Bringing back the 11+?

I only taught in Leicestershire, which was one of the first to become comprehensive, so have no experience of the system. The only Grammar School in Leicester is private. Our kids did really well via the Comprehensive system, but yes. we lived in a good catchment area. Mind you, my friend's kids also did very well and went to a comprehensive on a tough council estate. Got 8 A* at Gcse, and 2 As, and expecting 4 As for A'Levels, and got top places offered at Uni.

One of the sad thing about UK is that there are so few good apprenticeship places, and that they are so often looked down at. Here the apprentice system is really well run and respected, leading to valued and respected qualifications in all trades.

The secondary system introduced in 1944 was intended to offer three kinds of schools, grammar (going for centuries so everyone knew what they were), secondary 'modern' to replace the 'senior' schools where everyone left at 14 (later 15, then 16 -ROSLA anyone?) and secondary technical, based on schools that existed in some industrial towns and cities. They offered a more scientific, technical and vocational education than grammar schools and an alternative route into professional and vocational higher education or employment. The 11+ was supposed to be able to detect pupils' abilities and strengths and select them for the most suitable future. How innocent they were! Most LEAs without techs didn't bother to set them up. Too expensive. So we ended up with a flawed system from day one. Same with middle schools. Some LEAs had them, some didn't. Some had middle schools, first schools, primary schools and secondaries that took pupils from 11+ and 13+ (and 16 if there was a 6th form, from secondaries that didn't have them). What a dog's breakfast! And the driving force, whatever the educational philosophy, has always been cost.

Grammar schools based their systems of having houses, prefects, homework, etc. on the public school system. I worked in two comprehensive schools which had been forged by the merger of small, extremely academic grammar schools and large secondary moderns. Although the balance of staff was 25% ex-grammar school against 75% ex-secondary modern, all the senior posts went to the grammar school cohort. Even though I was a probationary teacher, albeit aged 31, I was just given the remedial classes to teach, with no curriculum provided, and very little in the way of resources. The two headteachers had no understanding of the needs, problems, or potential of my pupils. The children reported to me several derogatory remarks made by 'academic' teachers who had to teach them for one lesson a week.
I finally left teaching when I realised that my Remedial Service was being used as a political pawn by the very right-wing council. They gave me six extra peripatetic teachers , made a big noise about that, and then got rid of all the half-time remedial teachers in about 100 schools.

I am surprised that any intelligent person who had the 'benefit' of a grammar school education can fail to see the flaws in the system for the huge majority of children who were labelled failures.

I would certainly support any scheme that encouraged school disaffected teenages to continue their education in what is a meaningful way for them.

PS my point about the middle school system is there's no need for an 11+ and any 'selection' is usually pupil driven and at age 14 anyway.

Bags the Middle School System works well where it still exists. I'm not suggesting children at 14+ drop any subjects they may wish to pursue, but rather the choices are a) available to them and b) it's their choice.
When I worked for the LEA one scheme which worked well for disaffected Y9 and Y10 pupils who were struggling with attendance, interest, school in general was to allow them access to outside professionals such as plumbers, hairdressers, farmers, etc. on 'mini apprenticeship' schemes. All CRB checked etc of course. These courses ran alongside their normal school subjects, timetabled in, with a day a week out on job. It wasn't simply job experience, it lasted a whole year with an option to continue another year and take a recognised qualification. It worked amazingly well. Attendance improved, pupils were motivated, disruptive behaviour was minimal.

I sat the 11 plus within days of arriving at my 6th primary school. We weren't told we were sitting the 11 plus, and even if we had been, I'd have had no idea what that meant as at my previous primary school, it had never been mentioned and we'd had none of the preparation some children had. I went to secondary modern school, and found the atmosphere quite threatening initially. During the first week, my class was held in detention by a student teacher as punishment for being noisy in line. He spent the detention telling the assembled group of 11 year olds that we were all failures. He pointed to the grammar school across the road and told us we'd never achieve anything like the children there. He said we would none of us ever have a decent job and may as well just accept we were total failures. Why anyone would want to return to a system that selects a very small percentage of children at age 11 for excellence, whilst telling the majority they're destined always to be second class citizens is beyond me. Granjura's comments about the benefits to our society of enabling more people to benefit from higher education/degrees can't be underestimated. I fully support proper apprenticeships and technical colleges, but let's not separate the highly academic from the rest at 11 or 14.

