Eleven Plus Exam

My sisters and I were sent privately to a Convent school because my parents wanted us all to have the same education and it was decided one of my sisters wouldn't pass the 11+. They scrimped and saved to send us. At the Convent two thirds of the girls were 'non-Catholic' and fee-paying hence subsidising the rest. Looking back it's interesting to see how we were channeled into our future careers: the brightest (and virtually all RC) in the top stream were tutored and aimed for university. The middle stream, and me, were told we should be teachers or nurses, no mention of aiming for university and the third stream were told that secretarial work, shop work or marriage were their aims! Choice, let alone any form of career guidance, was non-existent and any suggestions about going to university were firmly squashed, a fact that my highly ambitious for me mother struggled with -I eventually did a degree when I was 45.
All very different now.....

The public school mentioned by granjura was originally a Direct Grant School which had served the area well as had many others in different areas!

I passed my 11+ which was the only time my mother showed any interest in my schooling other than when I didn't do well! My dad, on the other hand, was always helpful!

I've kept out of this so far because I know I will be challenged as naive or some other derogatory remark will be made but here goes.

I think private schools should be just that. I do not agree they should have tax relief or funding from the state. The state should ensure national guidelines apply to the standard of education.

If you don't pay the fee, if you don't send your child to the school you should have no reason to comment . Nobody has the right to 'tell' another parent how they should educate their child, whether that be private education, home schooling or boarding school.

I have read posts and I know of the schools in my area and what I see in their 'turned out' pupils. We have an excellent private school but 2 excellent state schools for older pupils. I think there is quite a mix at the infant/junior level but the poor schools are not doing so because the private school is functioning, they are failing because of the quality of the staff one presumes. 2 of them have head teachers who have little to no respect from the parents, so I have heard.

Neither myself nor anybody in my family has received a private education but nobody in my family feels hard done by, jealous or think the fact private schools are there has had any relevance to our lives. We just think if you have the money to give your child a private education then what business is it of ours. If you home educate your child again what business is it of ours. We don't like 'the thought' of boarding school but understand the need if your family is in the armed forces etc. or where being overseas for example would be dangerous or your children may not get a good education etc. It is not our business, we don't know what circumstances others are in and we certainly would not allow anybody to tell us how to look after our children.

I find it confusing when somebody has gone to a grammer or had a private education but then 'tells' other parents they have no entitlement to give their children a similar education. There's a word for that but it will only encite some!

I don't understand why some practically 'demand' private education should be abolished because the state education suffers because of it, usually by those who have attended a private school or grammar. Why? Because it is totally inconclusive that a private education is AT ALL TIMES superior in the quality of education to a state education.

I think this is not about the education standards to many who oppose private education but all to do with the perceived advantages after leaving school the privately educated pupils get.

If a state school is failing don't attack the private school system, attack the teaching staff, the government, the local council. You cannot conclude that all private schools are excellent, read the posts on here!

Ask why in our cities, towns and villages there is a wide divide between good and poor schools that have the same resources, the same education authority and are very often neighbouring schools. Until there is an acceptance that a good school has excellent staff starting with a head teacher who has a clear mission to give her children the best standard of education, discipline and pupil enjoyment and those who don't should be kicked out of the system , or given support, as happens, then stop bashing the private education system because it is an easy target and allows the state education off the hook.

If private schooling were to made illegal, would we also progress to making it illegal to buy and wear anything that did not come from Tesco, or some other supermarket? Because it does give those with more money an advantage, after all, to appear at an interview in something that fits, is attractive and well-made, and cost an arm and a leg.

How about hairstyles? A fashionable London stylist will produce a more flattering, business-like head of hair than Sandra at the corner salon, who has just finished her City and Guilds and is a bit heavy-handed at times, or a DIY pudding-basin trim by someone who can't afford even Sandra.

If private schools are so much of an advantage that there is a move to ban them, why not level up instead of down? Or why not look for the best local authority schools and copy whatever they are doing?

Good posts POGS and Elegran.

Educating my DCs privately was never an option or even considered and, because of my experience of private girls only education) I vowed that they would go to the best comprehensive school available in this area, judged on what we saw at Open Days/Evenings. A girls only education and with sisters and no male relatives meant I was incredibly awkward around boys as a teenager and after leaving school, something my DCs luckily didn't experience.
My children were encouraged and supported to learn and both went to university and have good jobs.
I believe it's totally up to the individual as to how and where they educate their children and I strongly believe that with parental support any child can do well.
It is very hard, as in my case, when comparisons are constantly made with someone else's child, I was never going to meet my mother's expectations (be a doctor, marry a doctor, have a child become a doctor etc ), in fact never have and never will be the person she wanted me to be!

