FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > For or against Grammar schools?
For or against Grammar schools?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
"“Apparently no one feels strongly about them” Actually, I feel VERY strongly about them! I’m a cockney from the East End of London, and passing the 11-Plus gave me the opportunity to attend a Grammar School where subjects included Latin and Classical Greek, French was compulsory and students who showed linguistic ability were taught German, others Spanish. Sixth Form fast-tracking (A-Levels taken at 17, giving a year in hand to improve on any results so as to gain admission to a better University), what’s not to give thanks for! Yes, those who didn’t pass the 11-Plus were “condemned” to a lesser education, but even then there was the possibility to transfer between schools (two friends came to my alma mater from a Comprehensive school to study for A-Levels, my best friend was expelled from the Grammar, but not for “educational” reasons!). And perhaps the age of 11 was a little young for such an important step… But life’s tough, innit?" Yeh my dad is from a council estate in North London, so it gave him opportunities he might otherwise not have had | |||
| |||
"Totally support Grammar Schools and wish they had them in Sussex (loads in Kent). The state “comprehensive” system is failing and the only alternative (for those who can afford it or are lucky their kids talent secures a scholarship or bursary) is the private fee paying school route. We should do all we can to encourage and nurture talent and group kids together who genuinely want to learn and work hard. In life hard work and talent (and done luck) is what can bring you success. Instilling that in kids can only be a good thing. " *might also have stopped me making typos LOL (damn you little phone keyboard) | |||
 | |||
"Totally support Grammar Schools and wish they had them in Sussex (loads in Kent). The state “comprehensive” system is failing and the only alternative (for those who can afford it or are lucky their kids talent secures a scholarship or bursary) is the private fee paying school route. We should do all we can to encourage and nurture talent and group kids together who genuinely want to learn and work hard. In life hard work and talent (and done luck) is what can bring you success. Instilling that in kids can only be a good thing. " Clearly you haven't been through the system... A child typically is 10 years of age when they sit the 11 plus. At that age a children's ability is still developing. Many children really start to shine when they are approaching their GCSEs but are restricted in their achievements because they aren't in the right environment. Some kids attend schools that are simply more successful at coaching the kids through the exam. Ultimately resulting in some kids being misplaced on their actual ability. Whilst you say life is tough, it's a lot tougher to achieve academically if you have a bad day when you are 10 years of age. | |||
"Totally support Grammar Schools and wish they had them in Sussex (loads in Kent). The state “comprehensive” system is failing and the only alternative (for those who can afford it or are lucky their kids talent secures a scholarship or bursary) is the private fee paying school route. We should do all we can to encourage and nurture talent and group kids together who genuinely want to learn and work hard. In life hard work and talent (and done luck) is what can bring you success. Instilling that in kids can only be a good thing. Clearly you haven't been through the system... A child typically is 10 years of age when they sit the 11 plus. At that age a children's ability is still developing. Many children really start to shine when they are approaching their GCSEs but are restricted in their achievements because they aren't in the right environment. Some kids attend schools that are simply more successful at coaching the kids through the exam. Ultimately resulting in some kids being misplaced on their actual ability. Whilst you say life is tough, it's a lot tougher to achieve academically if you have a bad day when you are 10 years of age." Quite an assumption about me you make there! I am not saying basing everything on 11+ exam is right but I do believe schools streamed by ability and attitude are a good thing. I would say a better entry system for Grammar schools would be a combination of exam and course work to identify potential. Plus a second opportunity at 13. | |||
"Totally support Grammar Schools and wish they had them in Sussex (loads in Kent). The state “comprehensive” system is failing and the only alternative (for those who can afford it or are lucky their kids talent secures a scholarship or bursary) is the private fee paying school route. We should do all we can to encourage and nurture talent and group kids together who genuinely want to learn and work hard. In life hard work and talent (and done luck) is what can bring you success. Instilling that in kids can only be a good thing. Clearly you haven't been through the system... A child typically is 10 years of age when they sit the 11 plus. At that age a children's ability is still developing. Many children really start to shine when they are approaching their GCSEs but are restricted in their achievements because they aren't in the right environment. Some kids attend schools that are simply more successful at coaching the kids through the exam. Ultimately resulting in some kids being misplaced on their actual ability. Whilst you say life is tough, it's a lot tougher to achieve academically if you have a bad day when you are 10 years of age. Quite an assumption about me you make there! I am not saying basing everything on 11+ exam is right but I do believe schools streamed by ability and attitude are a good thing. I would say a better entry system for Grammar schools would be a combination of exam and course work to identify potential. Plus a second opportunity at 13. " You do realise that a significant number of children are borderline and their books get reviewed as part of the process of selection? You are effectively suggesting a system that already exists so I stand by my original comment. As for second opportunity at 13. Do you really think that moving a 13 year old from one school to another away from their friends is necessarily going to be beneficial? Take them from the top set of a secondary modern school and place them in the bottom set of a grammar school mixing with the kids that were misplaced in the first place? I failed my 11 plus. 2 tests. The first I breezed. The 2nd I screwed up. You can't fluke the test but but you can mess it up. A good number of my fellow failures did very well at GCSEs, A-levels, Degrees, Master and even PhDs. But to do so we had to fight against a system and a society that saw us as failures. My academic achievements are higher than the majority who went to the grammar school. I didn't achieve what I did through hard work. I just turned up and studied a bit which emphasises the point that the system doesn't work. Maybe you need to have a conversation with a primary school teacher whose children sit the 11 plus. Most will not be in favour of the system because my situation is far from unique. | |||
"Totally support Grammar Schools and wish they had them in Sussex (loads in Kent). The state “comprehensive” system is failing and the only alternative (for those who can afford it or are lucky their kids talent secures a scholarship or bursary) is the private fee paying school route. We should do all we can to encourage and nurture talent and group kids together who genuinely want to learn and work hard. In life hard work and talent (and done luck) is what can bring you success. Instilling that in kids can only be a good thing. Clearly you haven't been through the system... A child typically is 10 years of age when they sit the 11 plus. At that age a children's ability is still developing. Many children really start to shine when they are approaching their GCSEs but are restricted in their achievements because they aren't in the right environment. Some kids attend schools that are simply more successful at coaching the kids through the exam. Ultimately resulting in some kids being misplaced on their actual ability. Whilst you say life is tough, it's a lot tougher to achieve academically if you have a bad day when you are 10 years of age. Quite an assumption about me you make there! I am not saying basing everything on 11+ exam is right but I do believe schools streamed by ability and attitude are a good thing. I would say a better entry system for Grammar schools would be a combination of exam and course work to identify potential. Plus a second opportunity at 13. You do realise that a significant number of children are borderline and their books get reviewed as part of the process of selection? You are effectively suggesting a system that already exists so I stand by my original comment. As for second opportunity at 13. Do you really think that moving a 13 year old from one school to another away from their friends is necessarily going to be beneficial? Take them from the top set of a secondary modern school and place them in the bottom set of a grammar school mixing with the kids that were misplaced in the first place? I failed my 11 plus. 2 tests. The first I breezed. The 2nd I screwed up. You can't fluke the test but but you can mess it up. A good number of my fellow failures did very well at GCSEs, A-levels, Degrees, Master and even PhDs. But to do so we had to fight against a system and a society that saw us as failures. My academic achievements are higher than the majority who went to the grammar school. I didn't achieve what I did through hard work. I just turned up and studied a bit which emphasises the point that the system doesn't work. Maybe you need to have a conversation with a primary school teacher whose children sit the 11 plus. Most will not be in favour of the system because my situation is far from unique." Your personal experience is not universal though. The problem with taking a meritocratic approach to education is that often potential gets overlooked or simply not nurtured. The very bright kids will always be bright but will get distracted by those who are challenging. The middle strata of kids get forgotten about because the poor over-stretched teacher is having to deal with a class of 30-35 kids of all abilities where the disrupters will occupy a disproportional amount of the teacher’s time. Why not place kids in environments where they can flourish to the best of their abilities? Some may flunk it sure, but again, that is life right? Having a second chance at 13 is clearly going to be their and their parent’s choice. Want to stay with friends etc, fine don’t sit a 13+ | |||
"Totally support Grammar Schools and wish they had them in Sussex (loads in Kent). The state “comprehensive” system is failing and the only alternative (for those who can afford it or are lucky their kids talent secures a scholarship or bursary) is the private fee paying school route. We should do all we can to encourage and nurture talent and group kids together who genuinely want to learn and work hard. In life hard work and talent (and done luck) is what can bring you success. Instilling that in kids can only be a good thing. Clearly you haven't been through the system... A child typically is 10 years of age when they sit the 11 plus. At that age a children's ability is still developing. Many children really start to shine when they are approaching their GCSEs but are restricted in their achievements because they aren't in the right environment. Some kids attend schools that are simply more successful at coaching the kids through the exam. Ultimately resulting in some kids being misplaced on their actual ability. Whilst you say life is tough, it's a lot tougher to achieve academically if you have a bad day when you are 10 years of age. Quite an assumption about me you make there! I am not saying basing everything on 11+ exam is right but I do believe schools streamed by ability and attitude are a good thing. I would say a better entry system for Grammar schools would be a combination of exam and course work to identify potential. Plus a second opportunity at 13. You do realise that a significant number of children are borderline and their books get reviewed as part of the process of selection? You are effectively suggesting a system that already exists so I stand by my original comment. As for second opportunity at 13. Do you really think that moving a 13 year old from one school to another away from their friends is necessarily going to be beneficial? Take them from the top set of a secondary modern school and place them in the bottom set of a grammar school mixing with the kids that were misplaced in the first place? I failed my 11 plus. 2 tests. The first I breezed. The 2nd I screwed up. You can't fluke the test but but you can mess it up. A good number of my fellow failures did very well at GCSEs, A-levels, Degrees, Master and even PhDs. But to do so we had to fight against a system and a society that saw us as failures. My academic achievements are higher than the majority who went to the grammar school. I didn't achieve what I did through hard work. I just turned up and studied a bit which emphasises the point that the system doesn't work. Maybe you need to have a conversation with a primary school teacher whose children sit the 11 plus. Most will not be in favour of the system because my situation is far from unique." You have pointed out how you failed the test, and you also paint a picture of yourself as someone who is gifted to the point of not trying but still exceeding your peers, even with their superior educational environment. You could look at failing the test as a positive, a person who needed that extra support to do well got your place, a place you obviously didn't need. There will always be a need to draw a line in the sand when it comes numbers of people applying for a limited number of places, it might not be a 100% watertight way of doing it, but it is consistent and repeatable, which makes it a level playing field. What would be your alternative solution for testing 10 year olds? | |||
"Totally support Grammar Schools and wish they had them in Sussex (loads in Kent). The state “comprehensive” system is failing and the only alternative (for those who can afford it or are lucky their kids talent secures a scholarship or bursary) is the private fee paying school route. We should do all we can to encourage and nurture talent and group kids together who genuinely want to learn and work hard. In life hard work and talent (and done luck) is what can bring you success. Instilling that in kids can only be a good thing. Clearly you haven't been through the system... A child typically is 10 years of age when they sit the 11 plus. At that age a children's ability is still developing. Many children really start to shine when they are approaching their GCSEs but are restricted in their achievements because they aren't in the right environment. Some kids attend schools that are simply more successful at coaching the kids through the exam. Ultimately resulting in some kids being misplaced on their actual ability. Whilst you say life is tough, it's a lot tougher to achieve academically if you have a bad day when you are 10 years of age. Quite an assumption about me you make there! I am not saying basing everything on 11+ exam is right but I do believe schools streamed by ability and attitude are a good thing. I would say a better entry system for Grammar schools would be a combination of exam and course work to identify potential. Plus a second opportunity at 13. You do realise that a significant number of children are borderline and their books get reviewed as part of the process of selection? You are effectively suggesting a system that already exists so I stand by my original comment. As for second opportunity at 13. Do you really think that moving a 13 year old from one school to another away from their friends is necessarily going to be beneficial? Take them from the top set of a secondary modern school and place them in the bottom set of a grammar school mixing with the kids that were misplaced in the first place? I failed my 11 plus. 2 tests. The first I breezed. The 2nd I screwed up. You can't fluke the test but but you can mess it up. A good number of my fellow failures did very well at GCSEs, A-levels, Degrees, Master and even PhDs. But to do so we had to fight against a system and a society that saw us as failures. My academic achievements are higher than the majority who went to the grammar school. I didn't achieve what I did through hard work. I just turned up and studied a bit which emphasises the point that the system doesn't work. Maybe you need to have a conversation with a primary school teacher whose children sit the 11 plus. Most will not be in favour of the system because my situation is far from unique. Your personal experience is not universal though. The problem with taking a meritocratic approach to education is that often potential gets overlooked or simply not nurtured. The very bright kids will always be bright but will get distracted by those who are challenging. The middle strata of kids get forgotten about because the poor over-stretched teacher is having to deal with a class of 30-35 kids of all abilities where the disrupters will occupy a disproportional amount of the teacher’s time. Why not place kids in environments where they can flourish to the best of their abilities? Some may flunk it sure, but again, that is life right? Having a second chance at 13 is clearly going to be their and their parent’s choice. Want to stay with friends etc, fine don’t sit a 13+ " Also to add, you said: “Take them from the top set of a secondary modern school and place them in the bottom set of a grammar school mixing with the kids that were misplaced in the first place?” Again that is both a poor assumption and doesn’t show much faith in the secondary modern (ironically considering the discussion). Who says they would move from top set to bottom set? Surely ability is ability? Potential is potential? | |||
"Totally support Grammar Schools and wish they had them in Sussex (loads in Kent). The state “comprehensive” system is failing and the only alternative (for those who can afford it or are lucky their kids talent secures a scholarship or bursary) is the private fee paying school route. We should do all we can to encourage and nurture talent and group kids together who genuinely want to learn and work hard. In life hard work and talent (and done luck) is what can bring you success. Instilling that in kids can only be a good thing. Clearly you haven't been through the system... A child typically is 10 years of age when they sit the 11 plus. At that age a children's ability is still developing. Many children really start to shine when they are approaching their GCSEs but are restricted in their achievements because they aren't in the right environment. Some kids attend schools that are simply more successful at coaching the kids through the exam. Ultimately resulting in some kids being misplaced on their actual ability. Whilst you say life is tough, it's a lot tougher to achieve academically if you have a bad day when you are 10 years of age. Quite an assumption about me you make there! I am not saying basing everything on 11+ exam is right but I do believe schools streamed by ability and attitude are a good thing. I would say a better entry system for Grammar schools would be a combination of exam and course work to identify potential. Plus a second opportunity at 13. You do realise that a significant number of children are borderline and their books get reviewed as part of the process of selection? You are effectively suggesting a system that already exists so I stand by my original comment. As for second opportunity at 13. Do you really think that moving a 13 year old from one school to another away from their friends is necessarily going to be beneficial? Take them from the top set of a secondary modern school and place them in the bottom set of a grammar school mixing with the kids that were misplaced in the first place? I failed my 11 plus. 2 tests. The first I breezed. The 2nd I screwed up. You can't fluke the test but but you can mess it up. A good number of my fellow failures did very well at GCSEs, A-levels, Degrees, Master and even PhDs. But to do so we had to fight against a system and a society that saw us as failures. My academic achievements are higher than the majority who went to the grammar school. I didn't achieve what I did through hard work. I just turned up and studied a bit which emphasises the point that the system doesn't work. Maybe you need to have a conversation with a primary school teacher whose children sit the 11 plus. Most will not be in favour of the system because my situation is far from unique." From the top set of secondary modern to the bottom set of a grammar school? How big do you think the difference in educational quality is between the 2? Like I say I'm the only one of my family who didn't pass the 11 plus and went to a comprehensive instead of grammar and the standard of education, as in exam results, school funding etc, was pretty much the exact same as my 2 older brothers' grammar school. Yes 11 is quite young for a big exam but you could argue any as being too young if you wanted to. Is 16 not too young to have teenagers sit exams that massively effect the rest of their life, results that have have much bigger impact than the 11 plus. And I don't think I've ever felt I was treated like a second class citizen or less than by people who went to grammar school | |||
"Totally support Grammar Schools and wish they had them in Sussex (loads in Kent). The state “comprehensive” system is failing and the only alternative (for those who can afford it or are lucky their kids talent secures a scholarship or bursary) is the private fee paying school route. We should do all we can to encourage and nurture talent and group kids together who genuinely want to learn and work hard. In life hard work and talent (and done luck) is what can bring you success. Instilling that in kids can only be a good thing. Clearly you haven't been through the system... A child typically is 10 years of age when they sit the 11 plus. At that age a children's ability is still developing. Many children really start to shine when they are approaching their GCSEs but are restricted in their achievements because they aren't in the right environment. Some kids attend schools that are simply more successful at coaching the kids through the exam. Ultimately resulting in some kids being misplaced on their actual ability. Whilst you say life is tough, it's a lot tougher to achieve academically if you have a bad day when you are 10 years of age. Quite an assumption about me you make there! I am not saying basing everything on 11+ exam is right but I do believe schools streamed by ability and attitude are a good thing. I would say a better entry system for Grammar schools would be a combination of exam and course work to identify potential. Plus a second opportunity at 13. You do realise that a significant number of children are borderline and their books get reviewed as part of the process of selection? You are effectively suggesting a system that already exists so I stand by my original comment. As for second opportunity at 13. Do you really think that moving a 13 year old from one school to another away from their friends is necessarily going to be beneficial? Take them from the top set of a secondary modern school and place them in the bottom set of a grammar school mixing with the kids that were misplaced in the first place? I failed my 11 plus. 2 tests. The first I breezed. The 2nd I screwed up. You can't fluke the test but but you can mess it up. A good number of my fellow failures did very well at GCSEs, A-levels, Degrees, Master and even PhDs. But to do so we had to fight against a system and a society that saw us as failures. My academic achievements are higher than the majority who went to the grammar school. I didn't achieve what I did through hard work. I just turned up and studied a bit which emphasises the point that the system doesn't work. Maybe you need to have a conversation with a primary school teacher whose children sit the 11 plus. Most will not be in favour of the system because my situation is far from unique. Your personal experience is not universal though. The problem with taking a meritocratic approach to education is that often potential gets overlooked or simply not nurtured. The very bright kids will always be bright but will get distracted by those who are challenging. The middle strata of kids get forgotten about because the poor over-stretched teacher is having to deal with a class of 30-35 kids of all abilities where the disrupters will occupy a disproportional amount of the teacher’s time. Why not place kids in environments where they can flourish to the best of their abilities? Some may flunk it sure, but again, that is life right? Having a second chance at 13 is clearly going to be their and their parent’s choice. Want to stay with friends etc, fine don’t sit a 13+ " It's a very common experience and I have clearly detailed the experiences of a significant number of others I was at school with. Flunk your GCSEs. Flunk your A-levels. Flunk your driving test. Always a way to re-take. Flunk 11 plus as a 10/11 year old then your spend the next 5 years significantly disadvantaged. The problems at the moment aren't going to be fixed by reintroducing a flawed selection system. | |||
"Totally support Grammar Schools and wish they had them in Sussex (loads in Kent). The state “comprehensive” system is failing and the only alternative (for those who can afford it or are lucky their kids talent secures a scholarship or bursary) is the private fee paying school route. We should do all we can to encourage and nurture talent and group kids together who genuinely want to learn and work hard. In life hard work and talent (and done luck) is what can bring you success. Instilling that in kids can only be a good thing. Clearly you haven't been through the system... A child typically is 10 years of age when they sit the 11 plus. At that age a children's ability is still developing. Many children really start to shine when they are approaching their GCSEs but are restricted in their achievements because they aren't in the right environment. Some kids attend schools that are simply more successful at coaching the kids through the exam. Ultimately resulting in some kids being misplaced on their actual ability. Whilst you say life is tough, it's a lot tougher to achieve academically if you have a bad day when you are 10 years of age. Quite an assumption about me you make there! I am not saying basing everything on 11+ exam is right but I do believe schools streamed by ability and attitude are a good thing. I would say a better entry system for Grammar schools would be a combination of exam and course work to identify potential. Plus a second opportunity at 13. You do realise that a significant number of children are borderline and their books get reviewed as part of the process of selection? You are effectively suggesting a system that already exists so I stand by my original comment. As for second opportunity at 13. Do you really think that moving a 13 year old from one school to another away from their friends is necessarily going to be beneficial? Take them from the top set of a secondary modern school and place them in the bottom set of a grammar school mixing with the kids that were misplaced in the first place? I failed my 11 plus. 2 tests. The first I breezed. The 2nd I screwed up. You can't fluke the test but but you can mess it up. A good number of my fellow failures did very well at GCSEs, A-levels, Degrees, Master and even PhDs. But to do so we had to fight against a system and a society that saw us as failures. My academic achievements are higher than the majority who went to the grammar school. I didn't achieve what I did through hard work. I just turned up and studied a bit which emphasises the point that the system doesn't work. Maybe you need to have a conversation with a primary school teacher whose children sit the 11 plus. Most will not be in favour of the system because my situation is far from unique. Your personal experience is not universal though. The problem with taking a meritocratic approach to education is that often potential gets overlooked or simply not nurtured. The very bright kids will always be bright but will get distracted by those who are challenging. The middle strata of kids get forgotten about because the poor over-stretched teacher is having to deal with a class of 30-35 kids of all abilities where the disrupters will occupy a disproportional amount of the teacher’s time. Why not place kids in environments where they can flourish to the best of their abilities? Some may flunk it sure, but again, that is life right? Having a second chance at 13 is clearly going to be their and their parent’s choice. Want to stay with friends etc, fine don’t sit a 13+ It's a very common experience and I have clearly detailed the experiences of a significant number of others I was at school with. Flunk your GCSEs. Flunk your A-levels. Flunk your driving test. Always a way to re-take. Flunk 11 plus as a 10/11 year old then your spend the next 5 years significantly disadvantaged. The problems at the moment aren't going to be fixed by reintroducing a flawed selection system. " Which is why I said mix of exam and course work plus second attempt with 13+ You don’t seem to have much faith in Secondary Modern’s education provision? | |||
