who failed the 11+.

In my opinion, the biggest problem with testing children at this age is that you cannot devise a test which can predict the future. Children mature at very different ages, so if you happen to be a mature, hardworking eleven year old you've got it made. If the penny drops later on, you've already been written off.

For me, being written off at age 11 affected me deeply for a long time. I went to an awful secondary modern school and failed at sewing and house craft lessons. I thought for a long time that I wasn't very bright. As I say, I was lucky to have another chance at education as an adult, where I found myself surprised every day that I was doing GCSEs and apparently doing ok. When I got all As in my results I was astonished. I went on to do two A levels in a year and I felt like an imposter at college, who would soon be found out. When my results came and again I had As I almost passed out.

I passed 11+ in the 50s, I had to attend for interview,my ambition was to train as a nurse. I was told by my teachers not to make this known as a grammar school education was not needed for nursing! I went on to have a career in nursing, the Latin was useful!

Agree with many of the above.
We have learned more about the brain in the last ten years than the previous fifty. Intelligence is not set it grows and develops. Children make connections and those from homes that have a good work ethic, and are positive about school make more connections. That doesn't mean children from more challenging backgrounds are less intelligent it means they lack opportunity. Comprehensive schools give pupils opportunity.
More young people have gone to university from comprehensive schools than grammar this always seems to be ignored.
I failed my 11+ and was put on the secondary modern scrap heap. My school became comprehensive and new facilities were built. New teachers told us we could take A levels and go on to higher education so we did. I went on to have a very successful 37 year career in education.
I despair that we seem to be going backwards to the 1950's PLEASE STOP

Two points: I went to a high-achieving single-sex selected entry grammar school where the pressure was so great that several girls attempted suicide and others were in psychiatric units following 'breakdowns'. The academic pressure was not seen as a relevant cause, rather 'personality disorder'. Later as an associate lecturer with the OU I met and had the privilege of teaching many bright and clever adults who confessed to have been written off at school, usually because of undiagnosed dyslexia, sometimes because of bullying or difficult home lives. They were amazed to find their work valued and their intelligence recognised. It was an iniquitous system that had failed them and is still failing children today.

May I get a bit historical here? Sorry if this is a bore! Don't bother to read it if it is.

J52 is spot on about one of the original aims of the comprehensive system. It was designed to give all children the chances the old system denied them.

And of course Iam64 is spot on too. Whether or not you 'passed' depended on the number of grammar school places available in your area. In the old LCC area it was 20% BUT two thirds of those places were for boys and only a third for girls. And as my husband and I knew ( we were both LCC teachers then) many of the girls who didn't 'pass' were much brighter than some of the boys who did. In South Wales it was 25%, in Sussex 11%.

It won't surprise you to know that we both worked and campaigned for a fully comprehensive system. I went to 10 different schools as a child and taught in 2 grammar schools and four comps.

It was mainly the 'middle class' kids that went to Grammar School in my day for many reasons i.e.
They came from Professional Backgrounds to begin with (not all but most).
Their parents knew how to 'push' for results.
Quite often they were the only ones whose parents could afford the Uniform.
These are just a few reasons...

I was always the youngest in my year & ended up sitting my 11 plus exam when just turned 10... I was 'doomed' from the start to more than likely 'fail' & my parents god bless them did not know till many years later they could have 'refused' my sitting it as it was for 11 year olds.

Thus I was split up from quite a few friends finding myself not really belonging in either camp.
Despite this I went to a wonderful secondary modern, did very well whilst some of my friends who went to Grammar School were quite unhappy with some even changing to the Secondary Modern.

I was glad I went to the Secondary Modern as it had excellent results without 'pushing' the kids too hard & many went from there to OXBRIDGE which was a huge achievement for both the pupils & the school.

11 is too young (& certainly, as in my case 10) to be 'weeded out as either a success or a failure which is how it left many feeling (not me as my parents praised us for any achievements we made 'big or small', but a lot of my friends at Grammar were under pressure to 'win' & a lot were, looking back, quite unhappy.

PS: both my father & husband went to 'college' both getting very good careers & both felt the enormous pressure to get there both from teachers & parents.