There is a difference between making non-state or "private" schools illegal and making it illegal to charge fees or, less controversially, abolishing their charitable status. In Finland it is illegal to charge fees but there are independent schools which are given a grant by the state. However, the vast majority of children are educated in the non-selective state system, which is known to be excellent.

I think the issue of education is a matter on which everybody is entitled to a view and it is quite acceptable to question the effectiveness of a system which lacks cohesion and which is socially divisive. I don't agree with the view that provided you've got the money to do something you should be quite at liberty to do it, whatever the consequences for wider society might be. It is for governments to govern in the interests of the majority of the people and to curtail the excesses of small, powerful groups - unfortunately there isn't much evidence of governments doing that.

Buying an expensive car, house, yacht, etc., isn't the same as buying expensive education. The kind of education a child receives has an enormous effect on his/her life chances and at the moment the way the system works guarantees that most of the influential positions in society - and most of the wealth - will be retained by those who have received a private education.

POGS If the word you were looking for is "hypocrisy" I would agree with you that politicians who decry private education but then buy it for their own children are hypocritical. I disagree, however, with the view that those who received a private education are not in a position to criticise. They are not responsible for the choices their parents made for them.

In the end, we all want the best for our children. I sent mine to co-ed catholic schools here in Australia, because here, Catholics are good educators, and the fees are very reasonable in some schools. Of course, some are ridiculously expensive too, as are anglican or secular private schools. Many state schools are excellent - some are not. We all simply do our best for our kids, according to what is available around us. I would never question someone's choice.

As for the 11+: it is perhaps better to teach candidates to think for themselves, to try to think laterally, so that they will cope with unexpected questions. Recognising patterns in numbers and shapes also helps. I passed my 11+ back in 1956, without tutoring, and without appearing especially bright: that same grammar school (Heckmondwike GS) offers an 11+ exam even today, and is still free.

I don't like the idea of private tuition; it puts too much pressure on young children. In any case, comprehensive school are supposed to cater for all abilities, so if the child fails, they can still fulfil their potential.

PS
If I had failed the 11+ I'd have gone to Mirfield Modern School: the school which nurtured one of my favourite actors, Patrick Stewart. He credits their wonderful English teacher with encouraging his talent and thus placing him on the road to success (as a Star Trek captain among many other roles)

One of my two brothers went to Mirfield Modern, and became a very successful engineer. The other went to Heckmondwike GS and became an equally( but not more) successful engineer.

Where would you draw the line with making it illegal to charge fees for education? There would have to be a limit of some kind. Age of pupil? subject matter? Level of material? In a fixed building or peripatetic?

There are all kinds of ways of passing on information/skills - independent sixth form colleges for young adults, adult literacy classes, lessons in musical instruments, ballet, sports, vocational skills, driving. some of this instruction is at a basic level, some very advanced. You can't ban everyone from making a living by teaching what they know to someone else.

Eloethan

Your comment to me-

Yes, everybody is entitled to 'a view' on any subject. Everybody is not entitled to 'insist', 'tell','demand' 'instruct'' how another person raises their child other than if the child is being abused.

You don't agree that 'provided you have money to do something you should be at liberty to do it'. I say it is none of my business what another person spends his/her money on. Are you seriously saying you would allow another person to tell you what you do with your money? I would tell them in no uncertain terms where to go to.

You say it is for 'governments to govern for the majority of people and to 'curtail' the excesses of small, powerful groups'. What does that mean? How does that work for say politics?

I give an example of the majority being the voter who puts in a government through a 'democratic' process but there are smaller, powerful groups such as The Greens, UKIP, NHA, The Peoples Assembly Against Austerity. If you were to take your words literally they should all be 'curtailed'.

I think there would quite rightly be an outcry. You can't cherry pick who, what, where a decision is made as to what/which small, powerful group would fall into the category of being 'curtailed' It would be dangerous to the extreme because political dogma not the right to support who/what you believe in would be the winner. I can't think of a much more devisive action to take to be honest, totally flies in the face of democracy .

One system is called democracy, the other is called communism. Whilst there is a passion for some to live with the latter even under your terms 'the majority' who have chosen democracy would rule and there would never be an opposition.

You say buying an expensive car or a yacht etc. isn't the same as buying expensive education. Neither is it the same as buying health care, buying your child a car, giving them a loan for deposit on a home. Totally irrelevant, again it is up to an individual to choose what they spend their money on. Good grief even communist countries have never achieved the lgoal/mantra of evenly distributed wealth.. The difference is communism is probably the biggest system of hypocrisy there is but it doesn't stop people wanting it.

As for your last sentence I agree those who received a private education are in a position to criticise but they are not in the position that gives them the right to 'tell' another parent how to educate/raise their children, no more than anybody who has been educated in the state system.