"Totally support Grammar Schools and wish they had them in Sussex (loads in Kent). The state “comprehensive” system is failing and the only alternative (for those who can afford it or are lucky their kids talent secures a scholarship or bursary) is the private fee paying school route. We should do all we can to encourage and nurture talent and group kids together who genuinely want to learn and work hard. In life hard work and talent (and done luck) is what can bring you success. Instilling that in kids can only be a good thing. Clearly you haven't been through the system... A child typically is 10 years of age when they sit the 11 plus. At that age a children's ability is still developing. Many children really start to shine when they are approaching their GCSEs but are restricted in their achievements because they aren't in the right environment. Some kids attend schools that are simply more successful at coaching the kids through the exam. Ultimately resulting in some kids being misplaced on their actual ability. Whilst you say life is tough, it's a lot tougher to achieve academically if you have a bad day when you are 10 years of age. Quite an assumption about me you make there! I am not saying basing everything on 11+ exam is right but I do believe schools streamed by ability and attitude are a good thing. I would say a better entry system for Grammar schools would be a combination of exam and course work to identify potential. Plus a second opportunity at 13. You do realise that a significant number of children are borderline and their books get reviewed as part of the process of selection? You are effectively suggesting a system that already exists so I stand by my original comment. As for second opportunity at 13. Do you really think that moving a 13 year old from one school to another away from their friends is necessarily going to be beneficial? Take them from the top set of a secondary modern school and place them in the bottom set of a grammar school mixing with the kids that were misplaced in the first place? I failed my 11 plus. 2 tests. The first I breezed. The 2nd I screwed up. You can't fluke the test but but you can mess it up. A good number of my fellow failures did very well at GCSEs, A-levels, Degrees, Master and even PhDs. But to do so we had to fight against a system and a society that saw us as failures. My academic achievements are higher than the majority who went to the grammar school. I didn't achieve what I did through hard work. I just turned up and studied a bit which emphasises the point that the system doesn't work. Maybe you need to have a conversation with a primary school teacher whose children sit the 11 plus. Most will not be in favour of the system because my situation is far from unique. From the top set of secondary modern to the bottom set of a grammar school? How big do you think the difference in educational quality is between the 2? Like I say I'm the only one of my family who didn't pass the 11 plus and went to a comprehensive instead of grammar and the standard of education, as in exam results, school funding etc, was pretty much the exact same as my 2 older brothers' grammar school. Yes 11 is quite young for a big exam but you could argue any as being too young if you wanted to. Is 16 not too young to have teenagers sit exams that massively effect the rest of their life, results that have have much bigger impact than the 11 plus. And I don't think I've ever felt I was treated like a second class citizen or less than by people who went to grammar school" It's not education quality. It's the ability of peers. The ability of the top of a secondary modern school is significantly above the bottom of a grammar school because the selection system is flawed. The use of a verbal reasoning test to select children's ability to be successful in maths and sciences is ridiculous. Did all the children who went to your comprehensive school sit the 11+? I have had comments about failing 11+. Even from people who became friends as adults who went to grammar school where they have referenced going to the thick school. It's banter but demonstrates that grammar school kids see themselves above those who didn't make it. Even the teachers at the grammar school put the kids on a pedestal. It was great to watch them fall... | |||
"Totally support Grammar Schools and wish they had them in Sussex (loads in Kent). The state “comprehensive” system is failing and the only alternative (for those who can afford it or are lucky their kids talent secures a scholarship or bursary) is the private fee paying school route. We should do all we can to encourage and nurture talent and group kids together who genuinely want to learn and work hard. In life hard work and talent (and done luck) is what can bring you success. Instilling that in kids can only be a good thing. Clearly you haven't been through the system... A child typically is 10 years of age when they sit the 11 plus. At that age a children's ability is still developing. Many children really start to shine when they are approaching their GCSEs but are restricted in their achievements because they aren't in the right environment. Some kids attend schools that are simply more successful at coaching the kids through the exam. Ultimately resulting in some kids being misplaced on their actual ability. Whilst you say life is tough, it's a lot tougher to achieve academically if you have a bad day when you are 10 years of age. Quite an assumption about me you make there! I am not saying basing everything on 11+ exam is right but I do believe schools streamed by ability and attitude are a good thing. I would say a better entry system for Grammar schools would be a combination of exam and course work to identify potential. Plus a second opportunity at 13. You do realise that a significant number of children are borderline and their books get reviewed as part of the process of selection? You are effectively suggesting a system that already exists so I stand by my original comment. As for second opportunity at 13. Do you really think that moving a 13 year old from one school to another away from their friends is necessarily going to be beneficial? Take them from the top set of a secondary modern school and place them in the bottom set of a grammar school mixing with the kids that were misplaced in the first place? I failed my 11 plus. 2 tests. The first I breezed. The 2nd I screwed up. You can't fluke the test but but you can mess it up. A good number of my fellow failures did very well at GCSEs, A-levels, Degrees, Master and even PhDs. But to do so we had to fight against a system and a society that saw us as failures. My academic achievements are higher than the majority who went to the grammar school. I didn't achieve what I did through hard work. I just turned up and studied a bit which emphasises the point that the system doesn't work. Maybe you need to have a conversation with a primary school teacher whose children sit the 11 plus. Most will not be in favour of the system because my situation is far from unique. From the top set of secondary modern to the bottom set of a grammar school? How big do you think the difference in educational quality is between the 2? Like I say I'm the only one of my family who didn't pass the 11 plus and went to a comprehensive instead of grammar and the standard of education, as in exam results, school funding etc, was pretty much the exact same as my 2 older brothers' grammar school. Yes 11 is quite young for a big exam but you could argue any as being too young if you wanted to. Is 16 not too young to have teenagers sit exams that massively effect the rest of their life, results that have have much bigger impact than the 11 plus. And I don't think I've ever felt I was treated like a second class citizen or less than by people who went to grammar school It's not education quality. It's the ability of peers. The ability of the top of a secondary modern school is significantly above the bottom of a grammar school because the selection system is flawed. The use of a verbal reasoning test to select children's ability to be successful in maths and sciences is ridiculous. Did all the children who went to your comprehensive school sit the 11+? I have had comments about failing 11+. Even from people who became friends as adults who went to grammar school where they have referenced going to the thick school. It's banter but demonstrates that grammar school kids see themselves above those who didn't make it. Even the teachers at the grammar school put the kids on a pedestal. It was great to watch them fall... " That sounds dangerously like a chip on your shoulder that by now you should be able to get rid of! Fancy enjoying seeing anyone fail  | |||
"Totally support Grammar Schools and wish they had them in Sussex (loads in Kent). The state “comprehensive” system is failing and the only alternative (for those who can afford it or are lucky their kids talent secures a scholarship or bursary) is the private fee paying school route. We should do all we can to encourage and nurture talent and group kids together who genuinely want to learn and work hard. In life hard work and talent (and done luck) is what can bring you success. Instilling that in kids can only be a good thing. Clearly you haven't been through the system... A child typically is 10 years of age when they sit the 11 plus. At that age a children's ability is still developing. Many children really start to shine when they are approaching their GCSEs but are restricted in their achievements because they aren't in the right environment. Some kids attend schools that are simply more successful at coaching the kids through the exam. Ultimately resulting in some kids being misplaced on their actual ability. Whilst you say life is tough, it's a lot tougher to achieve academically if you have a bad day when you are 10 years of age. Quite an assumption about me you make there! I am not saying basing everything on 11+ exam is right but I do believe schools streamed by ability and attitude are a good thing. I would say a better entry system for Grammar schools would be a combination of exam and course work to identify potential. Plus a second opportunity at 13. You do realise that a significant number of children are borderline and their books get reviewed as part of the process of selection? You are effectively suggesting a system that already exists so I stand by my original comment. As for second opportunity at 13. Do you really think that moving a 13 year old from one school to another away from their friends is necessarily going to be beneficial? Take them from the top set of a secondary modern school and place them in the bottom set of a grammar school mixing with the kids that were misplaced in the first place? I failed my 11 plus. 2 tests. The first I breezed. The 2nd I screwed up. You can't fluke the test but but you can mess it up. A good number of my fellow failures did very well at GCSEs, A-levels, Degrees, Master and even PhDs. But to do so we had to fight against a system and a society that saw us as failures. My academic achievements are higher than the majority who went to the grammar school. I didn't achieve what I did through hard work. I just turned up and studied a bit which emphasises the point that the system doesn't work. Maybe you need to have a conversation with a primary school teacher whose children sit the 11 plus. Most will not be in favour of the system because my situation is far from unique. Your personal experience is not universal though. The problem with taking a meritocratic approach to education is that often potential gets overlooked or simply not nurtured. The very bright kids will always be bright but will get distracted by those who are challenging. The middle strata of kids get forgotten about because the poor over-stretched teacher is having to deal with a class of 30-35 kids of all abilities where the disrupters will occupy a disproportional amount of the teacher’s time. Why not place kids in environments where they can flourish to the best of their abilities? Some may flunk it sure, but again, that is life right? Having a second chance at 13 is clearly going to be their and their parent’s choice. Want to stay with friends etc, fine don’t sit a 13+ It's a very common experience and I have clearly detailed the experiences of a significant number of others I was at school with. Flunk your GCSEs. Flunk your A-levels. Flunk your driving test. Always a way to re-take. Flunk 11 plus as a 10/11 year old then your spend the next 5 years significantly disadvantaged. The problems at the moment aren't going to be fixed by reintroducing a flawed selection system. Which is why I said mix of exam and course work plus second attempt with 13+ You don’t seem to have much faith in Secondary Modern’s education provision?" The standard of coursework will differ significantly between schools which makes selection unfair. What's wrong with a comprehensive system that covers the ability of all children and allows them to learn at the pace most suited to them at the time? Surely that's better than one that restricts? | |||
"Totally support Grammar Schools and wish they had them in Sussex (loads in Kent). The state “comprehensive” system is failing and the only alternative (for those who can afford it or are lucky their kids talent secures a scholarship or bursary) is the private fee paying school route. We should do all we can to encourage and nurture talent and group kids together who genuinely want to learn and work hard. In life hard work and talent (and done luck) is what can bring you success. Instilling that in kids can only be a good thing. Clearly you haven't been through the system... A child typically is 10 years of age when they sit the 11 plus. At that age a children's ability is still developing. Many children really start to shine when they are approaching their GCSEs but are restricted in their achievements because they aren't in the right environment. Some kids attend schools that are simply more successful at coaching the kids through the exam. Ultimately resulting in some kids being misplaced on their actual ability. Whilst you say life is tough, it's a lot tougher to achieve academically if you have a bad day when you are 10 years of age. Quite an assumption about me you make there! I am not saying basing everything on 11+ exam is right but I do believe schools streamed by ability and attitude are a good thing. I would say a better entry system for Grammar schools would be a combination of exam and course work to identify potential. Plus a second opportunity at 13. You do realise that a significant number of children are borderline and their books get reviewed as part of the process of selection? You are effectively suggesting a system that already exists so I stand by my original comment. As for second opportunity at 13. Do you really think that moving a 13 year old from one school to another away from their friends is necessarily going to be beneficial? Take them from the top set of a secondary modern school and place them in the bottom set of a grammar school mixing with the kids that were misplaced in the first place? I failed my 11 plus. 2 tests. The first I breezed. The 2nd I screwed up. You can't fluke the test but but you can mess it up. A good number of my fellow failures did very well at GCSEs, A-levels, Degrees, Master and even PhDs. But to do so we had to fight against a system and a society that saw us as failures. My academic achievements are higher than the majority who went to the grammar school. I didn't achieve what I did through hard work. I just turned up and studied a bit which emphasises the point that the system doesn't work. Maybe you need to have a conversation with a primary school teacher whose children sit the 11 plus. Most will not be in favour of the system because my situation is far from unique. Your personal experience is not universal though. The problem with taking a meritocratic approach to education is that often potential gets overlooked or simply not nurtured. The very bright kids will always be bright but will get distracted by those who are challenging. The middle strata of kids get forgotten about because the poor over-stretched teacher is having to deal with a class of 30-35 kids of all abilities where the disrupters will occupy a disproportional amount of the teacher’s time. Why not place kids in environments where they can flourish to the best of their abilities? Some may flunk it sure, but again, that is life right? Having a second chance at 13 is clearly going to be their and their parent’s choice. Want to stay with friends etc, fine don’t sit a 13+ It's a very common experience and I have clearly detailed the experiences of a significant number of others I was at school with. Flunk your GCSEs. Flunk your A-levels. Flunk your driving test. Always a way to re-take. Flunk 11 plus as a 10/11 year old then your spend the next 5 years significantly disadvantaged. The problems at the moment aren't going to be fixed by reintroducing a flawed selection system. Which is why I said mix of exam and course work plus second attempt with 13+ You don’t seem to have much faith in Secondary Modern’s education provision? The standard of coursework will differ significantly between schools which makes selection unfair. What's wrong with a comprehensive system that covers the ability of all children and allows them to learn at the pace most suited to them at the time? Surely that's better than one that restricts? " Is there a deliberate (almost) oxymoron in what you just typed? “The standard of coursework will differ significantly between schools which makes selection unfair.” Yet you want everyone in the normal state system? And yes I know = primary schools. But it simply illustrates the education lottery! | |||
"Totally support Grammar Schools and wish they had them in Sussex (loads in Kent). The state “comprehensive” system is failing and the only alternative (for those who can afford it or are lucky their kids talent secures a scholarship or bursary) is the private fee paying school route. We should do all we can to encourage and nurture talent and group kids together who genuinely want to learn and work hard. In life hard work and talent (and done luck) is what can bring you success. Instilling that in kids can only be a good thing. Clearly you haven't been through the system... A child typically is 10 years of age when they sit the 11 plus. At that age a children's ability is still developing. Many children really start to shine when they are approaching their GCSEs but are restricted in their achievements because they aren't in the right environment. Some kids attend schools that are simply more successful at coaching the kids through the exam. Ultimately resulting in some kids being misplaced on their actual ability. Whilst you say life is tough, it's a lot tougher to achieve academically if you have a bad day when you are 10 years of age. Quite an assumption about me you make there! I am not saying basing everything on 11+ exam is right but I do believe schools streamed by ability and attitude are a good thing. I would say a better entry system for Grammar schools would be a combination of exam and course work to identify potential. Plus a second opportunity at 13. You do realise that a significant number of children are borderline and their books get reviewed as part of the process of selection? You are effectively suggesting a system that already exists so I stand by my original comment. As for second opportunity at 13. Do you really think that moving a 13 year old from one school to another away from their friends is necessarily going to be beneficial? Take them from the top set of a secondary modern school and place them in the bottom set of a grammar school mixing with the kids that were misplaced in the first place? I failed my 11 plus. 2 tests. The first I breezed. The 2nd I screwed up. You can't fluke the test but but you can mess it up. A good number of my fellow failures did very well at GCSEs, A-levels, Degrees, Master and even PhDs. But to do so we had to fight against a system and a society that saw us as failures. My academic achievements are higher than the majority who went to the grammar school. I didn't achieve what I did through hard work. I just turned up and studied a bit which emphasises the point that the system doesn't work. Maybe you need to have a conversation with a primary school teacher whose children sit the 11 plus. Most will not be in favour of the system because my situation is far from unique. From the top set of secondary modern to the bottom set of a grammar school? How big do you think the difference in educational quality is between the 2? Like I say I'm the only one of my family who didn't pass the 11 plus and went to a comprehensive instead of grammar and the standard of education, as in exam results, school funding etc, was pretty much the exact same as my 2 older brothers' grammar school. Yes 11 is quite young for a big exam but you could argue any as being too young if you wanted to. Is 16 not too young to have teenagers sit exams that massively effect the rest of their life, results that have have much bigger impact than the 11 plus. And I don't think I've ever felt I was treated like a second class citizen or less than by people who went to grammar school It's not education quality. It's the ability of peers. The ability of the top of a secondary modern school is significantly above the bottom of a grammar school because the selection system is flawed. The use of a verbal reasoning test to select children's ability to be successful in maths and sciences is ridiculous. Did all the children who went to your comprehensive school sit the 11+? I have had comments about failing 11+. Even from people who became friends as adults who went to grammar school where they have referenced going to the thick school. It's banter but demonstrates that grammar school kids see themselves above those who didn't make it. Even the teachers at the grammar school put the kids on a pedestal. It was great to watch them fall... That sounds dangerously like a chip on your shoulder that by now you should be able to get rid of! Fancy enjoying seeing anyone fail "Not at all. Who said about failing?! They achieved what they were capable of. Keep up. The selection system is flawed and the 2 tier education system traps kids at a young age. | |||
"Totally support Grammar Schools and wish they had them in Sussex (loads in Kent). The state “comprehensive” system is failing and the only alternative (for those who can afford it or are lucky their kids talent secures a scholarship or bursary) is the private fee paying school route. We should do all we can to encourage and nurture talent and group kids together who genuinely want to learn and work hard. In life hard work and talent (and done luck) is what can bring you success. Instilling that in kids can only be a good thing. Clearly you haven't been through the system... A child typically is 10 years of age when they sit the 11 plus. At that age a children's ability is still developing. Many children really start to shine when they are approaching their GCSEs but are restricted in their achievements because they aren't in the right environment. Some kids attend schools that are simply more successful at coaching the kids through the exam. Ultimately resulting in some kids being misplaced on their actual ability. Whilst you say life is tough, it's a lot tougher to achieve academically if you have a bad day when you are 10 years of age. Quite an assumption about me you make there! I am not saying basing everything on 11+ exam is right but I do believe schools streamed by ability and attitude are a good thing. I would say a better entry system for Grammar schools would be a combination of exam and course work to identify potential. Plus a second opportunity at 13. You do realise that a significant number of children are borderline and their books get reviewed as part of the process of selection? You are effectively suggesting a system that already exists so I stand by my original comment. As for second opportunity at 13. Do you really think that moving a 13 year old from one school to another away from their friends is necessarily going to be beneficial? Take them from the top set of a secondary modern school and place them in the bottom set of a grammar school mixing with the kids that were misplaced in the first place? I failed my 11 plus. 2 tests. The first I breezed. The 2nd I screwed up. You can't fluke the test but but you can mess it up. A good number of my fellow failures did very well at GCSEs, A-levels, Degrees, Master and even PhDs. But to do so we had to fight against a system and a society that saw us as failures. My academic achievements are higher than the majority who went to the grammar school. I didn't achieve what I did through hard work. I just turned up and studied a bit which emphasises the point that the system doesn't work. Maybe you need to have a conversation with a primary school teacher whose children sit the 11 plus. Most will not be in favour of the system because my situation is far from unique. From the top set of secondary modern to the bottom set of a grammar school? How big do you think the difference in educational quality is between the 2? Like I say I'm the only one of my family who didn't pass the 11 plus and went to a comprehensive instead of grammar and the standard of education, as in exam results, school funding etc, was pretty much the exact same as my 2 older brothers' grammar school. Yes 11 is quite young for a big exam but you could argue any as being too young if you wanted to. Is 16 not too young to have teenagers sit exams that massively effect the rest of their life, results that have have much bigger impact than the 11 plus. And I don't think I've ever felt I was treated like a second class citizen or less than by people who went to grammar school It's not education quality. It's the ability of peers. The ability of the top of a secondary modern school is significantly above the bottom of a grammar school because the selection system is flawed. The use of a verbal reasoning test to select children's ability to be successful in maths and sciences is ridiculous. Did all the children who went to your comprehensive school sit the 11+? I have had comments about failing 11+. Even from people who became friends as adults who went to grammar school where they have referenced going to the thick school. It's banter but demonstrates that grammar school kids see themselves above those who didn't make it. Even the teachers at the grammar school put the kids on a pedestal. It was great to watch them fall... That sounds dangerously like a chip on your shoulder that by now you should be able to get rid of! Fancy enjoying seeing anyone fail
Not at all. Who said about failing?! They achieved what they were capable of. Keep up.
