11+

I passed the 11+ in 1959, and went on to a top grammar school. In the first year I was as happy and confident as I had been in primary. But in the second year we were streamed, and I was put in the bottom stream. The teachers were scathing and dismissive of my efforts, nothing seemed good enough. The effect on my self-confidence was immense, I felt stupid and a failure. Eventually I gave up trying, so endorsing their view of me. Looking back I know that in fact I was good at things, but cannot ever remember receiving any positive feedback. Had I been in a good comprehensive I think my abilities would have been spotted and promoted. But in the grammar school I did not fit into the mould. The effect on my self-esteem was huge and affected the course of my life and the decisions I made. I am sure teaching has moved on enormously since my time. But I strongly believe that a good comprehensive school where children are not compared disfavourably with their peers, and where they can be helped to recognise and develop their individual strengths, is the best model of secondary education.

I went to a former secondary modern comprehensive school. We were streamed on academic ability with even more streaming for English and Maths. Left school with some old fashioned O'levels and some Cse grade 1s having dropped out of sixth form. 30 years later, I can say I graduated top of my 3 law degree class, qualified as a barrister and in the last 10 years, have gained a masters in law, am studying for a PhD and continue to work as a senior lawyer. I don't believe in selective education. It pigeon holes children and no children deserve to have their life choices dependent on an exam at 11, 14, 16, 18, 21 or ANY AGE.

I was born in a back to back house in Leeds. We shared an outside loo with neighbours. My parents were very intelligent but very poor. I passed the 11+ with no tuition, obviously. I went to grammar school and then to university. The alternative education at the time was to go to a rough secondary modern school. The 11+ worked in a positive way for me.
My grandson has just passed the 11+ and was thrilled after his first day at the grammar school to have had his first Latin lesson. The alternative for him was an excellent comprehensive school. I don't believe children are deprived if they do not go to grammar school. We only need a small percentage of academically excellent workers. There is a great need for other skills and we need to concentrate on dispelling the myth that the grammar school is for the privileged - it is only for the children most suited to an academic education. If this was generally understood and if comprehensives were universally of a good standard then only the children suited to a more academic education would go to grammar schools.

I was the only one in my family (of 4 children) to pass the 11+ and I went to an all girls grammar school for 4 very happy years. I loved it so much I wished it was a boarding school.
Then my parents decided to move, and the town we moved to only had a grammar school for boys, so I had to go to the local high school - and I hated it!
We were treated like children (where I had been used to being treated as a young adult). I was half way through my O levels, but this new school used a different exam board, and I found them trying to teach me all the stuff I had learned in the previous year at my grammar school - except they kept getting it wrong! Osmosis it the wrong direction; "le maison" in French; and when the teacher attempted to teach matrices I had to get up and show her how (she must have loathed me!) cos she was getting in an awful muddle and they were fresh in my mind (couldn't do them now to save my life).
It just made me wonder what all my friends at my previous school were learning, that I was missing out on... which led me to rebel so that, like another poster earlier in this thread, I ended up pregnant at 17 and a mum soon after my 18th birthday.
I have found the latin that I learned (which I hated at the time) thoroughly useful as it helps you understand all sorts of words, both in English and in other languages (it was particularly useful when learning Spanish, which I'm now fluent in), but mainly it was the different attitude towards us (the pupils) that had such an impact on me, I think.
It is, of course, down to the teachers, but I think there's definitely room for schools that encourage and enhance academic ability as well as schools that encourage and enhance non-academic abilities - and both should be respected and admired as much as each other.
A plumber or an electrician is just as important and vital as a doctor or some other profession but unfortunately in this country too many of the trades are almost looked down upon, instead of receiving the respect they deserve.

mumofmadboys can I ask what you mean when you say 4 of your boys benefited from grammar school education? Benefited in what way?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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???

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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!