I could write a book about Grammar schools. I passed the Scholarship exam and was offered a place at my first choice which was a girls' school. My brother also passed but the school he wanted to go to hadn't enough places so he went to a Secondary school. His school followed almost the same curriculum as ours with the option of taking the School Certificate as we did.
When I first heard of the Comprehensive system I thought that it sounded the ideal way to go. However, when I discussed it with my uncle who was Head of Maths in a Comprehensive and also a Socialist
he said that in many ways my old school had been more comprehensive than his.
He explained that if one happened to live in a 'good' area everything would be all right but that if one had to go to an Inner City school the prospect was not so healthy. He pointed out that in going to my school I had come into contact with girls from all over the city and from all walks of life. This is true. My best friend came from a working class background as I did but I also was served tea by a maid in uniform at another friend's house.
Our school was more like a private school with an emphasis on good manners and hard work. The exam results were excellent. All my form passed the School Cert. and some went on to University.
This of course was pre-welfare state and that was a problem. Many children passed the Scholarship but the parents a) couldn't afford to keep them at school until they were 16 or b) needed them to get a job as soon as possible to supplement the family income.
There were also many towns which had only one Grammar and too many applicants. We were lucky. We had four so we had a first, second and third choice.
What should have happened is that more Grammar schools should have been built to accommodate ALL the working class children who would have benefitted from that type of education. Furthermore all the Colleges and Polytechnics who did such a first rate job should have been left as they were instead of making them into second rate Universities. I went on to a College of Art on an Art Teacher's Scholarship and I have never stopped thanking heaven for giving me the opportunity I would never have had at the local Comprehensive.

Love this... 'The latin was useful'.
I wonder how many other Grammar School kids of our era feel the latin made a difference to their careers?

I am not in favour of reintroducing Grammar schools, but I suspect things would be different this time round. It sounds to me like the alternative to going to a Grammar school now is very different and tbh I am wondering what the point of reintroducing them is all about.

Parents actually move house to be in the catchment area of successful schools (primary and secondary) and even when a school is identified as failing, extensive resources are used to reverse the situation in a relatively short period of time. I could be imagining it, but we don't hear people talking about bad schools these days in the way we did when I was younger. The number of pupils going to university is far higher than when Grammar schools were first around, so I am asking myself what is the point of Grammar schools these days?

I went to a girls' grammar school in Stockport in the 1950's and felt like a fish out of water, being a working class kid being brought up with my brother in a single parent family by my disabled mother. The school had been an independent school and still staffed by a number of teachers who evidently had little knowledge of educational theory. A typical lesson would consist of, "Open your books at Page 45 and précis the chapter." The headmistress made disparaging comments about my home-made school uniform, and I was made to feel like a second class citizen. Fortunately I am reasonably intelligent and my love of reading and words led to such success in English that I gained the epithet "The Walking Dictionary". No-one at school suggested I stay on for Sixth Form studies, and I was forced by my mother's poverty to leave at 16 to get a job: trainee technician at Manchester University, which I found out later I had been appointed to because I looked tall and strong, my 'O' level results coming out after I'd started work. It's a long story, but in my 40's I got an unconditional offer to study English at Warwick University and ended up as a lecturer in FE. It was an awful school, but going there gave me SOME confidence and self belief.

How do you know that?
I passed ART with flying colours & was offered a place at an Art College.

I went to a Secondary Modern in a bad area 'mixed kids' though, good & bad.
My daughter went to a private school & while it seems to 'open doors' is this a good thing?
The majority of kids there were 'horrendous' as were their parents & some of the teaching was very poor indeed so it just goes to show it's not the TYPE of school but the teaching that counts & believe me there are as many 'bad' teachers in Grammar Schools or Private Schools as there are 'Good' Teachers in comprehensive.

My husband came from a poor background and failed his 11 plus. He had no idea what the exam would test him on and learnt various history dates.He went on to get a first in his Physics degree. Later he got a 2.1 in a different subject. He still feels a failure for failing his 11 plus. 4 of our sons have benefitted from grammar school education. However I think any system that labels an 11 year old as a failure is very wrong. I went to a grammar school too.