The selection system is flawed and the 2 tier education system traps kids at a young age."You said... “Even the teachers at the grammar school put the kids on a pedestal. It was great to watch them fall...” So who was falling (ie failing)? | |||
"Totally support Grammar Schools and wish they had them in Sussex (loads in Kent). The state “comprehensive” system is failing and the only alternative (for those who can afford it or are lucky their kids talent secures a scholarship or bursary) is the private fee paying school route. We should do all we can to encourage and nurture talent and group kids together who genuinely want to learn and work hard. In life hard work and talent (and done luck) is what can bring you success. Instilling that in kids can only be a good thing. Clearly you haven't been through the system... A child typically is 10 years of age when they sit the 11 plus. At that age a children's ability is still developing. Many children really start to shine when they are approaching their GCSEs but are restricted in their achievements because they aren't in the right environment. Some kids attend schools that are simply more successful at coaching the kids through the exam. Ultimately resulting in some kids being misplaced on their actual ability. Whilst you say life is tough, it's a lot tougher to achieve academically if you have a bad day when you are 10 years of age. Quite an assumption about me you make there! I am not saying basing everything on 11+ exam is right but I do believe schools streamed by ability and attitude are a good thing. I would say a better entry system for Grammar schools would be a combination of exam and course work to identify potential. Plus a second opportunity at 13. You do realise that a significant number of children are borderline and their books get reviewed as part of the process of selection? You are effectively suggesting a system that already exists so I stand by my original comment. As for second opportunity at 13. Do you really think that moving a 13 year old from one school to another away from their friends is necessarily going to be beneficial? Take them from the top set of a secondary modern school and place them in the bottom set of a grammar school mixing with the kids that were misplaced in the first place? I failed my 11 plus. 2 tests. The first I breezed. The 2nd I screwed up. You can't fluke the test but but you can mess it up. A good number of my fellow failures did very well at GCSEs, A-levels, Degrees, Master and even PhDs. But to do so we had to fight against a system and a society that saw us as failures. My academic achievements are higher than the majority who went to the grammar school. I didn't achieve what I did through hard work. I just turned up and studied a bit which emphasises the point that the system doesn't work. Maybe you need to have a conversation with a primary school teacher whose children sit the 11 plus. Most will not be in favour of the system because my situation is far from unique. Your personal experience is not universal though. The problem with taking a meritocratic approach to education is that often potential gets overlooked or simply not nurtured. The very bright kids will always be bright but will get distracted by those who are challenging. The middle strata of kids get forgotten about because the poor over-stretched teacher is having to deal with a class of 30-35 kids of all abilities where the disrupters will occupy a disproportional amount of the teacher’s time. Why not place kids in environments where they can flourish to the best of their abilities? Some may flunk it sure, but again, that is life right? Having a second chance at 13 is clearly going to be their and their parent’s choice. Want to stay with friends etc, fine don’t sit a 13+ It's a very common experience and I have clearly detailed the experiences of a significant number of others I was at school with. Flunk your GCSEs. Flunk your A-levels. Flunk your driving test. Always a way to re-take. Flunk 11 plus as a 10/11 year old then your spend the next 5 years significantly disadvantaged. The problems at the moment aren't going to be fixed by reintroducing a flawed selection system. Which is why I said mix of exam and course work plus second attempt with 13+ You don’t seem to have much faith in Secondary Modern’s education provision? The standard of coursework will differ significantly between schools which makes selection unfair. What's wrong with a comprehensive system that covers the ability of all children and allows them to learn at the pace most suited to them at the time? Surely that's better than one that restricts? Is there a deliberate (almost) oxymoron in what you just typed? “The standard of coursework will differ significantly between schools which makes selection unfair.” Yet you want everyone in the normal state system? And yes I know = primary schools. But it simply illustrates the education lottery!" Interesting..educational lottery and then throw in a flawed selection into a 2 tier education system?! If a primary school is poor then at least a child entering a comprehensive school from that school has the opportunity to do as well as a child from a good primary school. | |||
"Totally support Grammar Schools and wish they had them in Sussex (loads in Kent). The state “comprehensive” system is failing and the only alternative (for those who can afford it or are lucky their kids talent secures a scholarship or bursary) is the private fee paying school route. We should do all we can to encourage and nurture talent and group kids together who genuinely want to learn and work hard. In life hard work and talent (and done luck) is what can bring you success. Instilling that in kids can only be a good thing. Clearly you haven't been through the system... A child typically is 10 years of age when they sit the 11 plus. At that age a children's ability is still developing. Many children really start to shine when they are approaching their GCSEs but are restricted in their achievements because they aren't in the right environment. Some kids attend schools that are simply more successful at coaching the kids through the exam. Ultimately resulting in some kids being misplaced on their actual ability. Whilst you say life is tough, it's a lot tougher to achieve academically if you have a bad day when you are 10 years of age. Quite an assumption about me you make there! I am not saying basing everything on 11+ exam is right but I do believe schools streamed by ability and attitude are a good thing. I would say a better entry system for Grammar schools would be a combination of exam and course work to identify potential. Plus a second opportunity at 13. You do realise that a significant number of children are borderline and their books get reviewed as part of the process of selection? You are effectively suggesting a system that already exists so I stand by my original comment. As for second opportunity at 13. Do you really think that moving a 13 year old from one school to another away from their friends is necessarily going to be beneficial? Take them from the top set of a secondary modern school and place them in the bottom set of a grammar school mixing with the kids that were misplaced in the first place? I failed my 11 plus. 2 tests. The first I breezed. The 2nd I screwed up. You can't fluke the test but but you can mess it up. A good number of my fellow failures did very well at GCSEs, A-levels, Degrees, Master and even PhDs. But to do so we had to fight against a system and a society that saw us as failures. My academic achievements are higher than the majority who went to the grammar school. I didn't achieve what I did through hard work. I just turned up and studied a bit which emphasises the point that the system doesn't work. Maybe you need to have a conversation with a primary school teacher whose children sit the 11 plus. Most will not be in favour of the system because my situation is far from unique. From the top set of secondary modern to the bottom set of a grammar school? How big do you think the difference in educational quality is between the 2? Like I say I'm the only one of my family who didn't pass the 11 plus and went to a comprehensive instead of grammar and the standard of education, as in exam results, school funding etc, was pretty much the exact same as my 2 older brothers' grammar school. Yes 11 is quite young for a big exam but you could argue any as being too young if you wanted to. Is 16 not too young to have teenagers sit exams that massively effect the rest of their life, results that have have much bigger impact than the 11 plus. And I don't think I've ever felt I was treated like a second class citizen or less than by people who went to grammar school It's not education quality. It's the ability of peers. The ability of the top of a secondary modern school is significantly above the bottom of a grammar school because the selection system is flawed. The use of a verbal reasoning test to select children's ability to be successful in maths and sciences is ridiculous. Did all the children who went to your comprehensive school sit the 11+? I have had comments about failing 11+. Even from people who became friends as adults who went to grammar school where they have referenced going to the thick school. It's banter but demonstrates that grammar school kids see themselves above those who didn't make it. Even the teachers at the grammar school put the kids on a pedestal. It was great to watch them fall... That sounds dangerously like a chip on your shoulder that by now you should be able to get rid of! Fancy enjoying seeing anyone fail
Not at all. Who said about failing?! They achieved what they were capable of. Keep up.
The selection system is flawed and the 2 tier education system traps kids at a young age.
You said...
“Even the teachers at the grammar school put the kids on a pedestal. It was great to watch them fall...”
So who was falling (ie failing)?"The pedestal being "better than the secondary modern kids". The falling being not achieving the same level. That's NOT failing. | |||
"Totally support Grammar Schools and wish they had them in Sussex (loads in Kent). The state “comprehensive” system is failing and the only alternative (for those who can afford it or are lucky their kids talent secures a scholarship or bursary) is the private fee paying school route. We should do all we can to encourage and nurture talent and group kids together who genuinely want to learn and work hard. In life hard work and talent (and done luck) is what can bring you success. Instilling that in kids can only be a good thing. Clearly you haven't been through the system... A child typically is 10 years of age when they sit the 11 plus. At that age a children's ability is still developing. Many children really start to shine when they are approaching their GCSEs but are restricted in their achievements because they aren't in the right environment. Some kids attend schools that are simply more successful at coaching the kids through the exam. Ultimately resulting in some kids being misplaced on their actual ability. Whilst you say life is tough, it's a lot tougher to achieve academically if you have a bad day when you are 10 years of age. Quite an assumption about me you make there! I am not saying basing everything on 11+ exam is right but I do believe schools streamed by ability and attitude are a good thing. I would say a better entry system for Grammar schools would be a combination of exam and course work to identify potential. Plus a second opportunity at 13. You do realise that a significant number of children are borderline and their books get reviewed as part of the process of selection? You are effectively suggesting a system that already exists so I stand by my original comment. As for second opportunity at 13. Do you really think that moving a 13 year old from one school to another away from their friends is necessarily going to be beneficial? Take them from the top set of a secondary modern school and place them in the bottom set of a grammar school mixing with the kids that were misplaced in the first place? I failed my 11 plus. 2 tests. The first I breezed. The 2nd I screwed up. You can't fluke the test but but you can mess it up. A good number of my fellow failures did very well at GCSEs, A-levels, Degrees, Master and even PhDs. But to do so we had to fight against a system and a society that saw us as failures. My academic achievements are higher than the majority who went to the grammar school. I didn't achieve what I did through hard work. I just turned up and studied a bit which emphasises the point that the system doesn't work. Maybe you need to have a conversation with a primary school teacher whose children sit the 11 plus. Most will not be in favour of the system because my situation is far from unique. Your personal experience is not universal though. The problem with taking a meritocratic approach to education is that often potential gets overlooked or simply not nurtured. The very bright kids will always be bright but will get distracted by those who are challenging. The middle strata of kids get forgotten about because the poor over-stretched teacher is having to deal with a class of 30-35 kids of all abilities where the disrupters will occupy a disproportional amount of the teacher’s time. Why not place kids in environments where they can flourish to the best of their abilities? Some may flunk it sure, but again, that is life right? Having a second chance at 13 is clearly going to be their and their parent’s choice. Want to stay with friends etc, fine don’t sit a 13+ It's a very common experience and I have clearly detailed the experiences of a significant number of others I was at school with. Flunk your GCSEs. Flunk your A-levels. Flunk your driving test. Always a way to re-take. Flunk 11 plus as a 10/11 year old then your spend the next 5 years significantly disadvantaged. The problems at the moment aren't going to be fixed by reintroducing a flawed selection system. Which is why I said mix of exam and course work plus second attempt with 13+ You don’t seem to have much faith in Secondary Modern’s education provision? The standard of coursework will differ significantly between schools which makes selection unfair. What's wrong with a comprehensive system that covers the ability of all children and allows them to learn at the pace most suited to them at the time? Surely that's better than one that restricts? Is there a deliberate (almost) oxymoron in what you just typed? “The standard of coursework will differ significantly between schools which makes selection unfair.” Yet you want everyone in the normal state system? And yes I know = primary schools. But it simply illustrates the education lottery! Interesting..educational lottery and then throw in a flawed selection into a 2 tier education system?! If a primary school is poor then at least a child entering a comprehensive school from that school has the opportunity to do as well as a child from a good primary school." Do they? Why? What benefit is there to that child if someone else went to the Grammar rather than the Comp they went to? | |||
"Totally support Grammar Schools and wish they had them in Sussex (loads in Kent). The state “comprehensive” system is failing and the only alternative (for those who can afford it or are lucky their kids talent secures a scholarship or bursary) is the private fee paying school route. We should do all we can to encourage and nurture talent and group kids together who genuinely want to learn and work hard. In life hard work and talent (and done luck) is what can bring you success. Instilling that in kids can only be a good thing. Clearly you haven't been through the system... A child typically is 10 years of age when they sit the 11 plus. At that age a children's ability is still developing. Many children really start to shine when they are approaching their GCSEs but are restricted in their achievements because they aren't in the right environment. Some kids attend schools that are simply more successful at coaching the kids through the exam. Ultimately resulting in some kids being misplaced on their actual ability. Whilst you say life is tough, it's a lot tougher to achieve academically if you have a bad day when you are 10 years of age. Quite an assumption about me you make there! I am not saying basing everything on 11+ exam is right but I do believe schools streamed by ability and attitude are a good thing. I would say a better entry system for Grammar schools would be a combination of exam and course work to identify potential. Plus a second opportunity at 13. You do realise that a significant number of children are borderline and their books get reviewed as part of the process of selection? You are effectively suggesting a system that already exists so I stand by my original comment. As for second opportunity at 13. Do you really think that moving a 13 year old from one school to another away from their friends is necessarily going to be beneficial? Take them from the top set of a secondary modern school and place them in the bottom set of a grammar school mixing with the kids that were misplaced in the first place? I failed my 11 plus. 2 tests. The first I breezed. The 2nd I screwed up. You can't fluke the test but but you can mess it up. A good number of my fellow failures did very well at GCSEs, A-levels, Degrees, Master and even PhDs. But to do so we had to fight against a system and a society that saw us as failures. My academic achievements are higher than the majority who went to the grammar school. I didn't achieve what I did through hard work. I just turned up and studied a bit which emphasises the point that the system doesn't work. Maybe you need to have a conversation with a primary school teacher whose children sit the 11 plus. Most will not be in favour of the system because my situation is far from unique. From the top set of secondary modern to the bottom set of a grammar school? How big do you think the difference in educational quality is between the 2? Like I say I'm the only one of my family who didn't pass the 11 plus and went to a comprehensive instead of grammar and the standard of education, as in exam results, school funding etc, was pretty much the exact same as my 2 older brothers' grammar school. Yes 11 is quite young for a big exam but you could argue any as being too young if you wanted to. Is 16 not too young to have teenagers sit exams that massively effect the rest of their life, results that have have much bigger impact than the 11 plus. And I don't think I've ever felt I was treated like a second class citizen or less than by people who went to grammar school It's not education quality. It's the ability of peers. The ability of the top of a secondary modern school is significantly above the bottom of a grammar school because the selection system is flawed. The use of a verbal reasoning test to select children's ability to be successful in maths and sciences is ridiculous. Did all the children who went to your comprehensive school sit the 11+? I have had comments about failing 11+. Even from people who became friends as adults who went to grammar school where they have referenced going to the thick school. It's banter but demonstrates that grammar school kids see themselves above those who didn't make it. Even the teachers at the grammar school put the kids on a pedestal. It was great to watch them fall... That sounds dangerously like a chip on your shoulder that by now you should be able to get rid of! Fancy enjoying seeing anyone fail
Not at all. Who said about failing?! They achieved what they were capable of. Keep up.
The selection system is flawed and the 2 tier education system traps kids at a young age.
You said...
“Even the teachers at the grammar school put the kids on a pedestal. It was great to watch them fall...”
So who was falling (ie failing)?
