11+

I have just been looking on t'internet to see if I could find an old public information film clip about secondary modern schools where an appallingly patronising man was explaining to a mother about the sort of education her daughter would get after failing the 11+. Horrendous, but typical of its day.

All these posts show just what a dreadful system it was.

I can understand how some grammar school posters felt it helped them progress in the days when very many secondary modern schools never aspired to anything better as they had the idea that "well these children are not clever enough." Now we have many good comprehensive schools everyones chances are so much better.

Just popped back in to see whether this link was still running, expecting it to be long done and dusted and here it still is. it occurs to me that those of you who would like to know what education was like pre war might enjoy 'The Family from One End Street'. It's a gentle story but shows how hard it was for a working class family to find the money for a uniform so that their child could take up the scholarship she'd won.

How damaging to be told - you are a failure when only age eleven.

My three grandchildren all attended the same high school, youngest still does, how difficult if they had taken the 11+ but one had failed

I was just thinking about 'The Family From One End Street' the other day. Although they were old fashioned when I read them, 50+ years ago, I loved the stories. I think they were in two books.

I remember the problems with the Grammar school uniform, but the story I liked best was when Rose(?) helped with ironing and ruined the artificial silk slip! The family came from Otley.

Sorry to go high jack an important OP.

X

That's exactly how I felt Anniebach. Consequently, I didn't work hard enough, and got low grades in all my CSE's. It wasn't until I decided to enter the nursing profession, and got top marks in the entrance test, that I realised I might actually be able to make something of my life. My late parents were very proud of my achievement when I passed my state finals and got my registration. My mother told me, years later, that she went to the primary school and discovered that I was only five marks short of passing the eleven plus, and if there had been more places at the grammar school, I would have been offered one!

Before the 1939-45 war, a minority of children in the UK either went to grammar school on a scholarship or their parents paid for a place. There were very few scholarships and they were competitive. The vast majority went to elementary school and left at 14. The secondary moderns were an attempt to give more chances to the majority. Like grammar schools, they had specialist science rooms and gyms, taught specialist subjects and in a lot of places, they were in brand new buildings. The 11+ was an attempt to recruit more children from all social classes into secondary education that would offer entry into university or directly into white collar jobs. It wasn't a competitive exam except in the sense that numbers were limited. In some areas almost a quarter of the age group 'passed' and in others it was as low as 10%. In some areas, there was a pecking order of grammar schools with the 'best' school taking the top 30 or so children. In some areas, there were excellent secondary technical schools, recently reinvented as University Technical Colleges. Opportunities weren't the same everywhere.

Congratulations to nanapug and Tina's grandchildren for passing their 11+ and extending their choice of schools.

Congratulations to nanapug for starting a thread which sparked such a discussion!

I started teaching in a county that had Grammer schools, Comprehensive schools and Secondary Modern schools. The school I taught in was a girls Secondary Modern ( buildings 1860s), near the docks.

The entrance criteria was an IQ ( tested at age 11 ) of around 80. I had charge of the 'remedial class' of 20 year first and second years.

There was no equality there and I often sadly reflect on their education, although I hope my enthusiasm made a difference.

Fortunately 5 years later it was amalgamated into the local comp.

x

Sorry, Grammar. Of course! x

My husband enjoyed his time in a Sec. Mod. school - he had several interesting options such as metalwork, woodwork, motor mechanics, which interested him a lot more than things like languages and literature.
I went into GS in 1947, almost the first postwar intake. More than half of my class of 40-50 were given places. There was a parallel class, so it was about one in three of my age group.
Quite a few were from coalmining families clever talented people, and had to leave early to go to work and help support their family.

At the age of 11 I sat the scholarship a true test before all this multiple choice rubbish of the 11+. I did not pass, so what I just went to the local county school where the A stream still sat for the school certificate a much more stringent test than O Levels for it was necessary to pass in 5 subjects including math, English lit and grammar or fail. I later had the opportunity to take and pass another scholarship and go to a Junior Technical College and begin my training as an engineer. This was not the end. On leaving full time education I had to attend night classes 3 times week for 5 years to finally qualify in my chosen job as Mechanical Engineer. At no time did I or to my knowledge any of my contemporaries feel failures. I don't feel a need to hang out my working class background like some badge of honour. My dad was a carpenter and Mum a housewife, so what? My apprenticeship was a 5 year indentured one where I really did learn my trade from the old guys who went before me passing on to me the real knowledge of how to get a proper job done. Stuff that never gets into books or is know by College Lecturers who if they did know are by now light years behind current practice in the industry. Problem is too many knowalls messing about with education. Many in my time left school at 14 and made a success of their lives because they could numerate and literate and knew the all important ingredient get off your seat and get stuck in.

bear I haven't mentioned this before, but my Dad won a scholarship to a high school in Scotland which was a bit like the English grammar schools. He was from a very poor family and had two sisters (his twin brothers had died as babies). The uniform was a huge problem for the family, as were all the little extra costs that crop up during the term.