I failed my 11+ leaving no option to my parents but Secondary Modern. I managed to muster 5CSE's (remember those). At evening classes when the children were little I passed GCE English Lit and GCSE Law (got an 'A' grade and the following year they brought in 'A*'!), didn't have the opportunity to take real Further Education because we couldn't afford it when it would have been useful. Did I feel a failure? Do I feel a failure? YES!

I urge the Government not to take this route. Had I been schooled at a Comprehensive with exams left until my abilities kicked in, things might have been very different for me. Please don't put my Granchildren through the same thing, everyone has something important to offer! Oh and whilst on this tack, please Mr Government Man stop making Educational Changes for the sake of it give things time to work before changing them.

Argyll & Bute would have to build thirty schools where currently there are only ten for eleven to eighteen year olds. Administration costs would be huge. It's not going to happen even if the ideal were a good idea (not saying it isn't; note subjunctive).

To which 'type' of school would these people go – the fourteen year olds who were mainly academic but who wanted to do some technical and practical subjects as well? Or those who wanted to look at a technical or practical subject from and academic point of view?

Not sure I like the idea of choosing one or the other so early. I know it would suit some kids down to the ground. But there will still be potential polymaths out there. Are you saying they just have to choose? At fourteen? What if they get it wrong and want to change? Wouldn't that mean a change of school?

What if one type of school turned out to be much more popular than the others for, say a decade, and then that changed? What if there weren't enough places in this or that type of school? What if parents imposed their ambitions for their kids on the fourteen year olds' choices?

If there was a complete shake up of education in this country I'd bring back the middle school system. So at about 14 children themselves could choose what route they wanted to follow eg the academic, the technical, or the practical with good apprenticeship schemes. Each with its own system or exams or qualifications.
Children in the primary phase (5-8) would follow a more basic curriculum but with the emphasis on learning through play, practical activities and IT, plus social interaction, sport, creativity.
The middle years (8-13) would become very important with a more advanced curriculum available.
Yes, we'd need to invest in new school, more teachers and trainers, more TAs, more resources, but if we're going to 'spend' our way out of recession what better way than to invest in our children, the future generations.

We often have this 'discussion' with OH. He passed the 11+ with flying colours, and it allowed them to access a good Grammar School (Woking) and then medical school (UCH)- so he is very much in favour of that system. I of course had to do something similar here in Switzerland, and passed by the skin of my teeth. Doing extremely well in some subjects, and scraping in others. And without a supporting family, might well have failed. So I am not keen- and have no idea what would have happened to me had I failed. Proved them right, by failing- or proved them wrong, by succeeding at a later stage???

I regularly discuss changes afoot for the education system here, and also with friends all over Europe. One thing which is amazing in the UK, is that the system allows kids who are very good at some subjects, but not others, to succeed in their limited field and go on to study at Uni. For instance one of the reasons we have such excellent designers, musicians, artists, actors, etc. In any of the European system, they probably would have never been allowed to go on to study at uni, as they would have had to take all subjects, and pass in all, at the same time. In the UK you can go on to study at A'Level, and re-take maths and English concurrently. Not in Europe.

I could go on for pages. If only we could take the best of all systems, and come out with a perfect one- wouldn't it be fabulous? The UK A'Level system is far too narrow though- the Scottish highers seems like a good compromise.

At my very poor elementary school, a place at grammar school depended for several girls on how much school fund their parents sent each week. The children who brought most were taken into a small room and coached for months. Many of them were not suited to grammar school and left after one term, having taken a place that could have been given to someone like my sister, who just needed a bit of extra help in arithmetic.

inishowen that is very sad. Boroughs where there were more boys grammar places than girls were I think quite common. My DH passed the 11+ in Walsall. Well he would, wouldn't he, with that brain. But his sisters did not and went to the local and rather hopeless catholic comp. where eldest was advised to do cooking, art and english at A level, which meant that she had to do her degree in a college of FE. All his 3 sisters have done very well in their careers despite, rather than because of their education.
He had a lonely time - a long bus ride on his own to school, no real friends because a/ he did not live near anyone, or share that bus ride. and b/ he was aware from an early age that his dad was a lorry driver and most were professionals. So although he had a "good education" the grammar school experience was not a happy one.

11+ passes never depended entirely on marks. Ultimately they depended on the available number of grammar school places. They will again if re-introduced.

Granjura

Funny that - I've never known anybody to the the advocate of bringing back the 11+ who has failed it. Wonder why?

My DH and I have experience that shows both sides of the coin. I just scraped through my 11+, went to the local co-ed grammar school where my brother was 3 years ahead, and loved it there. I was moved into the top stream from the 2nd form onwards, and loved learning languages.