The pedestal being "better than the secondary modern kids". The falling being not achieving the same level. That's NOT failing."Ok whole para to ensure context... “Even from people who became friends as adults who went to grammar school where they have referenced going to the thick school. It's banter but demonstrates that grammar school kids see themselves above those who didn't make it. Even the teachers at the grammar school put the kids on a pedestal. It was great to watch them fall...” So you derive pleasure from these kids who thought they were better not achieving better? Sounds like a chip to me! Did you feel the same way about classmates in your Comp who were expected to do better than you but fell short? | |||
"Totally support Grammar Schools and wish they had them in Sussex (loads in Kent). The state “comprehensive” system is failing and the only alternative (for those who can afford it or are lucky their kids talent secures a scholarship or bursary) is the private fee paying school route. We should do all we can to encourage and nurture talent and group kids together who genuinely want to learn and work hard. In life hard work and talent (and done luck) is what can bring you success. Instilling that in kids can only be a good thing. Clearly you haven't been through the system... A child typically is 10 years of age when they sit the 11 plus. At that age a children's ability is still developing. Many children really start to shine when they are approaching their GCSEs but are restricted in their achievements because they aren't in the right environment. Some kids attend schools that are simply more successful at coaching the kids through the exam. Ultimately resulting in some kids being misplaced on their actual ability. Whilst you say life is tough, it's a lot tougher to achieve academically if you have a bad day when you are 10 years of age. Quite an assumption about me you make there! I am not saying basing everything on 11+ exam is right but I do believe schools streamed by ability and attitude are a good thing. I would say a better entry system for Grammar schools would be a combination of exam and course work to identify potential. Plus a second opportunity at 13. You do realise that a significant number of children are borderline and their books get reviewed as part of the process of selection? You are effectively suggesting a system that already exists so I stand by my original comment. As for second opportunity at 13. Do you really think that moving a 13 year old from one school to another away from their friends is necessarily going to be beneficial? Take them from the top set of a secondary modern school and place them in the bottom set of a grammar school mixing with the kids that were misplaced in the first place? I failed my 11 plus. 2 tests. The first I breezed. The 2nd I screwed up. You can't fluke the test but but you can mess it up. A good number of my fellow failures did very well at GCSEs, A-levels, Degrees, Master and even PhDs. But to do so we had to fight against a system and a society that saw us as failures. My academic achievements are higher than the majority who went to the grammar school. I didn't achieve what I did through hard work. I just turned up and studied a bit which emphasises the point that the system doesn't work. Maybe you need to have a conversation with a primary school teacher whose children sit the 11 plus. Most will not be in favour of the system because my situation is far from unique. From the top set of secondary modern to the bottom set of a grammar school? How big do you think the difference in educational quality is between the 2? Like I say I'm the only one of my family who didn't pass the 11 plus and went to a comprehensive instead of grammar and the standard of education, as in exam results, school funding etc, was pretty much the exact same as my 2 older brothers' grammar school. Yes 11 is quite young for a big exam but you could argue any as being too young if you wanted to. Is 16 not too young to have teenagers sit exams that massively effect the rest of their life, results that have have much bigger impact than the 11 plus. And I don't think I've ever felt I was treated like a second class citizen or less than by people who went to grammar school It's not education quality. It's the ability of peers. The ability of the top of a secondary modern school is significantly above the bottom of a grammar school because the selection system is flawed. The use of a verbal reasoning test to select children's ability to be successful in maths and sciences is ridiculous. Did all the children who went to your comprehensive school sit the 11+? I have had comments about failing 11+. Even from people who became friends as adults who went to grammar school where they have referenced going to the thick school. It's banter but demonstrates that grammar school kids see themselves above those who didn't make it. Even the teachers at the grammar school put the kids on a pedestal. It was great to watch them fall... That sounds dangerously like a chip on your shoulder that by now you should be able to get rid of! Fancy enjoying seeing anyone fail
Not at all. Who said about failing?! They achieved what they were capable of. Keep up.
The selection system is flawed and the 2 tier education system traps kids at a young age.
You said...
“Even the teachers at the grammar school put the kids on a pedestal. It was great to watch them fall...”
So who was falling (ie failing)?
The pedestal being "better than the secondary modern kids". The falling being not achieving the same level. That's NOT failing.
Ok whole para to ensure context...
“Even from people who became friends as adults who went to grammar school where they have referenced going to the thick school. It's banter but demonstrates that grammar school kids see themselves above those who didn't make it. Even the teachers at the grammar school put the kids on a pedestal. It was great to watch them fall...”
So you derive pleasure from these kids who thought they were better not achieving better? Sounds like a chip to me!
Did you feel the same way about classmates in your Comp who were expected to do better than you but fell short?"No, it's a "I fought against a system and won". How that's a chip I have no idea. I didn't go to a comp school...  | |||
"Totally support Grammar Schools and wish they had them in Sussex (loads in Kent). The state “comprehensive” system is failing and the only alternative (for those who can afford it or are lucky their kids talent secures a scholarship or bursary) is the private fee paying school route. We should do all we can to encourage and nurture talent and group kids together who genuinely want to learn and work hard. In life hard work and talent (and done luck) is what can bring you success. Instilling that in kids can only be a good thing. Clearly you haven't been through the system... A child typically is 10 years of age when they sit the 11 plus. At that age a children's ability is still developing. Many children really start to shine when they are approaching their GCSEs but are restricted in their achievements because they aren't in the right environment. Some kids attend schools that are simply more successful at coaching the kids through the exam. Ultimately resulting in some kids being misplaced on their actual ability. Whilst you say life is tough, it's a lot tougher to achieve academically if you have a bad day when you are 10 years of age. Quite an assumption about me you make there! I am not saying basing everything on 11+ exam is right but I do believe schools streamed by ability and attitude are a good thing. I would say a better entry system for Grammar schools would be a combination of exam and course work to identify potential. Plus a second opportunity at 13. You do realise that a significant number of children are borderline and their books get reviewed as part of the process of selection? You are effectively suggesting a system that already exists so I stand by my original comment. As for second opportunity at 13. Do you really think that moving a 13 year old from one school to another away from their friends is necessarily going to be beneficial? Take them from the top set of a secondary modern school and place them in the bottom set of a grammar school mixing with the kids that were misplaced in the first place? I failed my 11 plus. 2 tests. The first I breezed. The 2nd I screwed up. You can't fluke the test but but you can mess it up. A good number of my fellow failures did very well at GCSEs, A-levels, Degrees, Master and even PhDs. But to do so we had to fight against a system and a society that saw us as failures. My academic achievements are higher than the majority who went to the grammar school. I didn't achieve what I did through hard work. I just turned up and studied a bit which emphasises the point that the system doesn't work. Maybe you need to have a conversation with a primary school teacher whose children sit the 11 plus. Most will not be in favour of the system because my situation is far from unique. From the top set of secondary modern to the bottom set of a grammar school? How big do you think the difference in educational quality is between the 2? Like I say I'm the only one of my family who didn't pass the 11 plus and went to a comprehensive instead of grammar and the standard of education, as in exam results, school funding etc, was pretty much the exact same as my 2 older brothers' grammar school. Yes 11 is quite young for a big exam but you could argue any as being too young if you wanted to. Is 16 not too young to have teenagers sit exams that massively effect the rest of their life, results that have have much bigger impact than the 11 plus. And I don't think I've ever felt I was treated like a second class citizen or less than by people who went to grammar school It's not education quality. It's the ability of peers. The ability of the top of a secondary modern school is significantly above the bottom of a grammar school because the selection system is flawed. The use of a verbal reasoning test to select children's ability to be successful in maths and sciences is ridiculous. Did all the children who went to your comprehensive school sit the 11+? I have had comments about failing 11+. Even from people who became friends as adults who went to grammar school where they have referenced going to the thick school. It's banter but demonstrates that grammar school kids see themselves above those who didn't make it. Even the teachers at the grammar school put the kids on a pedestal. It was great to watch them fall... That sounds dangerously like a chip on your shoulder that by now you should be able to get rid of! Fancy enjoying seeing anyone fail
Not at all. Who said about failing?! They achieved what they were capable of. Keep up.
The selection system is flawed and the 2 tier education system traps kids at a young age.
You said...
“Even the teachers at the grammar school put the kids on a pedestal. It was great to watch them fall...”
So who was falling (ie failing)?
The pedestal being "better than the secondary modern kids". The falling being not achieving the same level. That's NOT failing.
Ok whole para to ensure context...
“Even from people who became friends as adults who went to grammar school where they have referenced going to the thick school. It's banter but demonstrates that grammar school kids see themselves above those who didn't make it. Even the teachers at the grammar school put the kids on a pedestal. It was great to watch them fall...”
So you derive pleasure from these kids who thought they were better not achieving better? Sounds like a chip to me!
Did you feel the same way about classmates in your Comp who were expected to do better than you but fell short?
No, it's a "I fought against a system and won". How that's a chip I have no idea.
I didn't go to a comp school... "Errr you lost me. You said you failed your 11+ and didn’t go to Grammar? You didn’t word it as a positive “look how I beat the system and did well” you worded it as “it was great to watch them fall”. If you cannot see the difference then not sure where to go with that. Words matter. How you use them matters even more. | |||
"Totally support Grammar Schools and wish they had them in Sussex (loads in Kent). The state “comprehensive” system is failing and the only alternative (for those who can afford it or are lucky their kids talent secures a scholarship or bursary) is the private fee paying school route. We should do all we can to encourage and nurture talent and group kids together who genuinely want to learn and work hard. In life hard work and talent (and done luck) is what can bring you success. Instilling that in kids can only be a good thing. Clearly you haven't been through the system... A child typically is 10 years of age when they sit the 11 plus. At that age a children's ability is still developing. Many children really start to shine when they are approaching their GCSEs but are restricted in their achievements because they aren't in the right environment. Some kids attend schools that are simply more successful at coaching the kids through the exam. Ultimately resulting in some kids being misplaced on their actual ability. Whilst you say life is tough, it's a lot tougher to achieve academically if you have a bad day when you are 10 years of age. Quite an assumption about me you make there! I am not saying basing everything on 11+ exam is right but I do believe schools streamed by ability and attitude are a good thing. I would say a better entry system for Grammar schools would be a combination of exam and course work to identify potential. Plus a second opportunity at 13. You do realise that a significant number of children are borderline and their books get reviewed as part of the process of selection? You are effectively suggesting a system that already exists so I stand by my original comment. As for second opportunity at 13. Do you really think that moving a 13 year old from one school to another away from their friends is necessarily going to be beneficial? Take them from the top set of a secondary modern school and place them in the bottom set of a grammar school mixing with the kids that were misplaced in the first place? I failed my 11 plus. 2 tests. The first I breezed. The 2nd I screwed up. You can't fluke the test but but you can mess it up. A good number of my fellow failures did very well at GCSEs, A-levels, Degrees, Master and even PhDs. But to do so we had to fight against a system and a society that saw us as failures. My academic achievements are higher than the majority who went to the grammar school. I didn't achieve what I did through hard work. I just turned up and studied a bit which emphasises the point that the system doesn't work. Maybe you need to have a conversation with a primary school teacher whose children sit the 11 plus. Most will not be in favour of the system because my situation is far from unique. From the top set of secondary modern to the bottom set of a grammar school? How big do you think the difference in educational quality is between the 2? Like I say I'm the only one of my family who didn't pass the 11 plus and went to a comprehensive instead of grammar and the standard of education, as in exam results, school funding etc, was pretty much the exact same as my 2 older brothers' grammar school. Yes 11 is quite young for a big exam but you could argue any as being too young if you wanted to. Is 16 not too young to have teenagers sit exams that massively effect the rest of their life, results that have have much bigger impact than the 11 plus. And I don't think I've ever felt I was treated like a second class citizen or less than by people who went to grammar school It's not education quality. It's the ability of peers. The ability of the top of a secondary modern school is significantly above the bottom of a grammar school because the selection system is flawed. The use of a verbal reasoning test to select children's ability to be successful in maths and sciences is ridiculous. Did all the children who went to your comprehensive school sit the 11+? I have had comments about failing 11+. Even from people who became friends as adults who went to grammar school where they have referenced going to the thick school. It's banter but demonstrates that grammar school kids see themselves above those who didn't make it. Even the teachers at the grammar school put the kids on a pedestal. It was great to watch them fall... That sounds dangerously like a chip on your shoulder that by now you should be able to get rid of! Fancy enjoying seeing anyone fail
Not at all. Who said about failing?! They achieved what they were capable of. Keep up.
The selection system is flawed and the 2 tier education system traps kids at a young age.
You said...
“Even the teachers at the grammar school put the kids on a pedestal. It was great to watch them fall...”
So who was falling (ie failing)?
The pedestal being "better than the secondary modern kids". The falling being not achieving the same level. That's NOT failing.
Ok whole para to ensure context...
“Even from people who became friends as adults who went to grammar school where they have referenced going to the thick school. It's banter but demonstrates that grammar school kids see themselves above those who didn't make it. Even the teachers at the grammar school put the kids on a pedestal. It was great to watch them fall...”
So you derive pleasure from these kids who thought they were better not achieving better? Sounds like a chip to me!
Did you feel the same way about classmates in your Comp who were expected to do better than you but fell short?"Can you read wiki article on "secondary modern school" paying particular attention to "criticisms" and "secondary modern schools today"? | |||
"Totally support Grammar Schools and wish they had them in Sussex (loads in Kent). The state “comprehensive” system is failing and the only alternative (for those who can afford it or are lucky their kids talent secures a scholarship or bursary) is the private fee paying school route. We should do all we can to encourage and nurture talent and group kids together who genuinely want to learn and work hard. In life hard work and talent (and done luck) is what can bring you success. Instilling that in kids can only be a good thing. Clearly you haven't been through the system... A child typically is 10 years of age when they sit the 11 plus. At that age a children's ability is still developing. Many children really start to shine when they are approaching their GCSEs but are restricted in their achievements because they aren't in the right environment. Some kids attend schools that are simply more successful at coaching the kids through the exam. Ultimately resulting in some kids being misplaced on their actual ability. Whilst you say life is tough, it's a lot tougher to achieve academically if you have a bad day when you are 10 years of age. Quite an assumption about me you make there! I am not saying basing everything on 11+ exam is right but I do believe schools streamed by ability and attitude are a good thing. I would say a better entry system for Grammar schools would be a combination of exam and course work to identify potential. Plus a second opportunity at 13. You do realise that a significant number of children are borderline and their books get reviewed as part of the process of selection? You are effectively suggesting a system that already exists so I stand by my original comment. As for second opportunity at 13. Do you really think that moving a 13 year old from one school to another away from their friends is necessarily going to be beneficial? Take them from the top set of a secondary modern school and place them in the bottom set of a grammar school mixing with the kids that were misplaced in the first place? I failed my 11 plus. 2 tests. The first I breezed. The 2nd I screwed up. You can't fluke the test but but you can mess it up. A good number of my fellow failures did very well at GCSEs, A-levels, Degrees, Master and even PhDs. But to do so we had to fight against a system and a society that saw us as failures. My academic achievements are higher than the majority who went to the grammar school. I didn't achieve what I did through hard work. I just turned up and studied a bit which emphasises the point that the system doesn't work. Maybe you need to have a conversation with a primary school teacher whose children sit the 11 plus. Most will not be in favour of the system because my situation is far from unique. From the top set of secondary modern to the bottom set of a grammar school? How big do you think the difference in educational quality is between the 2? Like I say I'm the only one of my family who didn't pass the 11 plus and went to a comprehensive instead of grammar and the standard of education, as in exam results, school funding etc, was pretty much the exact same as my 2 older brothers' grammar school. Yes 11 is quite young for a big exam but you could argue any as being too young if you wanted to. Is 16 not too young to have teenagers sit exams that massively effect the rest of their life, results that have have much bigger impact than the 11 plus. And I don't think I've ever felt I was treated like a second class citizen or less than by people who went to grammar school It's not education quality. It's the ability of peers. The ability of the top of a secondary modern school is significantly above the bottom of a grammar school because the selection system is flawed. The use of a verbal reasoning test to select children's ability to be successful in maths and sciences is ridiculous. Did all the children who went to your comprehensive school sit the 11+? I have had comments about failing 11+. Even from people who became friends as adults who went to grammar school where they have referenced going to the thick school. It's banter but demonstrates that grammar school kids see themselves above those who didn't make it. Even the teachers at the grammar school put the kids on a pedestal. It was great to watch them fall... That sounds dangerously like a chip on your shoulder that by now you should be able to get rid of! Fancy enjoying seeing anyone fail
Not at all. Who said about failing?! They achieved what they were capable of. Keep up.
The selection system is flawed and the 2 tier education system traps kids at a young age.
You said...
“Even the teachers at the grammar school put the kids on a pedestal. It was great to watch them fall...”
So who was falling (ie failing)?
The pedestal being "better than the secondary modern kids". The falling being not achieving the same level. That's NOT failing.
Ok whole para to ensure context...
“Even from people who became friends as adults who went to grammar school where they have referenced going to the thick school. It's banter but demonstrates that grammar school kids see themselves above those who didn't make it. Even the teachers at the grammar school put the kids on a pedestal. It was great to watch them fall...”
So you derive pleasure from these kids who thought they were better not achieving better? Sounds like a chip to me!
Did you feel the same way about classmates in your Comp who were expected to do better than you but fell short?
No, it's a "I fought against a system and won". How that's a chip I have no idea.
I didn't go to a comp school...
Errr you lost me. You said you failed your 11+ and didn’t go to Grammar?
You didn’t word it as a positive “look how I beat the system and did well” you worded it as “it was great to watch them fall”. If you cannot see the difference then not sure where to go with that.
Words matter. How you use them matters even more."Yes. You can sometimes come across as patronising.... Failing the 11+ in the parts of the country that the system still exists means going to a secondary modern school. Seems I was right when I said you clearly haven't been through the system.... | |||
"Totally support Grammar Schools and wish they had them in Sussex (loads in Kent). The state “comprehensive” system is failing and the only alternative (for those who can afford it or are lucky their kids talent secures a scholarship or bursary) is the private fee paying school route. We should do all we can to encourage and nurture talent and group kids together who genuinely want to learn and work hard. In life hard work and talent (and done luck) is what can bring you success. Instilling that in kids can only be a good thing. Clearly you haven't been through the system... A child typically is 10 years of age when they sit the 11 plus. At that age a children's ability is still developing. Many children really start to shine when they are approaching their GCSEs but are restricted in their achievements because they aren't in the right environment. Some kids attend schools that are simply more successful at coaching the kids through the exam. Ultimately resulting in some kids being misplaced on their actual ability. Whilst you say life is tough, it's a lot tougher to achieve academically if you have a bad day when you are 10 years of age. Quite an assumption about me you make there! I am not saying basing everything on 11+ exam is right but I do believe schools streamed by ability and attitude are a good thing. I would say a better entry system for Grammar schools would be a combination of exam and course work to identify potential. Plus a second opportunity at 13. You do realise that a significant number of children are borderline and their books get reviewed as part of the process of selection? You are effectively suggesting a system that already exists so I stand by my original comment. As for second opportunity at 13. Do you really think that moving a 13 year old from one school to another away from their friends is necessarily going to be beneficial? Take them from the top set of a secondary modern school and place them in the bottom set of a grammar school mixing with the kids that were misplaced in the first place? I failed my 11 plus. 2 tests. The first I breezed. The 2nd I screwed up. You can't fluke the test but but you can mess it up. A good number of my fellow failures did very well at GCSEs, A-levels, Degrees, Master and even PhDs. But to do so we had to fight against a system and a society that saw us as failures. My academic achievements are higher than the majority who went to the grammar school. I didn't achieve what I did through hard work. I just turned up and studied a bit which emphasises the point that the system doesn't work. Maybe you need to have a conversation with a primary school teacher whose children sit the 11 plus. Most will not be in favour of the system because my situation is far from unique. From the top set of secondary modern to the bottom set of a grammar school? How big do you think the difference in educational quality is between the 2? Like I say I'm the only one of my family who didn't pass the 11 plus and went to a comprehensive instead of grammar and the standard of education, as in exam results, school funding etc, was pretty much the exact same as my 2 older brothers' grammar school. Yes 11 is quite young for a big exam but you could argue any as being too young if you wanted to. Is 16 not too young to have teenagers sit exams that massively effect the rest of their life, results that have have much bigger impact than the 11 plus. And I don't think I've ever felt I was treated like a second class citizen or less than by people who went to grammar school It's not education quality. It's the ability of peers. The ability of the top of a secondary modern school is significantly above the bottom of a grammar school because the selection system is flawed. The use of a verbal reasoning test to select children's ability to be successful in maths and sciences is ridiculous. Did all the children who went to your comprehensive school sit the 11+? I have had comments about failing 11+. Even from people who became friends as adults who went to grammar school where they have referenced going to the thick school. It's banter but demonstrates that grammar school kids see themselves above those who didn't make it. Even the teachers at the grammar school put the kids on a pedestal. It was great to watch them fall... That sounds dangerously like a chip on your shoulder that by now you should be able to get rid of! Fancy enjoying seeing anyone fail
Not at all. Who said about failing?! They achieved what they were capable of. Keep up.