But when his mother died because of complications from the birth of the twins, he had to leave the high school and go to the local school. He was an intelligent man who never really got over losing his chance to excel academically. He became a skilled workers, marrying and starting a family at a young age. As an adult I became aware that he always felt the need to demonstrate his intelligence and that he'd never really gotten over missing his chance to improve his situation.

workers = worker

Sorry.

Jackthelad "Many in my time left school at 14 and made a success of their lives because they could numerate and literate and knew the all important ingredient get off your seat and get stuck in." My mother did just that but it didn't stop her wanting more for my brother and me- a grammar school education. Just as my grammar school education doesn't stop me realising that the system meant a lot of talent was wasted and wanting a more equal sort of education for my children and grandchildren. One of my mother's great regrets is that her education stopped just before her 14th birthday, she has had many different jobs and been very successful, she is widely read but still wishes she could have stayed on at school-lack of money of course. The past should not stop us building a better future for all children.

jackthelad that sounds just like my fathers experiences in the 1930s. He was brought up by foster parents. He won a scolarship to Grammar School but failed the matriculation by not getting French and his foster family had no funds to do any resits.

He studied at night school for years while working. Just after the war when he had worked in precision engineering for the war effort he eventually qualified in mechanical engineering in 1949 and did a teacher training course in the early 1950s. He taught from about 1953 until 1977.

In spite of what could have been a disastrous start for an illegitimate baby in 1915 he suceeded through having a caring foster family and determination and hard work.

Having read all the posts on this thread I am full of admiration for the generations educated during the time of grammar schools and secondary modern schools. My career started when many of you and your contemporaries were probably mid career and I was completely unaware of the challenges you may have faced. I now count myself lucky to have been educated at a later time.

We can't compare children now with children in the thirties , is it fair to say - we managed in the thirties so they can do the same now

Just as well say many children didn't have shoes in the twenties so they don't need them now

Nelliemoser what a coincidence. My Dad retrained as a precision engineer and moved our family to England where he worked for Dunlop, eventually becoming a trainer for new machines he helped select. He also devised/developed ways of making existing machinery more efficient. Eventually, in addition to his salary, he received a payment which represented a portion of the money saved by the company by updating the machinery.

Rosequartz (love the name )
The grammar school my children went to was a 9 form intake i.e. 9 year seven classes, 9 year 8 classes etc. I'm not convinced that size makes as much difference as behaviour. The behaviour of some children now is a real barrier to learning, both to the badly behaved and those who really want to learn.
Where I live there is no 11+ but the grammar schools hold their own entrance exams. Parents are advised by the primary head whether their children are likely to succeed and can make the choice whether to enter their child or not, so only those who are entered run the risk of being turned down.
That being said, I'd prefer all schools to be good rather than the split system of Grammar v Comprehensive but even in places where there are only comprehensives, the schools are still designated good or bad and the folk with money stand more chance of getting into the 'good' school.

Granoveve Rosequartz (love the name)
Thank you - I was going to change it as there are other Roses and some posters get us mixed up .....
But that can be quite amusing, so I'll stick with it for the time being anyway


now, what did I say

My friend taught in a comprehensive in a rather rundown area (I won't say where) and the behaviour was atrocious, making it impossible to teach anything sometimes.
If the head is strong and instils sensible discipline then that is a good start. However, the larger the school the more difficult it must be.
There was a 6x form intake at my DC's old school, but the town has grown a lot since then.
I have just looked at pupil numbers and they have dropped quite dramatically - only 2/3 of what they were 8 years ago!

So to those banging on about grammar schools being great and bring 'em back, one simple question - would you be happy for your child to go to a Secondary Modern? (Not a Comprehensive, if there are selective schools then the other 80% are also selected - out.)
.

The grammar schools "were" great - but the secondary moderns were not. They assumed that there were no late developers, and no children who were off-colour or stressed at the dividing point. There needed to be flexibility and re-allocating a year or two later, when some woke up to what direction their future lay.

The system was an improvement on what went before - which was either state school until 14 and then out into the big wide world, or private education for as long as parents could afford it, followed by University for those who could pass entrance exams and pay their own fees. There were scholarships and bursaries for clever children without funds (my father and his brothers all won them for the private school which later became the LA grammar school that I went to later)

If some children are "creamed off" to get more intensive lessons in more "brainy" subjects, then those who are not interested in that kind of learning must get lessons that stretch them in learning more of what is their interest and talent. Practical skills, music, art, caring professions, all these need well-informed people with the ability to master specific skills. We can't all design IT systems, but some of us will spend our lives using them - and so on.

A good split system will give a good education in all sections. A bad system will leave some uneducated - whether it is grammar/sec-mod or comprehensive. A good comprehensive will give a comprehensive education with whatever combination of elements suit the needs of that particular child, and a chance to change priorities as time goes by.

Only one of our 4 would have been GS material. The others were suited for a more technical education.
They all went to a comprehensive.

A point that hasn't been made yet - in the 50s and 60s, even 70S it wasn't difficult to find a job, whatever your level of education. I had numerous different jobs, and I didn't have to fight for any of them.
Today's children find it much more difficult to find work, the types of work available have changed so much. So parents are worrying much more about their children's future and the type of school/ Uni they attend is relatively more important.

That is an important point, TriciaF.