11+

Personal experience demonstrates Earl of Beaconsfields' (PM in Victorian times)" childhood a mistake/ youth a blunder/old age a regret".(11+ product)

Sorry, friends123 I am very

Details of his schooling are sketchy. From the age of about six he was a day boy at a dame school in Islington that one of his biographers later described as "for those days a very high-class establishment." Two years later or so—the exact date has not been ascertained—he was sent as a boarder to the Rev John Potticary's school at Blackheath.

I wasn't aware that the 11+ existed in Disraeli's (1st Earl of Beaconsfield's) time.
The 11+ was introduced in 1944 and Disraeli died in 1881

Perhaps he took it posthumously.

Following on from your post Anniebach, my MiL was a primary school teacher in the thirties and she told us about a letter she received from one of the children's Mums. It read like this. "I am sorry little Johnnie was not at school yesterday but he got his feet wet and he only has one pair"!! She loved that story.
Following on from other posts, I said to my GS before he got his results that it doesn't matter where you go to school, it is what you make of it. You can go to an amazing school and not be happy or do well, or you can go to a failing school and be happy and do well if that is what you choose to do. My Father always used to tell the story of a young man who approached a village and came across an old man on the outskirts of the village. He said to the old man "What are the people like in this village?" The old man said "Tell me, what were the people like in the last village you stayed in?" The young man said "They were a mean and miserable crowd of people which is why I am moving on". The old man replied "Well I think you will find these villagers are mean and miserable too".

Personal experience demonstrates Earl of Beaconsfields' (PM in Victorian times)" childhood a mistake/ youth a blunder/old age a regret".(11+ product)

My sister who is 9 years older than me passed the 11+ and went to a grammar school that was still fee-paying but on a scholarship. I failed the 11+ and from the day the news was received with shock and horror by my mother, I knew I was a failure. However, 25 years down the line, after doing my O and A levels at night school, I was accepted to do a degree in English and History, so that at the age of 40 I got a 1st class hons degree. The disappointment, though energetically denied and covered up by my family, was evident and my sense of having failed is still a deep seated feeling which I have to try and conquer in many situations. My first day at secondary modern started off with the Deputy Head lecturing all the newcomers on what was to be expected in terms of behaviour and expectations. We were told that we were not as clever as those who had passed the 11+ and who had gone to the grammer school which was about half a mile away in the same village, but we would always be in a supporting role for those who had done so and be grateful for that opportunity. My friend passed the 11+ and we were split up in terms of education, but she hated it and only passed O level woodwork. My sister still goes on about the fact she went to grammar school and although we get on fine on the whole, it's ages ago and she still views this as her sign of her superiority. Her husband went to the same rough, tough secondary modern as me! Do I agree with grammar schools? I don't think so, but consider that all State secondary education should be of an excellent standard to match the privileges given to those who can afford private education.

So to those banging on

Gnetters do not 'bang on'

That is an important point, TriciaF.

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.

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.

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.

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.)
.

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

workers = worker

Sorry.

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.

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.

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.

Sorry, Grammar. Of course! x

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

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!

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.