The selection system is flawed and the 2 tier education system traps kids at a young age.
You said...
“Even the teachers at the grammar school put the kids on a pedestal. It was great to watch them fall...”
So who was falling (ie failing)?
The pedestal being "better than the secondary modern kids". The falling being not achieving the same level. That's NOT failing.
Ok whole para to ensure context...
“Even from people who became friends as adults who went to grammar school where they have referenced going to the thick school. It's banter but demonstrates that grammar school kids see themselves above those who didn't make it. Even the teachers at the grammar school put the kids on a pedestal. It was great to watch them fall...”
So you derive pleasure from these kids who thought they were better not achieving better? Sounds like a chip to me!
Did you feel the same way about classmates in your Comp who were expected to do better than you but fell short?
No, it's a "I fought against a system and won". How that's a chip I have no idea.
I didn't go to a comp school...
Errr you lost me. You said you failed your 11+ and didn’t go to Grammar?
You didn’t word it as a positive “look how I beat the system and did well” you worded it as “it was great to watch them fall”. If you cannot see the difference then not sure where to go with that.
Words matter. How you use them matters even more.
Yes. You can sometimes come across as patronising....
Failing the 11+ in the parts of the country that the system still exists means going to a secondary modern school.
Seems I was right when I said you clearly haven't been through the system...."Sorry which one of us is being patronising? You are correct I did not sit 11+ because in the County where I grew up there were no Grammar schools anymore. However, as a parent of a luckily quite gifted child, I found the state system to be failing them. Had Grammar been an option they would have gone for sure. However, I was left with no option but to go down private school route. Luckily for me they awarded my child a scholarship based on their talent. Not having personally been through the system myself doesn’t disqualify me from having an opinion. I haven’t committed any crimes but I have a view in our legal and penal system too! | |||
"Totally support Grammar Schools and wish they had them in Sussex (loads in Kent). The state “comprehensive” system is failing and the only alternative (for those who can afford it or are lucky their kids talent secures a scholarship or bursary) is the private fee paying school route. We should do all we can to encourage and nurture talent and group kids together who genuinely want to learn and work hard. In life hard work and talent (and done luck) is what can bring you success. Instilling that in kids can only be a good thing. Clearly you haven't been through the system... A child typically is 10 years of age when they sit the 11 plus. At that age a children's ability is still developing. Many children really start to shine when they are approaching their GCSEs but are restricted in their achievements because they aren't in the right environment. Some kids attend schools that are simply more successful at coaching the kids through the exam. Ultimately resulting in some kids being misplaced on their actual ability. Whilst you say life is tough, it's a lot tougher to achieve academically if you have a bad day when you are 10 years of age. Quite an assumption about me you make there! I am not saying basing everything on 11+ exam is right but I do believe schools streamed by ability and attitude are a good thing. I would say a better entry system for Grammar schools would be a combination of exam and course work to identify potential. Plus a second opportunity at 13. You do realise that a significant number of children are borderline and their books get reviewed as part of the process of selection? You are effectively suggesting a system that already exists so I stand by my original comment. As for second opportunity at 13. Do you really think that moving a 13 year old from one school to another away from their friends is necessarily going to be beneficial? Take them from the top set of a secondary modern school and place them in the bottom set of a grammar school mixing with the kids that were misplaced in the first place? I failed my 11 plus. 2 tests. The first I breezed. The 2nd I screwed up. You can't fluke the test but but you can mess it up. A good number of my fellow failures did very well at GCSEs, A-levels, Degrees, Master and even PhDs. But to do so we had to fight against a system and a society that saw us as failures. My academic achievements are higher than the majority who went to the grammar school. I didn't achieve what I did through hard work. I just turned up and studied a bit which emphasises the point that the system doesn't work. Maybe you need to have a conversation with a primary school teacher whose children sit the 11 plus. Most will not be in favour of the system because my situation is far from unique. From the top set of secondary modern to the bottom set of a grammar school? How big do you think the difference in educational quality is between the 2? Like I say I'm the only one of my family who didn't pass the 11 plus and went to a comprehensive instead of grammar and the standard of education, as in exam results, school funding etc, was pretty much the exact same as my 2 older brothers' grammar school. Yes 11 is quite young for a big exam but you could argue any as being too young if you wanted to. Is 16 not too young to have teenagers sit exams that massively effect the rest of their life, results that have have much bigger impact than the 11 plus. And I don't think I've ever felt I was treated like a second class citizen or less than by people who went to grammar school It's not education quality. It's the ability of peers. The ability of the top of a secondary modern school is significantly above the bottom of a grammar school because the selection system is flawed. The use of a verbal reasoning test to select children's ability to be successful in maths and sciences is ridiculous. Did all the children who went to your comprehensive school sit the 11+? I have had comments about failing 11+. Even from people who became friends as adults who went to grammar school where they have referenced going to the thick school. It's banter but demonstrates that grammar school kids see themselves above those who didn't make it. Even the teachers at the grammar school put the kids on a pedestal. It was great to watch them fall... That sounds dangerously like a chip on your shoulder that by now you should be able to get rid of! Fancy enjoying seeing anyone fail
Not at all. Who said about failing?! They achieved what they were capable of. Keep up.
The selection system is flawed and the 2 tier education system traps kids at a young age.
You said...
“Even the teachers at the grammar school put the kids on a pedestal. It was great to watch them fall...”
So who was falling (ie failing)?
The pedestal being "better than the secondary modern kids". The falling being not achieving the same level. That's NOT failing.
Ok whole para to ensure context...
“Even from people who became friends as adults who went to grammar school where they have referenced going to the thick school. It's banter but demonstrates that grammar school kids see themselves above those who didn't make it. Even the teachers at the grammar school put the kids on a pedestal. It was great to watch them fall...”
So you derive pleasure from these kids who thought they were better not achieving better? Sounds like a chip to me!
Did you feel the same way about classmates in your Comp who were expected to do better than you but fell short?
No, it's a "I fought against a system and won". How that's a chip I have no idea.
I didn't go to a comp school...
Errr you lost me. You said you failed your 11+ and didn’t go to Grammar?
You didn’t word it as a positive “look how I beat the system and did well” you worded it as “it was great to watch them fall”. If you cannot see the difference then not sure where to go with that.
Words matter. How you use them matters even more.
Yes. You can sometimes come across as patronising....
Failing the 11+ in the parts of the country that the system still exists means going to a secondary modern school.
Seems I was right when I said you clearly haven't been through the system....
Sorry which one of us is being patronising?
You are correct I did not sit 11+ because in the County where I grew up there were no Grammar schools anymore.
However, as a parent of a luckily quite gifted child, I found the state system to be failing them. Had Grammar been an option they would have gone for sure. However, I was left with no option but to go down private school route. Luckily for me they awarded my child a scholarship based on their talent.
Not having personally been through the system myself doesn’t disqualify me from having an opinion. I haven’t committed any crimes but I have a view in our legal and penal system too!""Words matter. How you use them matters even more" sorry, but that comes across as patronising... Of course it doesn't disqualify you from having an opinion but unless you have a law degree, you're more likely to have your opinion on the law challenged by others. Did you read that wiki? | |||
" Sorry which one of us is being patronising? You are correct I did not sit 11+ because in the County where I grew up there were no Grammar schools anymore. However, as a parent of a luckily quite gifted child, I found the state system to be failing them. Had Grammar been an option they would have gone for sure. However, I was left with no option but to go down private school route. Luckily for me they awarded my child a scholarship based on their talent. Not having personally been through the system myself doesn’t disqualify me from having an opinion. I haven’t committed any crimes but I have a view in our legal and penal system too!" From the wiki article: "The most academically able of students in secondary modern schools found that their potential progression to university and advanced post-secondary studies was constrained by limitations within their schools, the wider educational system and access to higher external examinations" So at 11 years of age a child's chances of going to uni are restricted even though they're not even half way through their academic journey to that stage. "Although parity of esteem between this and the other sections of the tripartite system had been planned, in practice the secondary modern came to be seen as the school for failures. Those who had "failed" their 11-plus were sent there to learn rudimentary skills before advancing to factory or menial jobs" So, a test at 11 splits people into failures destined for factory jobs of successes destined for great things. "Grammar schools were generally funded at a higher per-student level than secondary modern schools. Secondary moderns were generally deprived of both resources and good teachers" A good teacher gets a choice of schools. Would you want to work in a school with the high achievers or a school with kids with limited futures? The grammar school's take the best teachers which disadvantages those "failures" that are capable. "Secondary modern schools were less disposed than grammar schools to promote school cultures favouring academic achievement." "Secondary modern schools were far less inclined than grammar schools to encourage aspirations of student progression to advanced post-secondary and university education" Can you see the challenges that those who failed at 11 would have getting to uni? For a 13+, they've had 2 years of lower standard of education. So, whilst your child might be gifted, imagine having an 11 plus system where they just missed out on a place because the selection system was flawed. I guess you'd have to take the private education route... | |||
| |||
" Sorry which one of us is being patronising? You are correct I did not sit 11+ because in the County where I grew up there were no Grammar schools anymore. However, as a parent of a luckily quite gifted child, I found the state system to be failing them. Had Grammar been an option they would have gone for sure. However, I was left with no option but to go down private school route. Luckily for me they awarded my child a scholarship based on their talent. Not having personally been through the system myself doesn’t disqualify me from having an opinion. I haven’t committed any crimes but I have a view in our legal and penal system too! From the wiki article: "The most academically able of students in secondary modern schools found that their potential progression to university and advanced post-secondary studies was constrained by limitations within their schools, the wider educational system and access to higher external examinations" So at 11 years of age a child's chances of going to uni are restricted even though they're not even half way through their academic journey to that stage. "Although parity of esteem between this and the other sections of the tripartite system had been planned, in practice the secondary modern came to be seen as the school for failures. Those who had "failed" their 11-plus were sent there to learn rudimentary skills before advancing to factory or menial jobs" So, a test at 11 splits people into failures destined for factory jobs of successes destined for great things. "Grammar schools were generally funded at a higher per-student level than secondary modern schools. Secondary moderns were generally deprived of both resources and good teachers" A good teacher gets a choice of schools. Would you want to work in a school with the high achievers or a school with kids with limited futures? The grammar school's take the best teachers which disadvantages those "failures" that are capable. "Secondary modern schools were less disposed than grammar schools to promote school cultures favouring academic achievement." "Secondary modern schools were far less inclined than grammar schools to encourage aspirations of student progression to advanced post-secondary and university education" Can you see the challenges that those who failed at 11 would have getting to uni? For a 13+, they've had 2 years of lower standard of education. So, whilst your child might be gifted, imagine having an 11 plus system where they just missed out on a place because the selection system was flawed. I guess you'd have to take the private education route... " I posted this further up but you missed it, seems like a good time to post it again... You have pointed out how you failed the test, and you also paint a picture of yourself as someone who is gifted to the point of not trying but still exceeding your peers, even with their superior educational environment. You could look at failing the test as a positive, a person who needed that extra support to do well got your place, a place you obviously didn't need. There will always be a need to draw a line in the sand when it comes numbers of people applying for a limited number of places, it might not be a 100% watertight way of doing it, but it is consistent and repeatable, which makes it a level playing field. What would be your alternative solution for testing 10 year olds? | |||
" Sorry which one of us is being patronising? You are correct I did not sit 11+ because in the County where I grew up there were no Grammar schools anymore. However, as a parent of a luckily quite gifted child, I found the state system to be failing them. Had Grammar been an option they would have gone for sure. However, I was left with no option but to go down private school route. Luckily for me they awarded my child a scholarship based on their talent. Not having personally been through the system myself doesn’t disqualify me from having an opinion. I haven’t committed any crimes but I have a view in our legal and penal system too! From the wiki article: "The most academically able of students in secondary modern schools found that their potential progression to university and advanced post-secondary studies was constrained by limitations within their schools, the wider educational system and access to higher external examinations" So at 11 years of age a child's chances of going to uni are restricted even though they're not even half way through their academic journey to that stage. "Although parity of esteem between this and the other sections of the tripartite system had been planned, in practice the secondary modern came to be seen as the school for failures. Those who had "failed" their 11-plus were sent there to learn rudimentary skills before advancing to factory or menial jobs" So, a test at 11 splits people into failures destined for factory jobs of successes destined for great things. "Grammar schools were generally funded at a higher per-student level than secondary modern schools. Secondary moderns were generally deprived of both resources and good teachers" A good teacher gets a choice of schools. Would you want to work in a school with the high achievers or a school with kids with limited futures? The grammar school's take the best teachers which disadvantages those "failures" that are capable. "Secondary modern schools were less disposed than grammar schools to promote school cultures favouring academic achievement." "Secondary modern schools were far less inclined than grammar schools to encourage aspirations of student progression to advanced post-secondary and university education" Can you see the challenges that those who failed at 11 would have getting to uni? For a 13+, they've had 2 years of lower standard of education. So, whilst your child might be gifted, imagine having an 11 plus system where they just missed out on a place because the selection system was flawed. I guess you'd have to take the private education route... I posted this further up but you missed it, seems like a good time to post it again... You have pointed out how you failed the test, and you also paint a picture of yourself as someone who is gifted to the point of not trying but still exceeding your peers, even with their superior educational environment. You could look at failing the test as a positive, a person who needed that extra support to do well got your place, a place you obviously didn't need. There will always be a need to draw a line in the sand when it comes numbers of people applying for a limited number of places, it might not be a 100% watertight way of doing it, but it is consistent and repeatable, which makes it a level playing field. What would be your alternative solution for testing 10 year olds?" What if I had passed? Perhaps that "superior education" would have presented me with more opportunities? It's not a level playing field so don't suggest it is. I don't have an alternative suggestion for testing for a 2 tiered education system. It shouldn't exist. | |||
" Sorry which one of us is being patronising? You are correct I did not sit 11+ because in the County where I grew up there were no Grammar schools anymore. However, as a parent of a luckily quite gifted child, I found the state system to be failing them. Had Grammar been an option they would have gone for sure. However, I was left with no option but to go down private school route. Luckily for me they awarded my child a scholarship based on their talent. Not having personally been through the system myself doesn’t disqualify me from having an opinion. I haven’t committed any crimes but I have a view in our legal and penal system too! From the wiki article: "The most academically able of students in secondary modern schools found that their potential progression to university and advanced post-secondary studies was constrained by limitations within their schools, the wider educational system and access to higher external examinations" So at 11 years of age a child's chances of going to uni are restricted even though they're not even half way through their academic journey to that stage. "Although parity of esteem between this and the other sections of the tripartite system had been planned, in practice the secondary modern came to be seen as the school for failures. Those who had "failed" their 11-plus were sent there to learn rudimentary skills before advancing to factory or menial jobs" So, a test at 11 splits people into failures destined for factory jobs of successes destined for great things. "Grammar schools were generally funded at a higher per-student level than secondary modern schools. Secondary moderns were generally deprived of both resources and good teachers" A good teacher gets a choice of schools. Would you want to work in a school with the high achievers or a school with kids with limited futures? The grammar school's take the best teachers which disadvantages those "failures" that are capable. "Secondary modern schools were less disposed than grammar schools to promote school cultures favouring academic achievement." "Secondary modern schools were far less inclined than grammar schools to encourage aspirations of student progression to advanced post-secondary and university education" Can you see the challenges that those who failed at 11 would have getting to uni? For a 13+, they've had 2 years of lower standard of education. So, whilst your child might be gifted, imagine having an 11 plus system where they just missed out on a place because the selection system was flawed. I guess you'd have to take the private education route... I posted this further up but you missed it, seems like a good time to post it again... You have pointed out how you failed the test, and you also paint a picture of yourself as someone who is gifted to the point of not trying but still exceeding your peers, even with their superior educational environment. You could look at failing the test as a positive, a person who needed that extra support to do well got your place, a place you obviously didn't need. There will always be a need to draw a line in the sand when it comes numbers of people applying for a limited number of places, it might not be a 100% watertight way of doing it, but it is consistent and repeatable, which makes it a level playing field. What would be your alternative solution for testing 10 year olds? What if I had passed? Perhaps that "superior education" would have presented me with more opportunities? It's not a level playing field so don't suggest it is. I don't have an alternative suggestion for testing for a 2 tiered education system. It shouldn't exist." What if you had passed, who knows, maybe a more rounded, rationale person and opportunities galore? We will never know. It is a level playing field, it is all above board and open to all, as in, a level playing field. No alternative, because it shouldn't exist? Is this the core problem, you didn't get in so nobody else should? That is what it is sounding like to me.... | |||
"My analogy - if you are fucking handsome and good - You will get laid and fuck the best booty in the club . Similarly if you are academically good, why you shouldn’t stand out and get chance to go to the best school, happens to be Grammar. Isn’t it? Later if you are top of the world in your education and achievements, why shouldn’t you be offered a place in Harvards, MITs and Oxbridge of the world. If you are best you deserve to be at best place - simple. Darwinism always works. That’s why we must ask Government to open three Grammar schools in every city and town, two single gender and one mixed. " Did none of the ugly kids at school turn out to be a bit of alright? What if in your analogy, they were told they were never ever allowed in the club in the future no matter how attractive they turned out... Why should a child who fails their 11 plus test be so disadvantaged that they'll almost certainly never get to the Harvards, MITs and Oxbridge of the world? The 11 plus test is a verbal reasoning test. I doubt that many dyslexic kids pass it and many aren't diagnosed until they are in secondary education. But yes, lets knock them down. It's not as though there's lots of them! | |||
| |||
  | |||
| |||