Well I see what you mean. However I was raised to believe that one's freedom stopped when it hurts others. And I truly believe that allowing some to by-pass the education or health system via their purse- is not without a very strong effect on others.

To go back to education- most Comprehensive schools, as has been said already, are not comprehensive at all due to the creaming effect of private schools and other academies, religious schools, etc. Once parents can by-pass the system, the great majority just forget about the rest- as their child/ren is/are ok- and the knock on effect if multiple. Funding, but also parental support, facilities, etc. Not only do private schools get much more money (plus charity non tax status- which I could never ever understand!)- but also parents are influencial, politically and financially, and many have much time for fundraising for even better facilities.

I know many of you have told me before they are not interested in how things are done elsewhere- but here goes. Here, apart from major cities with lots of expats like Geneva, Zurich and perhaps Zug- there are no private schools. All the children go to the same school- and therefore, rich and/or parents with influence- are together- Not only to they learn from each other, immigrants, poorer families, those with difficult circumstances, etc- but the better off parents (financially or otherwise) work hard to ensure their kids have the best education and facilities possible- and that means that all the kids get the best possible- not just theirs. Can you see that? That also means that later on, the rich, the middle, the poorer, are still friends- and there is not such a big social division, the distrust of 'them and us' - which has a real effect on society.

The name of this highly Communistic country-

Switzerland !!! Same in many Northern Europe, where preventing social divisions is very important. And neither of them are Communist either.

A divided school system = a divided society- right from the start. Again, for me, freedom stops where it has a serious effect on others. I also truly believe that our daughters have been so successful BECAUSE they learnt from an early age to cope with different people- as they are now able to communicate at all levels, from one extreme to another- something which does not come so easily to those who were 'segregated' from a young age- so I'd always refute the attacks (which we've had in the past, as most of our friends and family sent their kids to private schools)- that we 'sacrificed' our children to our principles.

Same for the NHS. Once people opt out via private system- the NHS stops being one of their priorities- which again has huge knock on effect on all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYr0eNtpDHs

ELEGRAN

ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT

Very funny!

Humour and wit mirroring so many scenrio's, priceless.

Elegran, is your hairdresser called Sandra? Or do you think all Sandras should be hairdressers?
Post 10:45

Random choice of name, J52

Just wondered. X

LOL J52.

Taling about democracy... or communism. It is an interesting discussion btw, thanks.

What I was trying to say, is that there are many ways of being a democracy. Because of the election system, and as said before the UK is quite unique in the kind of democracy it gets due to the First Past the Post system- which many countries would not consider democratic at all- as a vast proportion of the votes, the majority often- get thrown immediately in the bin. And also due to its history. The system of private education and (so-called- it should taken up by the Trades Description Act ;) ) 'public schools' goes back a long long time and has stayed entrenched way beyond the introduction of democracy.

Again, I know many do not care about comparisons- but it cannot be ignored that many democratic countries- including those with a much more democratic system of election- have clearly CHOSEN not to encourage, and to some extent, actively discourage, a private versus state education divide.
I find it very interesting, personally, and spent my whole teaching career trying to understand how it all works. Same for the Health Service. Sorry if that bores or irritates some of you. I must say I am so glad I brought up our children and taught in an area which had got rid of the Sec Mod/Grammar divide and the 11+. Don't think I would have gone into teaching otherwise.

"Neither myself nor anybody else in my family.....think the fact private schools are there has had any relevance to our lives."

Sorry, Pogs, cannot let you get away with that. Are you saying that the government has had no effect on your lives, a government stuffed to the gills with private scholars? That is very naive, as you say.

The previous government wasn't exactly short of them, either, and is more likely to have affected people's lives if only because of the length of time it was in office.

Or did you mean any government, durhamjen?

Aha, I said somebody would call me 'naive' and there she blows me hearty. Your sarcasm has not been lost Durhamjen.

Let me make myself heard loud and clear.

I do not have an issue with privately educated people, equally I do not have a problem with people who are state educated or even people who are illiterate. Thank you very much.

I do not share in your view that privately educated people must be causing an issue in my life and I do not worry that government has privately educated scholars. Neither do I consider it to be stuffed to the gunnels with privately educated scholars.

You may have a desire to get rid of the Labour, Conservative, LibDem Ministers and MP's who have received a private education, I do not. No more than I have a desire to get rid any Labour, Conservative, LibDem etc. Minister or MP who has not had a private education. Why the hell would I. I am not into class warfare. I am only interested in what they do and say as a person I don't have any desire to 'label' people.

The only objectionable thing I find about anybody is if they show hypocrisy then I will judge them.