My DH just failed. He was given the option to re-sit, but his gran, who brought him up, was looking forward to his wage at 15, so she refused to sign for him to re-sit. He went to an abysmal secondary school, and left at 15 to go in the mill, as his gran wanted. As it happened, he managed to raise himself up later, got a trade, joined the Royal Navy, and even got a good degree later in life.

But with the difference of maybe one or two marks, one of us had a great school, the other a dreadful one. He would have been great at maths and science, too.

A good comprehensive school could have served us both well, but I do believe I would have been far less happy and successful, because the grammar school had zero bullying, and had this wonderful academic atmosphere. There were no problem kids there, no kids with behavioural problems, no kids who would wait outside school to bash you up for being clever (which I suffered at junior school, though I did learn to fight back in the end)

So, if I'd stayed in Yorkshire I would have got my kids to sit the 11+ which that grammar school still provides, and I'd have made sure I tutored them in the kinds of questions they'd get.

As it happened, I put them through the catholic education system here in Australia. In this country, catholics have traditionally been the best educators. Regardless of my atheism, that system served them well, especially as religion is very low key in such schools these days. And my eldest lad teaches at the co-ed catholic high school he attended. It is like a comprehensive - accepts all abilities.

There's always been an exam for 11 year olds in Northern Ireland. I remember how I felt when I failed my 11 plus, many years ago. I was devastated as I wanted to go to the Grammar School where my brother went. Years later it came out that boys were given extra marks!

I used to be a primary school teacher in the days when you knew what you had to teach but could use your imagination and the children's. You could read whole books to the class, (Magic) not chunks which have to be analysed. I wouldn't want to be a child or a teacher now.

I think schools are too target-based already. Not sure introducing yet more targets for schools to "achieve" will help any kids.

'...and children became stressed..'

When I first started teaching, back in the 60s, there was no National Curriculum. We concentrated on the 'three R's'. Children's reading was paramount and reading and comprehension tests were administered termly, but discretely. No child left our school with a Reading Age below their chronological age.
We also ensured children 'did' PE and everyone enjoyed Art and Craft. Other subjects such as History, Geography, Science, etc were covered in something called 'Topic Work' and tended to be integrated and environmentally based.
I worked in many schools that followed this model and pupils were certainly educated to a high level, less stressed and enjoyed school, generally.
They certainly were well prepared for secondary school.
Not all primary schools did achieve such high standards and they needed help and support, but instead there came the National Curriculum with its tick boxes and rigid approach. Later followed even more rigid requirement in Literacy and Mathematics.
I worked for the local authority for ten years trying to support teachers and schools as more and more initiatives were introduced and somewhere in all this I saw teacher moral sink to an all time low and children because stressed and over-anxious about their SATs levels.
Now yet another testing regime is being foisted into our school, our teachers and our pupils. Yes, let's keep weighing the pig!

There are some primary schools that are failing to bring children to an adequate standard in reading and numeracy. It must be miserable to arrive in a secondary school with very poor reading.Our school used to regularly take in a dozen kids from the two main feeder schools who were still struggling at key stage 1 level. For a few years we used to have a "transition group' who had a lovely primary trained teacher and a better ratio, trying to give them a boost and get them settled in secondary.
Many years ago my ex was working in primary. He was very committed to the idea that reading was the key. He concentrated on reading with his class for a whole term, and measured reading ages. They made magnificent gains in a term e.g. a whole year or more. The head was furious because he was not concentrating on the whole curriculum as required. (this was before the national curriculum). What I think this highlights is that schools tend to chug along doing a little bit of this and a little bit of that . But if you were to start from scratch as he was doing, you might look at the best ways to learn something and do things very differently. But the curriculum is very constraining and experimental or evidence based approaches consequently constrained too. I would favour having targets for the school (e.g. reading ages) and keeping all results on testing confidential. Kids need to be given personal feedback and encouragement, not test results.
Does the "literacy hour" still exist? Does it work? Seemed to me very formal when v young children were taught what adverbs were.
The answer is not another bloody overhaul of testing. Good quality support needed for those schools along with a bit more rigour in inspection. Dismantling local authority support for schools probably won't help. Our advisory team made redundant a few years ago now.

Exactly Gillybob. My eldest GD is is a grammar school area, though she (through choice) will not be taking it. Her friends in Year 5 have been coached for several years, will practise all summer and are already discussing who will pass and who will fail. Locally many private schools offer 100% 11+ pass rate. How can that be right?