"Thing is life isn’t fair or meritocratic. People who are gifted, intelligent and talented generally rise to the top. As they should. Now there are people who also rise to the top based on family connections and who they know but that is a whole other topic. I really take issue when people would rather dumb down so everyone gets a shit experience rather than provide opportunities that reward talent. Sure not everyone is talented but then not everyone is clever enough to be a Judge or a Brain Surgeon. That is just the way it is. Oh and I know the response will be not dumb down but lift up standards. Sorry but that just isn’t reality because it will still ultimately come down to the ability and attitude of the kids. If they want to learn they will, if not they will be bored or disruptive. As for seemingly arbitrary age points informing life decisions...yep but that doesn’t stop at 10/11 or 14 (choosing your options) 16 doing GCSEs, 18 A levels, 21/22 completing a degree etc etc. It is life long. What the article you extracted from says to me us not that Grammar Schools were bad but that the Secondary Moderns were bad. It says they needed to up their game." And so the patronising continues...I didn't get to my age and where I am without options, GCSEs, A levels and degree. Some good decisions and some bad decisions. Of course, you are entirely missing my point. It's not about dumbing down. It's about ensuring that children don't get caught up in a position that isn't best for them which is EXACTLY your point for your own child. You seem to be concerned about your child getting the best but then respond that life isn't fair when it comes to others. Some hypocrisy there... Regarding your comment "If they want to learn they will, if not they will be bored or disruptive", yes this is true. But try learning in a disruptive class. I wouldn't be surprised if this was one of your gripes for your own child. Of course, if you truly believed what you say then there shouldn't be a problem with your child at a comprehensive. If they want to learn they will. No point in a grammar or private education. | |||
"You missed my point - Meritocracy, Handsomeness, Smartness and Cleverness win all the time. Why shouldn’t they. Rest is all hue and cry. You will be offered a seat on the table, that is where this world is going. Yes it is not perfect where all who deserves the best gets the outcome, but the shift is coming and it is tilting towards fairness. Compare current environment with the one you have seen in the past. We are creating fair society, efforts are being made. But you cannot dictate the outcome of the opportunities that are being offered. You are best, you get the best. If not second best - but you would not get the worst. I am sorry to say, but this is the fact of our modern world. " You do realise there is a "quote and reply" button? | |||
"Thing is life isn’t fair or meritocratic. People who are gifted, intelligent and talented generally rise to the top. As they should. Now there are people who also rise to the top based on family connections and who they know but that is a whole other topic. I really take issue when people would rather dumb down so everyone gets a shit experience rather than provide opportunities that reward talent. Sure not everyone is talented but then not everyone is clever enough to be a Judge or a Brain Surgeon. That is just the way it is. Oh and I know the response will be not dumb down but lift up standards. Sorry but that just isn’t reality because it will still ultimately come down to the ability and attitude of the kids. If they want to learn they will, if not they will be bored or disruptive. As for seemingly arbitrary age points informing life decisions...yep but that doesn’t stop at 10/11 or 14 (choosing your options) 16 doing GCSEs, 18 A levels, 21/22 completing a degree etc etc. It is life long. What the article you extracted from says to me us not that Grammar Schools were bad but that the Secondary Moderns were bad. It says they needed to up their game. And so the patronising continues...I didn't get to my age and where I am without options, GCSEs, A levels and degree. Some good decisions and some bad decisions. Of course, you are entirely missing my point. It's not about dumbing down. It's about ensuring that children don't get caught up in a position that isn't best for them which is EXACTLY your point for your own child. You seem to be concerned about your child getting the best but then respond that life isn't fair when it comes to others. Some hypocrisy there... Regarding your comment "If they want to learn they will, if not they will be bored or disruptive", yes this is true. But try learning in a disruptive class. I wouldn't be surprised if this was one of your gripes for your own child. Of course, if you truly believed what you say then there shouldn't be a problem with your child at a comprehensive. If they want to learn they will. No point in a grammar or private education." If you find what I said patronising then I will go back to an earlier point and say you have a chip on your shoulder. I also do not see any hypocrisy at all in what I said. Life isn’t fair. My child had talent and secured a scholarship on their own merits. Not everyone can do that because not everyone is the same. There will be things in life they won’t be able to do. That is a good lesson. It is you who is promoting meritocracy not me. | |||
"Thing is life isn’t fair or meritocratic. People who are gifted, intelligent and talented generally rise to the top. As they should. Now there are people who also rise to the top based on family connections and who they know but that is a whole other topic. I really take issue when people would rather dumb down so everyone gets a shit experience rather than provide opportunities that reward talent. Sure not everyone is talented but then not everyone is clever enough to be a Judge or a Brain Surgeon. That is just the way it is. Oh and I know the response will be not dumb down but lift up standards. Sorry but that just isn’t reality because it will still ultimately come down to the ability and attitude of the kids. If they want to learn they will, if not they will be bored or disruptive. As for seemingly arbitrary age points informing life decisions...yep but that doesn’t stop at 10/11 or 14 (choosing your options) 16 doing GCSEs, 18 A levels, 21/22 completing a degree etc etc. It is life long. What the article you extracted from says to me us not that Grammar Schools were bad but that the Secondary Moderns were bad. It says they needed to up their game. And so the patronising continues...I didn't get to my age and where I am without options, GCSEs, A levels and degree. Some good decisions and some bad decisions. Of course, you are entirely missing my point. It's not about dumbing down. It's about ensuring that children don't get caught up in a position that isn't best for them which is EXACTLY your point for your own child. You seem to be concerned about your child getting the best but then respond that life isn't fair when it comes to others. Some hypocrisy there... Regarding your comment "If they want to learn they will, if not they will be bored or disruptive", yes this is true. But try learning in a disruptive class. I wouldn't be surprised if this was one of your gripes for your own child. Of course, if you truly believed what you say then there shouldn't be a problem with your child at a comprehensive. If they want to learn they will. No point in a grammar or private education. If you find what I said patronising then I will go back to an earlier point and say you have a chip on your shoulder. I also do not see any hypocrisy at all in what I said. Life isn’t fair. My child had talent and secured a scholarship on their own merits. Not everyone can do that because not everyone is the same. There will be things in life they won’t be able to do. That is a good lesson. It is you who is promoting meritocracy not me." Well, you are entitled to your opinion but you clearly aren't listening to mine. As a 16 year old opening my GCSEs I was delighted with my results. knowing that the results would have put me about middle of the grammar school and knowing that half the kids at that school were told at 11 they were better than me made feel good. But that was a chip on my shoulder?!? I disagreed with the system then and still do now because it draws a line. One that's difficult although not impossible to navigate around. I have seen many of my friends at school go on to get good degrees, masters, PhDs and careers when the system was meant for them to end up with menial jobs. They were assessed using a test that favours verbal reasoning rather than science and maths and guess what...My friend and I all followed a mathematical and/or scientific route to academic and career success. Just because you don't see the hypocrisy doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If your child hadn't been so lucky to secure a scholarship (I am sure there are equally as gifted children who don't) then they would have been stuck in a comprehensive school but hey, life isn't fair is it. I really think you need to understand the 11 plus system as it was until scraped in all but a handful of counties before promoting it. The fact that you didn't understand how I failed but didn't go to a comprehensive school really demonstrated your lack of awareness. If a system existed where the top 10% were scooped into a grammar school based a test that identified areas of excellence with a way of promoting late developers then I would be more receptive. A system that does allow the children "who are gifted, intelligent and talented" but screw up a test aged 10 to rise to the top rather that leave them to have to beat the odds. A system that identifies a child who is excellent at maths but average at English as a child that can do brilliantly at GCSE maths, science , computer studies and then beyond. But hey, what would I know as a failure with a chip on my shoulder | |||
"Thing is life isn’t fair or meritocratic. People who are gifted, intelligent and talented generally rise to the top. As they should. Now there are people who also rise to the top based on family connections and who they know but that is a whole other topic. I really take issue when people would rather dumb down so everyone gets a shit experience rather than provide opportunities that reward talent. Sure not everyone is talented but then not everyone is clever enough to be a Judge or a Brain Surgeon. That is just the way it is. Oh and I know the response will be not dumb down but lift up standards. Sorry but that just isn’t reality because it will still ultimately come down to the ability and attitude of the kids. If they want to learn they will, if not they will be bored or disruptive. As for seemingly arbitrary age points informing life decisions...yep but that doesn’t stop at 10/11 or 14 (choosing your options) 16 doing GCSEs, 18 A levels, 21/22 completing a degree etc etc. It is life long. What the article you extracted from says to me us not that Grammar Schools were bad but that the Secondary Moderns were bad. It says they needed to up their game. And so the patronising continues...I didn't get to my age and where I am without options, GCSEs, A levels and degree. Some good decisions and some bad decisions. Of course, you are entirely missing my point. It's not about dumbing down. It's about ensuring that children don't get caught up in a position that isn't best for them which is EXACTLY your point for your own child. You seem to be concerned about your child getting the best but then respond that life isn't fair when it comes to others. Some hypocrisy there... Regarding your comment "If they want to learn they will, if not they will be bored or disruptive", yes this is true. But try learning in a disruptive class. I wouldn't be surprised if this was one of your gripes for your own child. Of course, if you truly believed what you say then there shouldn't be a problem with your child at a comprehensive. If they want to learn they will. No point in a grammar or private education. If you find what I said patronising then I will go back to an earlier point and say you have a chip on your shoulder. I also do not see any hypocrisy at all in what I said. Life isn’t fair. My child had talent and secured a scholarship on their own merits. Not everyone can do that because not everyone is the same. There will be things in life they won’t be able to do. That is a good lesson. It is you who is promoting meritocracy not me. Well, you are entitled to your opinion but you clearly aren't listening to mine. As a 16 year old opening my GCSEs I was delighted with my results. knowing that the results would have put me about middle of the grammar school and knowing that half the kids at that school were told at 11 they were better than me made feel good. But that was a chip on my shoulder?!? I disagreed with the system then and still do now because it draws a line. One that's difficult although not impossible to navigate around. I have seen many of my friends at school go on to get good degrees, masters, PhDs and careers when the system was meant for them to end up with menial jobs. They were assessed using a test that favours verbal reasoning rather than science and maths and guess what...My friend and I all followed a mathematical and/or scientific route to academic and career success. Just because you don't see the hypocrisy doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If your child hadn't been so lucky to secure a scholarship (I am sure there are equally as gifted children who don't) then they would have been stuck in a comprehensive school but hey, life isn't fair is it. I really think you need to understand the 11 plus system as it was until scraped in all but a handful of counties before promoting it. The fact that you didn't understand how I failed but didn't go to a comprehensive school really demonstrated your lack of awareness. If a system existed where the top 10% were scooped into a grammar school based a test that identified areas of excellence with a way of promoting late developers then I would be more receptive. A system that does allow the children "who are gifted, intelligent and talented" but screw up a test aged 10 to rise to the top rather that leave them to have to beat the odds. A system that identifies a child who is excellent at maths but average at English as a child that can do brilliantly at GCSE maths, science , computer studies and then beyond. But hey, what would I know as a failure with a chip on my shoulder "I have not once said you are a failure. In fact you demonstrate perfectly the flaw in your own argument. It isn’t/wasn’t only kids who went to Grammar that achieved success in life. But the way you talk about it does also demonstrate having a bit of a chip on your shoulder because of it. | |||
| |||
"Thing is life isn’t fair or meritocratic. People who are gifted, intelligent and talented generally rise to the top. As they should. Now there are people who also rise to the top based on family connections and who they know but that is a whole other topic. I really take issue when people would rather dumb down so everyone gets a shit experience rather than provide opportunities that reward talent. Sure not everyone is talented but then not everyone is clever enough to be a Judge or a Brain Surgeon. That is just the way it is. Oh and I know the response will be not dumb down but lift up standards. Sorry but that just isn’t reality because it will still ultimately come down to the ability and attitude of the kids. If they want to learn they will, if not they will be bored or disruptive. As for seemingly arbitrary age points informing life decisions...yep but that doesn’t stop at 10/11 or 14 (choosing your options) 16 doing GCSEs, 18 A levels, 21/22 completing a degree etc etc. It is life long. What the article you extracted from says to me us not that Grammar Schools were bad but that the Secondary Moderns were bad. It says they needed to up their game. And so the patronising continues...I didn't get to my age and where I am without options, GCSEs, A levels and degree. Some good decisions and some bad decisions. Of course, you are entirely missing my point. It's not about dumbing down. It's about ensuring that children don't get caught up in a position that isn't best for them which is EXACTLY your point for your own child. You seem to be concerned about your child getting the best but then respond that life isn't fair when it comes to others. Some hypocrisy there... Regarding your comment "If they want to learn they will, if not they will be bored or disruptive", yes this is true. But try learning in a disruptive class. I wouldn't be surprised if this was one of your gripes for your own child. Of course, if you truly believed what you say then there shouldn't be a problem with your child at a comprehensive. If they want to learn they will. No point in a grammar or private education. If you find what I said patronising then I will go back to an earlier point and say you have a chip on your shoulder. I also do not see any hypocrisy at all in what I said. Life isn’t fair. My child had talent and secured a scholarship on their own merits. Not everyone can do that because not everyone is the same. There will be things in life they won’t be able to do. That is a good lesson. It is you who is promoting meritocracy not me. Well, you are entitled to your opinion but you clearly aren't listening to mine. As a 16 year old opening my GCSEs I was delighted with my results. knowing that the results would have put me about middle of the grammar school and knowing that half the kids at that school were told at 11 they were better than me made feel good. But that was a chip on my shoulder?!? I disagreed with the system then and still do now because it draws a line. One that's difficult although not impossible to navigate around. I have seen many of my friends at school go on to get good degrees, masters, PhDs and careers when the system was meant for them to end up with menial jobs. They were assessed using a test that favours verbal reasoning rather than science and maths and guess what...My friend and I all followed a mathematical and/or scientific route to academic and career success. Just because you don't see the hypocrisy doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If your child hadn't been so lucky to secure a scholarship (I am sure there are equally as gifted children who don't) then they would have been stuck in a comprehensive school but hey, life isn't fair is it. I really think you need to understand the 11 plus system as it was until scraped in all but a handful of counties before promoting it. The fact that you didn't understand how I failed but didn't go to a comprehensive school really demonstrated your lack of awareness. If a system existed where the top 10% were scooped into a grammar school based a test that identified areas of excellence with a way of promoting late developers then I would be more receptive. A system that does allow the children "who are gifted, intelligent and talented" but screw up a test aged 10 to rise to the top rather that leave them to have to beat the odds. A system that identifies a child who is excellent at maths but average at English as a child that can do brilliantly at GCSE maths, science , computer studies and then beyond. But hey, what would I know as a failure with a chip on my shoulder
I have not once said you are a failure. In fact you demonstrate perfectly the flaw in your own argument. It isn’t/wasn’t only kids who went to Grammar that achieved success in life. But the way you talk about it does also demonstrate having a bit of a chip on your shoulder because of it."You still don't get it so call it a chip. Never mind. | |||
"I like the original OP did not pass the 11+. I actually was ill. Went to an all boys secondary modern school. My brother and sister went to Grammar schools. I grew up on a council housing estate , like many others. In the road I grew up on . There were several large families. Biggest 12 children. Yet in same road several went to Grammar schools in area. I as far as I am concerned did quite well. Yes did not own my own company . But employed in a few companies to run as a manager installations up to 3 million pounds. The people who I grew up with in my road and others I have known. The most successful are ones from secondary modern education and now have / family businesses in various trades . To me yes grammar schools have a place. But does not mean success or be better than anyone one else because went to a Grammar school or in fact went to university obtained a degree. " Had you not been ill do you think you would have achieved the same or do you think more? The opportunities you would have had or the children you were mixing with were would surely have pushed you further academically which in turn would have presented more opportunities. | |||
"Thing is life isn’t fair or meritocratic. People who are gifted, intelligent and talented generally rise to the top. As they should. Now there are people who also rise to the top based on family connections and who they know but that is a whole other topic. I really take issue when people would rather dumb down so everyone gets a shit experience rather than provide opportunities that reward talent. Sure not everyone is talented but then not everyone is clever enough to be a Judge or a Brain Surgeon. That is just the way it is. Oh and I know the response will be not dumb down but lift up standards. Sorry but that just isn’t reality because it will still ultimately come down to the ability and attitude of the kids. If they want to learn they will, if not they will be bored or disruptive. As for seemingly arbitrary age points informing life decisions...yep but that doesn’t stop at 10/11 or 14 (choosing your options) 16 doing GCSEs, 18 A levels, 21/22 completing a degree etc etc. It is life long. What the article you extracted from says to me us not that Grammar Schools were bad but that the Secondary Moderns were bad. It says they needed to up their game. And so the patronising continues...I didn't get to my age and where I am without options, GCSEs, A levels and degree. Some good decisions and some bad decisions. Of course, you are entirely missing my point. It's not about dumbing down. It's about ensuring that children don't get caught up in a position that isn't best for them which is EXACTLY your point for your own child. You seem to be concerned about your child getting the best but then respond that life isn't fair when it comes to others. Some hypocrisy there... Regarding your comment "If they want to learn they will, if not they will be bored or disruptive", yes this is true. But try learning in a disruptive class. I wouldn't be surprised if this was one of your gripes for your own child. Of course, if you truly believed what you say then there shouldn't be a problem with your child at a comprehensive. If they want to learn they will. No point in a grammar or private education. If you find what I said patronising then I will go back to an earlier point and say you have a chip on your shoulder. I also do not see any hypocrisy at all in what I said. Life isn’t fair. My child had talent and secured a scholarship on their own merits. Not everyone can do that because not everyone is the same. There will be things in life they won’t be able to do. That is a good lesson. It is you who is promoting meritocracy not me. Well, you are entitled to your opinion but you clearly aren't listening to mine. As a 16 year old opening my GCSEs I was delighted with my results. knowing that the results would have put me about middle of the grammar school and knowing that half the kids at that school were told at 11 they were better than me made feel good. But that was a chip on my shoulder?!? I disagreed with the system then and still do now because it draws a line. One that's difficult although not impossible to navigate around. I have seen many of my friends at school go on to get good degrees, masters, PhDs and careers when the system was meant for them to end up with menial jobs. They were assessed using a test that favours verbal reasoning rather than science and maths and guess what...My friend and I all followed a mathematical and/or scientific route to academic and career success. Just because you don't see the hypocrisy doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If your child hadn't been so lucky to secure a scholarship (I am sure there are equally as gifted children who don't) then they would have been stuck in a comprehensive school but hey, life isn't fair is it. I really think you need to understand the 11 plus system as it was until scraped in all but a handful of counties before promoting it. The fact that you didn't understand how I failed but didn't go to a comprehensive school really demonstrated your lack of awareness. If a system existed where the top 10% were scooped into a grammar school based a test that identified areas of excellence with a way of promoting late developers then I would be more receptive. A system that does allow the children "who are gifted, intelligent and talented" but screw up a test aged 10 to rise to the top rather that leave them to have to beat the odds. A system that identifies a child who is excellent at maths but average at English as a child that can do brilliantly at GCSE maths, science , computer studies and then beyond. But hey, what would I know as a failure with a chip on my shoulder
I have not once said you are a failure. In fact you demonstrate perfectly the flaw in your own argument. It isn’t/wasn’t only kids who went to Grammar that achieved success in life. But the way you talk about it does also demonstrate having a bit of a chip on your shoulder because of it.
You still don't get it so call it a chip. Never mind.
"If I “don’t get it” it is because you haven’t made a convincing or cogent argument. The way you have framed your whole discussion indicates anger and resentment at a system that excluded you and glee at proving “them” wrong. If I was the only person in this thread to comment on that, then maybe it could be put down to my misunderstanding, but others have commented too so it can only be put down to what you have said and how you have said it. Reading back I realise I have been using “Comprehensive” and “Secondary Modern” interchangeably. My mistake. The distinction I was trying to make was between selective and non selective state schools. | |||
"Thing is life isn’t fair or meritocratic. People who are gifted, intelligent and talented generally rise to the top. As they should. Now there are people who also rise to the top based on family connections and who they know but that is a whole other topic. I really take issue when people would rather dumb down so everyone gets a shit experience rather than provide opportunities that reward talent. Sure not everyone is talented but then not everyone is clever enough to be a Judge or a Brain Surgeon. That is just the way it is. Oh and I know the response will be not dumb down but lift up standards. Sorry but that just isn’t reality because it will still ultimately come down to the ability and attitude of the kids. If they want to learn they will, if not they will be bored or disruptive. As for seemingly arbitrary age points informing life decisions...yep but that doesn’t stop at 10/11 or 14 (choosing your options) 16 doing GCSEs, 18 A levels, 21/22 completing a degree etc etc. It is life long. What the article you extracted from says to me us not that Grammar Schools were bad but that the Secondary Moderns were bad. It says they needed to up their game. And so the patronising continues...I didn't get to my age and where I am without options, GCSEs, A levels and degree. Some good decisions and some bad decisions. Of course, you are entirely missing my point. It's not about dumbing down. It's about ensuring that children don't get caught up in a position that isn't best for them which is EXACTLY your point for your own child. You seem to be concerned about your child getting the best but then respond that life isn't fair when it comes to others. Some hypocrisy there... Regarding your comment "If they want to learn they will, if not they will be bored or disruptive", yes this is true. But try learning in a disruptive class. I wouldn't be surprised if this was one of your gripes for your own child. Of course, if you truly believed what you say then there shouldn't be a problem with your child at a comprehensive. If they want to learn they will. No point in a grammar or private education. If you find what I said patronising then I will go back to an earlier point and say you have a chip on your shoulder. I also do not see any hypocrisy at all in what I said. Life isn’t fair. My child had talent and secured a scholarship on their own merits. Not everyone can do that because not everyone is the same. There will be things in life they won’t be able to do. That is a good lesson. It is you who is promoting meritocracy not me. Well, you are entitled to your opinion but you clearly aren't listening to mine. As a 16 year old opening my GCSEs I was delighted with my results. knowing that the results would have put me about middle of the grammar school and knowing that half the kids at that school were told at 11 they were better than me made feel good. But that was a chip on my shoulder?!? I disagreed with the system then and still do now because it draws a line. One that's difficult although not impossible to navigate around. I have seen many of my friends at school go on to get good degrees, masters, PhDs and careers when the system was meant for them to end up with menial jobs. They were assessed using a test that favours verbal reasoning rather than science and maths and guess what...My friend and I all followed a mathematical and/or scientific route to academic and career success. Just because you don't see the hypocrisy doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If your child hadn't been so lucky to secure a scholarship (I am sure there are equally as gifted children who don't) then they would have been stuck in a comprehensive school but hey, life isn't fair is it. I really think you need to understand the 11 plus system as it was until scraped in all but a handful of counties before promoting it. The fact that you didn't understand how I failed but didn't go to a comprehensive school really demonstrated your lack of awareness. If a system existed where the top 10% were scooped into a grammar school based a test that identified areas of excellence with a way of promoting late developers then I would be more receptive. A system that does allow the children "who are gifted, intelligent and talented" but screw up a test aged 10 to rise to the top rather that leave them to have to beat the odds. A system that identifies a child who is excellent at maths but average at English as a child that can do brilliantly at GCSE maths, science , computer studies and then beyond. But hey, what would I know as a failure with a chip on my shoulder
I have not once said you are a failure. In fact you demonstrate perfectly the flaw in your own argument. It isn’t/wasn’t only kids who went to Grammar that achieved success in life. But the way you talk about it does also demonstrate having a bit of a chip on your shoulder because of it.
You still don't get it so call it a chip. Never mind. "If I “don’t get it” it is because you haven’t made a convincing or cogent argument. The way you have framed your whole discussion indicates anger and resentment at a system that excluded you and glee at proving “them” wrong. If I was the only person in this thread to comment on that, then maybe it could be put down to my misunderstanding, but others have commented too so it can only be put down to what you have said and how you have said it. Reading back I realise I have been using “Comprehensive” and “Secondary Modern” interchangeably. My mistake. The distinction I was trying to make was between selective and non selective state schools. A further thought (it happens)... The majority of the argument (including the article you quote) focuses on how bad the Secondary Modern schools were/are rather than the Grammars themselves. I find this a completely reductive argument. It is in the same territory as those who recently have been criticising private schools. The argument goes... “the state school system is rubbish. Those people over there are getting a better experience. We need to stop them having a better experience!” Then some crap is spouted about how the Private Schools (and the Grammars) drain the clever kids out of the state system so we should stop that and bring them back in. Then of course it gets even more emotive and references the rich buying a better future for their kids (read middle class parents getting tutors to help little Johnny pass the 11+ to go to Grammar) and because money is involved suddenly these are all bad people and they should be denied (conveniently ignoring the kids on scholarships and bursaries). The fault wasn’t/isn’t Grammar schools it is the Secondary Moderns. We need to improve standards across the board. You say/imply there is/was a stigma for those who went to Secondary Modern but that is likely based on the reality that the standard of academic education was/is lower. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Raise standards and the stigma drops away. The other point to come back on is being assessed at 10yrs. And...? We are assessed throughout our lives. Every job interview is an assessment. Depending on the type of job you do you will need to demonstrate skills and experience/knowledge. Many job interviews are multi-stage snd include verbal and numerical reasoning tests. | |||
| |||
"I like the original OP did not pass the 11+. I actually was ill. Went to an all boys secondary modern school. My brother and sister went to Grammar schools. I grew up on a council housing estate , like many others. In the road I grew up on . There were several large families. Biggest 12 children. Yet in same road several went to Grammar schools in area. I as far as I am concerned did quite well. Yes did not own my own company . But employed in a few companies to run as a manager installations up to 3 million pounds. The people who I grew up with in my road and others I have known. The most successful are ones from secondary modern education and now have / family businesses in various trades . To me yes grammar schools have a place. But does not mean success or be better than anyone one else because went to a Grammar school or in fact went to university obtained a degree. Had you not been ill do you think you would have achieved the same or do you think more? The opportunities you would have had or the children you were mixing with were would surely have pushed you further academically which in turn would have presented more opportunities. " If I had gone to grammar school , plus perhaps university. Then this would have most properly directed me into an office type job. As I have said that done manager jobs. But the ones where I was in office each day, I hated. I left one company because they would not let me go back out to do onsite work. As for earning more . Again I was well paid, a lot more than office workers type jobs get. | |||
"Thing is life isn’t fair or meritocratic. People who are gifted, intelligent and talented generally rise to the top. As they should. Now there are people who also rise to the top based on family connections and who they know but that is a whole other topic. I really take issue when people would rather dumb down so everyone gets a shit experience rather than provide opportunities that reward talent. Sure not everyone is talented but then not everyone is clever enough to be a Judge or a Brain Surgeon. That is just the way it is. Oh and I know the response will be not dumb down but lift up standards. Sorry but that just isn’t reality because it will still ultimately come down to the ability and attitude of the kids. If they want to learn they will, if not they will be bored or disruptive. As for seemingly arbitrary age points informing life decisions...yep but that doesn’t stop at 10/11 or 14 (choosing your options) 16 doing GCSEs, 18 A levels, 21/22 completing a degree etc etc. It is life long. What the article you extracted from says to me us not that Grammar Schools were bad but that the Secondary Moderns were bad. It says they needed to up their game. And so the patronising continues...I didn't get to my age and where I am without options, GCSEs, A levels and degree. Some good decisions and some bad decisions. Of course, you are entirely missing my point. It's not about dumbing down. It's about ensuring that children don't get caught up in a position that isn't best for them which is EXACTLY your point for your own child. You seem to be concerned about your child getting the best but then respond that life isn't fair when it comes to others. Some hypocrisy there... Regarding your comment "If they want to learn they will, if not they will be bored or disruptive", yes this is true. But try learning in a disruptive class. I wouldn't be surprised if this was one of your gripes for your own child. Of course, if you truly believed what you say then there shouldn't be a problem with your child at a comprehensive. If they want to learn they will. No point in a grammar or private education. If you find what I said patronising then I will go back to an earlier point and say you have a chip on your shoulder. I also do not see any hypocrisy at all in what I said. Life isn’t fair. My child had talent and secured a scholarship on their own merits. Not everyone can do that because not everyone is the same. There will be things in life they won’t be able to do. That is a good lesson. It is you who is promoting meritocracy not me. Well, you are entitled to your opinion but you clearly aren't listening to mine. As a 16 year old opening my GCSEs I was delighted with my results. knowing that the results would have put me about middle of the grammar school and knowing that half the kids at that school were told at 11 they were better than me made feel good. But that was a chip on my shoulder?!? I disagreed with the system then and still do now because it draws a line. One that's difficult although not impossible to navigate around. I have seen many of my friends at school go on to get good degrees, masters, PhDs and careers when the system was meant for them to end up with menial jobs. They were assessed using a test that favours verbal reasoning rather than science and maths and guess what...My friend and I all followed a mathematical and/or scientific route to academic and career success. Just because you don't see the hypocrisy doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If your child hadn't been so lucky to secure a scholarship (I am sure there are equally as gifted children who don't) then they would have been stuck in a comprehensive school but hey, life isn't fair is it. I really think you need to understand the 11 plus system as it was until scraped in all but a handful of counties before promoting it. The fact that you didn't understand how I failed but didn't go to a comprehensive school really demonstrated your lack of awareness. If a system existed where the top 10% were scooped into a grammar school based a test that identified areas of excellence with a way of promoting late developers then I would be more receptive. A system that does allow the children "who are gifted, intelligent and talented" but screw up a test aged 10 to rise to the top rather that leave them to have to beat the odds. A system that identifies a child who is excellent at maths but average at English as a child that can do brilliantly at GCSE maths, science , computer studies and then beyond. But hey, what would I know as a failure with a chip on my shoulder
I have not once said you are a failure. In fact you demonstrate perfectly the flaw in your own argument. It isn’t/wasn’t only kids who went to Grammar that achieved success in life. But the way you talk about it does also demonstrate having a bit of a chip on your shoulder because of it.
You still don't get it so call it a chip. Never mind.
If I “don’t get it” it is because you haven’t made a convincing or cogent argument. The way you have framed your whole discussion indicates anger and resentment at a system that excluded you and glee at proving “them” wrong. If I was the only person in this thread to comment on that, then maybe it could be put down to my misunderstanding, but others have commented too so it can only be put down to what you have said and how you have said it.
Reading back I realise I have been using “Comprehensive” and “Secondary Modern” interchangeably. My mistake. The distinction I was trying to make was between selective and non selective state schools.
A further thought (it happens)...
The majority of the argument (including the article you quote) focuses on how bad the Secondary Modern schools were/are rather than the Grammars themselves. I find this a completely reductive argument.
It is in the same territory as those who recently have been criticising private schools. The argument goes... “the state school system is rubbish. Those people over there are getting a better experience. We need to stop them having a better experience!”
Then some crap is spouted about how the Private Schools (and the Grammars) drain the clever kids out of the state system so we should stop that and bring them back in.
Then of course it gets even more emotive and references the rich buying a better future for their kids (read middle class parents getting tutors to help little Johnny pass the 11+ to go to Grammar) and because money is involved suddenly these are all bad people and they should be denied (conveniently ignoring the kids on scholarships and bursaries).
The fault wasn’t/isn’t Grammar schools it is the Secondary Moderns. We need to improve standards across the board. You say/imply there is/was a stigma for those who went to Secondary Modern but that is likely based on the reality that the standard of academic education was/is lower. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Raise standards and the stigma drops away.
The other point to come back on is being assessed at 10yrs. And...? We are assessed throughout our lives. Every job interview is an assessment. Depending on the type of job you do you will need to demonstrate skills and experience/knowledge. Many job interviews are multi-stage snd include verbal and numerical reasoning tests. "The 11+ system as it was selected with a fairly crude criteria. Once selected (or not) a child would spend 5 years at a school designed to focus on either the children gaining uni admission OR giving them basic skills for menial or factory jobs (the exact purpose of a secondary modern school). There was no way of changing schools. You find that acceptable? Children who failed the 11+ could of course still get to uni but against a number of challenges. These are clear in the article I mentioned. I was expected to pass. The mock tests I did in school (many of them) put me ahead of those who went to grammar school. I literally scored highest every time. My teacher and parents expected me to pass (will come onto parents later). I sat the tests and know that I just missed out. First test I did extremely well. The second test I flopped. If you know anything about verbal reasoning tests you will know you can't fluke a test but you can screw one up. The screwed up test pulled me down into the borderline category. My books were assessed and due to my hand writing doomed. I can write very neatly now though... So, I ended up going to a school that really didn't cater for me. A C grade at GCSE was a success. A lesson was usually disrupted and fights were common. The only blessing was that a handful of my school year were in a similar position and a few teachers that offered their own time to help especially at A Level maths. All I have done in my posts is tried to explain that the 11 plus system has flaws just like the comprehensive system. The 11 plus system favours your child but can be detrimental to others (such as me). You want your child to have the best opportunities but can't see why I want others to. As for the glee, if you were told at 11 by a friend that their grammar school teacher had made comments that put these kids on a pedestal and implied you were stupid, would you not at least be a bit pleased that you have proved the teacher wrong?! If another child had labelled you a failure but you got better GCSEs would you not feel a tiny bit of satisfaction? If course you would. My dad was a teacher who put kids through the 11+ tests for many years. He passed himself but as a teacher he was very much against the system.so, whilst you have an opinion from a personal perspective for your gifted child, my personal experience and the opinions shared by him perhaps give me the advantage in seeing the wider picture. Most of the kids who go to grammar schools aren't gifted. They are above average. The gifted ones end up in top sets. Isn't that how comprehensive schools work? Perhaps you see a grammar school as a utopia full of gifted angels? They aren't. The grammar school kids I knew were a bit obnoxious. The 11+ system was scrapped throughout the majority of the UK in the 60s. Perhaps you need to read a few articles about the reasons. There will be a lot of correlation with what I have written. Now call it a chip if you want. It's not. It's a pragmatic view and I am fine thanks. | |||
"Thing is life isn’t fair or meritocratic. People who are gifted, intelligent and talented generally rise to the top. As they should. Now there are people who also rise to the top based on family connections and who they know but that is a whole other topic. I really take issue when people would rather dumb down so everyone gets a shit experience rather than provide opportunities that reward talent. Sure not everyone is talented but then not everyone is clever enough to be a Judge or a Brain Surgeon. That is just the way it is. Oh and I know the response will be not dumb down but lift up standards. Sorry but that just isn’t reality because it will still ultimately come down to the ability and attitude of the kids. If they want to learn they will, if not they will be bored or disruptive. As for seemingly arbitrary age points informing life decisions...yep but that doesn’t stop at 10/11 or 14 (choosing your options) 16 doing GCSEs, 18 A levels, 21/22 completing a degree etc etc. It is life long. What the article you extracted from says to me us not that Grammar Schools were bad but that the Secondary Moderns were bad. It says they needed to up their game. And so the patronising continues...I didn't get to my age and where I am without options, GCSEs, A levels and degree. Some good decisions and some bad decisions. Of course, you are entirely missing my point. It's not about dumbing down. It's about ensuring that children don't get caught up in a position that isn't best for them which is EXACTLY your point for your own child. You seem to be concerned about your child getting the best but then respond that life isn't fair when it comes to others. Some hypocrisy there... Regarding your comment "If they want to learn they will, if not they will be bored or disruptive", yes this is true. But try learning in a disruptive class. I wouldn't be surprised if this was one of your gripes for your own child. Of course, if you truly believed what you say then there shouldn't be a problem with your child at a comprehensive. If they want to learn they will. No point in a grammar or private education. If you find what I said patronising then I will go back to an earlier point and say you have a chip on your shoulder. I also do not see any hypocrisy at all in what I said. Life isn’t fair. My child had talent and secured a scholarship on their own merits. Not everyone can do that because not everyone is the same. There will be things in life they won’t be able to do. That is a good lesson. It is you who is promoting meritocracy not me. Well, you are entitled to your opinion but you clearly aren't listening to mine. As a 16 year old opening my GCSEs I was delighted with my results. knowing that the results would have put me about middle of the grammar school and knowing that half the kids at that school were told at 11 they were better than me made feel good. But that was a chip on my shoulder?!? I disagreed with the system then and still do now because it draws a line. One that's difficult although not impossible to navigate around. I have seen many of my friends at school go on to get good degrees, masters, PhDs and careers when the system was meant for them to end up with menial jobs. They were assessed using a test that favours verbal reasoning rather than science and maths and guess what...My friend and I all followed a mathematical and/or scientific route to academic and career success. Just because you don't see the hypocrisy doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If your child hadn't been so lucky to secure a scholarship (I am sure there are equally as gifted children who don't) then they would have been stuck in a comprehensive school but hey, life isn't fair is it. I really think you need to understand the 11 plus system as it was until scraped in all but a handful of counties before promoting it. The fact that you didn't understand how I failed but didn't go to a comprehensive school really demonstrated your lack of awareness. If a system existed where the top 10% were scooped into a grammar school based a test that identified areas of excellence with a way of promoting late developers then I would be more receptive. A system that does allow the children "who are gifted, intelligent and talented" but screw up a test aged 10 to rise to the top rather that leave them to have to beat the odds. A system that identifies a child who is excellent at maths but average at English as a child that can do brilliantly at GCSE maths, science , computer studies and then beyond. But hey, what would I know as a failure with a chip on my shoulder
I have not once said you are a failure. In fact you demonstrate perfectly the flaw in your own argument. It isn’t/wasn’t only kids who went to Grammar that achieved success in life. But the way you talk about it does also demonstrate having a bit of a chip on your shoulder because of it.
You still don't get it so call it a chip. Never mind.
If I “don’t get it” it is because you haven’t made a convincing or cogent argument. The way you have framed your whole discussion indicates anger and resentment at a system that excluded you and glee at proving “them” wrong. If I was the only person in this thread to comment on that, then maybe it could be put down to my misunderstanding, but others have commented too so it can only be put down to what you have said and how you have said it.
Reading back I realise I have been using “Comprehensive” and “Secondary Modern” interchangeably. My mistake. The distinction I was trying to make was between selective and non selective state schools.
A further thought (it happens)...
The majority of the argument (including the article you quote) focuses on how bad the Secondary Modern schools were/are rather than the Grammars themselves. I find this a completely reductive argument.
It is in the same territory as those who recently have been criticising private schools. The argument goes... “the state school system is rubbish. Those people over there are getting a better experience. We need to stop them having a better experience!”
Then some crap is spouted about how the Private Schools (and the Grammars) drain the clever kids out of the state system so we should stop that and bring them back in.
Then of course it gets even more emotive and references the rich buying a better future for their kids (read middle class parents getting tutors to help little Johnny pass the 11+ to go to Grammar) and because money is involved suddenly these are all bad people and they should be denied (conveniently ignoring the kids on scholarships and bursaries).
The fault wasn’t/isn’t Grammar schools it is the Secondary Moderns. We need to improve standards across the board. You say/imply there is/was a stigma for those who went to Secondary Modern but that is likely based on the reality that the standard of academic education was/is lower. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Raise standards and the stigma drops away.
The other point to come back on is being assessed at 10yrs. And...? We are assessed throughout our lives. Every job interview is an assessment. Depending on the type of job you do you will need to demonstrate skills and experience/knowledge. Many job interviews are multi-stage snd include verbal and numerical reasoning tests.
The 11+ system as it was selected with a fairly crude criteria.
Once selected (or not) a child would spend 5 years at a school designed to focus on either the children gaining uni admission OR giving them basic skills for menial or factory jobs (the exact purpose of a secondary modern school). There was no way of changing schools. You find that acceptable?
Children who failed the 11+ could of course still get to uni but against a number of challenges. These are clear in the article I mentioned.
I was expected to pass. The mock tests I did in school (many of them) put me ahead of those who went to grammar school. I literally scored highest every time. My teacher and parents expected me to pass (will come onto parents later).
I sat the tests and know that I just missed out. First test I did extremely well. The second test I flopped. If you know anything about verbal reasoning tests you will know you can't fluke a test but you can screw one up. The screwed up test pulled me down into the borderline category. My books were assessed and due to my hand writing doomed. I can write very neatly now though...
So, I ended up going to a school that really didn't cater for me. A C grade at GCSE was a success. A lesson was usually disrupted and fights were common.
The only blessing was that a handful of my school year were in a similar position and a few teachers that offered their own time to help especially at A Level maths.
All I have done in my posts is tried to explain that the 11 plus system has flaws just like the comprehensive system. The 11 plus system favours your child but can be detrimental to others (such as me). You want your child to have the best opportunities but can't see why I want others to.
As for the glee, if you were told at 11 by a friend that their grammar school teacher had made comments that put these kids on a pedestal and implied you were stupid, would you not at least be a bit pleased that you have proved the teacher wrong?! If another child had labelled you a failure but you got better GCSEs would you not feel a tiny bit of satisfaction? If course you would.
My dad was a teacher who put kids through the 11+ tests for many years. He passed himself but as a teacher he was very much against the system.so, whilst you have an opinion from a personal perspective for your gifted child, my personal experience and the opinions shared by him perhaps give me the advantage in seeing the wider picture.
Most of the kids who go to grammar schools aren't gifted. They are above average. The gifted ones end up in top sets. Isn't that how comprehensive schools work? Perhaps you see a grammar school as a utopia full of gifted angels? They aren't. The grammar school kids I knew were a bit obnoxious.
The 11+ system was scrapped throughout the majority of the UK in the 60s. Perhaps you need to read a few articles about the reasons. There will be a lot of correlation with what I have written.
Now call it a chip if you want. It's not. It's a pragmatic view and I am fine thanks.
"I hear you and your frustration is palpable. I still maintain the issue is/was not Grammar Schools but the Secondary Moderns failing. The article backs that up. I know plenty of people who did go to Grammar and had a great time and did very well. Your experience is not universal but it is understandably your world view. I went to a Comprehensive School (as I said there were no grammars in my county). Maybe it was a particularly good school but we were nurtured and encouraged academically and had great teachers. I did very well in education and HE and have enjoyed a very successful career. That is my direct experience of state school many years ago. Now it is different and my experience as a parent means I would welcome back Grammars BUT as I said early in this thread, that doesn’t mean the 11+ as it stood is the right assessment. The idea that wanting my child to get the best experience/education but that it is somehow at the expense of anyone else is crazy. Everyone should get a good education but providing extra opportunities and environments for those of higher ability and potential is not a bad thing. | |||
"Thing is life isn’t fair or meritocratic. People who are gifted, intelligent and talented generally rise to the top. As they should. Now there are people who also rise to the top based on family connections and who they know but that is a whole other topic. I really take issue when people would rather dumb down so everyone gets a shit experience rather than provide opportunities that reward talent. Sure not everyone is talented but then not everyone is clever enough to be a Judge or a Brain Surgeon. That is just the way it is. Oh and I know the response will be not dumb down but lift up standards. Sorry but that just isn’t reality because it will still ultimately come down to the ability and attitude of the kids. If they want to learn they will, if not they will be bored or disruptive. As for seemingly arbitrary age points informing life decisions...yep but that doesn’t stop at 10/11 or 14 (choosing your options) 16 doing GCSEs, 18 A levels, 21/22 completing a degree etc etc. It is life long. What the article you extracted from says to me us not that Grammar Schools were bad but that the Secondary Moderns were bad. It says they needed to up their game. And so the patronising continues...I didn't get to my age and where I am without options, GCSEs, A levels and degree. Some good decisions and some bad decisions. Of course, you are entirely missing my point. It's not about dumbing down. It's about ensuring that children don't get caught up in a position that isn't best for them which is EXACTLY your point for your own child. You seem to be concerned about your child getting the best but then respond that life isn't fair when it comes to others. Some hypocrisy there... Regarding your comment "If they want to learn they will, if not they will be bored or disruptive", yes this is true. But try learning in a disruptive class. I wouldn't be surprised if this was one of your gripes for your own child. Of course, if you truly believed what you say then there shouldn't be a problem with your child at a comprehensive. If they want to learn they will. No point in a grammar or private education. If you find what I said patronising then I will go back to an earlier point and say you have a chip on your shoulder. I also do not see any hypocrisy at all in what I said. Life isn’t fair. My child had talent and secured a scholarship on their own merits. Not everyone can do that because not everyone is the same. There will be things in life they won’t be able to do. That is a good lesson. It is you who is promoting meritocracy not me. Well, you are entitled to your opinion but you clearly aren't listening to mine. As a 16 year old opening my GCSEs I was delighted with my results. knowing that the results would have put me about middle of the grammar school and knowing that half the kids at that school were told at 11 they were better than me made feel good. But that was a chip on my shoulder?!? I disagreed with the system then and still do now because it draws a line. One that's difficult although not impossible to navigate around. I have seen many of my friends at school go on to get good degrees, masters, PhDs and careers when the system was meant for them to end up with menial jobs. They were assessed using a test that favours verbal reasoning rather than science and maths and guess what...My friend and I all followed a mathematical and/or scientific route to academic and career success. Just because you don't see the hypocrisy doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If your child hadn't been so lucky to secure a scholarship (I am sure there are equally as gifted children who don't) then they would have been stuck in a comprehensive school but hey, life isn't fair is it. I really think you need to understand the 11 plus system as it was until scraped in all but a handful of counties before promoting it. The fact that you didn't understand how I failed but didn't go to a comprehensive school really demonstrated your lack of awareness. If a system existed where the top 10% were scooped into a grammar school based a test that identified areas of excellence with a way of promoting late developers then I would be more receptive. A system that does allow the children "who are gifted, intelligent and talented" but screw up a test aged 10 to rise to the top rather that leave them to have to beat the odds. A system that identifies a child who is excellent at maths but average at English as a child that can do brilliantly at GCSE maths, science , computer studies and then beyond. But hey, what would I know as a failure with a chip on my shoulder
I have not once said you are a failure. In fact you demonstrate perfectly the flaw in your own argument. It isn’t/wasn’t only kids who went to Grammar that achieved success in life. But the way you talk about it does also demonstrate having a bit of a chip on your shoulder because of it.
You still don't get it so call it a chip. Never mind.
If I “don’t get it” it is because you haven’t made a convincing or cogent argument. The way you have framed your whole discussion indicates anger and resentment at a system that excluded you and glee at proving “them” wrong. If I was the only person in this thread to comment on that, then maybe it could be put down to my misunderstanding, but others have commented too so it can only be put down to what you have said and how you have said it.
Reading back I realise I have been using “Comprehensive” and “Secondary Modern” interchangeably. My mistake. The distinction I was trying to make was between selective and non selective state schools.
A further thought (it happens)...
The majority of the argument (including the article you quote) focuses on how bad the Secondary Modern schools were/are rather than the Grammars themselves. I find this a completely reductive argument.
It is in the same territory as those who recently have been criticising private schools. The argument goes... “the state school system is rubbish. Those people over there are getting a better experience. We need to stop them having a better experience!”
Then some crap is spouted about how the Private Schools (and the Grammars) drain the clever kids out of the state system so we should stop that and bring them back in.
Then of course it gets even more emotive and references the rich buying a better future for their kids (read middle class parents getting tutors to help little Johnny pass the 11+ to go to Grammar) and because money is involved suddenly these are all bad people and they should be denied (conveniently ignoring the kids on scholarships and bursaries).
The fault wasn’t/isn’t Grammar schools it is the Secondary Moderns. We need to improve standards across the board. You say/imply there is/was a stigma for those who went to Secondary Modern but that is likely based on the reality that the standard of academic education was/is lower. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Raise standards and the stigma drops away.
The other point to come back on is being assessed at 10yrs. And...? We are assessed throughout our lives. Every job interview is an assessment. Depending on the type of job you do you will need to demonstrate skills and experience/knowledge. Many job interviews are multi-stage snd include verbal and numerical reasoning tests.
The 11+ system as it was selected with a fairly crude criteria.
Once selected (or not) a child would spend 5 years at a school designed to focus on either the children gaining uni admission OR giving them basic skills for menial or factory jobs (the exact purpose of a secondary modern school). There was no way of changing schools. You find that acceptable?
Children who failed the 11+ could of course still get to uni but against a number of challenges. These are clear in the article I mentioned.
I was expected to pass. The mock tests I did in school (many of them) put me ahead of those who went to grammar school. I literally scored highest every time. My teacher and parents expected me to pass (will come onto parents later).
I sat the tests and know that I just missed out. First test I did extremely well. The second test I flopped. If you know anything about verbal reasoning tests you will know you can't fluke a test but you can screw one up. The screwed up test pulled me down into the borderline category. My books were assessed and due to my hand writing doomed. I can write very neatly now though...
So, I ended up going to a school that really didn't cater for me. A C grade at GCSE was a success. A lesson was usually disrupted and fights were common.
The only blessing was that a handful of my school year were in a similar position and a few teachers that offered their own time to help especially at A Level maths.
All I have done in my posts is tried to explain that the 11 plus system has flaws just like the comprehensive system. The 11 plus system favours your child but can be detrimental to others (such as me). You want your child to have the best opportunities but can't see why I want others to.
As for the glee, if you were told at 11 by a friend that their grammar school teacher had made comments that put these kids on a pedestal and implied you were stupid, would you not at least be a bit pleased that you have proved the teacher wrong?! If another child had labelled you a failure but you got better GCSEs would you not feel a tiny bit of satisfaction? If course you would.
My dad was a teacher who put kids through the 11+ tests for many years. He passed himself but as a teacher he was very much against the system.so, whilst you have an opinion from a personal perspective for your gifted child, my personal experience and the opinions shared by him perhaps give me the advantage in seeing the wider picture.
Most of the kids who go to grammar schools aren't gifted. They are above average. The gifted ones end up in top sets. Isn't that how comprehensive schools work? Perhaps you see a grammar school as a utopia full of gifted angels? They aren't. The grammar school kids I knew were a bit obnoxious.
The 11+ system was scrapped throughout the majority of the UK in the 60s. Perhaps you need to read a few articles about the reasons. There will be a lot of correlation with what I have written.
Now call it a chip if you want. It's not. It's a pragmatic view and I am fine thanks.
I hear you and your frustration is palpable. I still maintain the issue is/was not Grammar Schools but the Secondary Moderns failing. The article backs that up. I know plenty of people who did go to Grammar and had a great time and did very well. Your experience is not universal but it is understandably your world view.
I went to a Comprehensive School (as I said there were no grammars in my county). Maybe it was a particularly good school but we were nurtured and encouraged academically and had great teachers. I did very well in education and HE and have enjoyed a very successful career. That is my direct experience of state school many years ago. Now it is different and my experience as a parent means I would welcome back Grammars BUT as I said early in this thread, that doesn’t mean the 11+ as it stood is the right assessment.
The idea that wanting my child to get the best experience/education but that it is somehow at the expense of anyone else is crazy. Everyone should get a good education but providing extra opportunities and environments for those of higher ability and potential is not a bad thing. "Correct, my experience wasn't universal but it most certainly wasn't unique. Based on my experience at my school I would take a reasonable estimate that about 20% were misplaced. My world view is based on just my experiences. I thought that would have been clear in my previous post. The secondary moderns did what they were supposed to do at the time when the workforce structure was completely different to now. It provide education that would benefit those who failed and therefore weren't expected to go to uni. I actually don't have a problem with the idea of a 2 tier education system but it needs to be flexible and not a line in the sand that labels a child a success or a failure. That system still exists in parts of England. Out of interest, given you didn't live in a county that had grammar schools and there are so few of them (9 I think), how do you know plenty of people who did? I don't think I have discussed schools with anyone at uni or work (where my colleague have come from all over the country) . No idea if any whent to private school. | |||
"Thing is life isn’t fair or meritocratic. People who are gifted, intelligent and talented generally rise to the top. As they should. Now there are people who also rise to the top based on family connections and who they know but that is a whole other topic. I really take issue when people would rather dumb down so everyone gets a shit experience rather than provide opportunities that reward talent. Sure not everyone is talented but then not everyone is clever enough to be a Judge or a Brain Surgeon. That is just the way it is. Oh and I know the response will be not dumb down but lift up standards. Sorry but that just isn’t reality because it will still ultimately come down to the ability and attitude of the kids. If they want to learn they will, if not they will be bored or disruptive. As for seemingly arbitrary age points informing life decisions...yep but that doesn’t stop at 10/11 or 14 (choosing your options) 16 doing GCSEs, 18 A levels, 21/22 completing a degree etc etc. It is life long. What the article you extracted from says to me us not that Grammar Schools were bad but that the Secondary Moderns were bad. It says they needed to up their game. And so the patronising continues...I didn't get to my age and where I am without options, GCSEs, A levels and degree. Some good decisions and some bad decisions. Of course, you are entirely missing my point. It's not about dumbing down. It's about ensuring that children don't get caught up in a position that isn't best for them which is EXACTLY your point for your own child. You seem to be concerned about your child getting the best but then respond that life isn't fair when it comes to others. Some hypocrisy there... Regarding your comment "If they want to learn they will, if not they will be bored or disruptive", yes this is true. But try learning in a disruptive class. I wouldn't be surprised if this was one of your gripes for your own child. Of course, if you truly believed what you say then there shouldn't be a problem with your child at a comprehensive. If they want to learn they will. No point in a grammar or private education. If you find what I said patronising then I will go back to an earlier point and say you have a chip on your shoulder. I also do not see any hypocrisy at all in what I said. Life isn’t fair. My child had talent and secured a scholarship on their own merits. Not everyone can do that because not everyone is the same. There will be things in life they won’t be able to do. That is a good lesson. It is you who is promoting meritocracy not me. Well, you are entitled to your opinion but you clearly aren't listening to mine. As a 16 year old opening my GCSEs I was delighted with my results. knowing that the results would have put me about middle of the grammar school and knowing that half the kids at that school were told at 11 they were better than me made feel good. But that was a chip on my shoulder?!? I disagreed with the system then and still do now because it draws a line. One that's difficult although not impossible to navigate around. I have seen many of my friends at school go on to get good degrees, masters, PhDs and careers when the system was meant for them to end up with menial jobs. They were assessed using a test that favours verbal reasoning rather than science and maths and guess what...My friend and I all followed a mathematical and/or scientific route to academic and career success. Just because you don't see the hypocrisy doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If your child hadn't been so lucky to secure a scholarship (I am sure there are equally as gifted children who don't) then they would have been stuck in a comprehensive school but hey, life isn't fair is it. I really think you need to understand the 11 plus system as it was until scraped in all but a handful of counties before promoting it. The fact that you didn't understand how I failed but didn't go to a comprehensive school really demonstrated your lack of awareness. If a system existed where the top 10% were scooped into a grammar school based a test that identified areas of excellence with a way of promoting late developers then I would be more receptive. A system that does allow the children "who are gifted, intelligent and talented" but screw up a test aged 10 to rise to the top rather that leave them to have to beat the odds. A system that identifies a child who is excellent at maths but average at English as a child that can do brilliantly at GCSE maths, science , computer studies and then beyond. But hey, what would I know as a failure with a chip on my shoulder
I have not once said you are a failure. In fact you demonstrate perfectly the flaw in your own argument. It isn’t/wasn’t only kids who went to Grammar that achieved success in life. But the way you talk about it does also demonstrate having a bit of a chip on your shoulder because of it.
You still don't get it so call it a chip. Never mind.
If I “don’t get it” it is because you haven’t made a convincing or cogent argument. The way you have framed your whole discussion indicates anger and resentment at a system that excluded you and glee at proving “them” wrong. If I was the only person in this thread to comment on that, then maybe it could be put down to my misunderstanding, but others have commented too so it can only be put down to what you have said and how you have said it.
Reading back I realise I have been using “Comprehensive” and “Secondary Modern” interchangeably. My mistake. The distinction I was trying to make was between selective and non selective state schools.
A further thought (it happens)...
The majority of the argument (including the article you quote) focuses on how bad the Secondary Modern schools were/are rather than the Grammars themselves. I find this a completely reductive argument.
It is in the same territory as those who recently have been criticising private schools. The argument goes... “the state school system is rubbish. Those people over there are getting a better experience. We need to stop them having a better experience!”
Then some crap is spouted about how the Private Schools (and the Grammars) drain the clever kids out of the state system so we should stop that and bring them back in.
Then of course it gets even more emotive and references the rich buying a better future for their kids (read middle class parents getting tutors to help little Johnny pass the 11+ to go to Grammar) and because money is involved suddenly these are all bad people and they should be denied (conveniently ignoring the kids on scholarships and bursaries).
The fault wasn’t/isn’t Grammar schools it is the Secondary Moderns. We need to improve standards across the board. You say/imply there is/was a stigma for those who went to Secondary Modern but that is likely based on the reality that the standard of academic education was/is lower. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Raise standards and the stigma drops away.
The other point to come back on is being assessed at 10yrs. And...? We are assessed throughout our lives. Every job interview is an assessment. Depending on the type of job you do you will need to demonstrate skills and experience/knowledge. Many job interviews are multi-stage snd include verbal and numerical reasoning tests.
The 11+ system as it was selected with a fairly crude criteria.
Once selected (or not) a child would spend 5 years at a school designed to focus on either the children gaining uni admission OR giving them basic skills for menial or factory jobs (the exact purpose of a secondary modern school). There was no way of changing schools. You find that acceptable?
Children who failed the 11+ could of course still get to uni but against a number of challenges. These are clear in the article I mentioned.
I was expected to pass. The mock tests I did in school (many of them) put me ahead of those who went to grammar school. I literally scored highest every time. My teacher and parents expected me to pass (will come onto parents later).
I sat the tests and know that I just missed out. First test I did extremely well. The second test I flopped. If you know anything about verbal reasoning tests you will know you can't fluke a test but you can screw one up. The screwed up test pulled me down into the borderline category. My books were assessed and due to my hand writing doomed. I can write very neatly now though...
So, I ended up going to a school that really didn't cater for me. A C grade at GCSE was a success. A lesson was usually disrupted and fights were common.
The only blessing was that a handful of my school year were in a similar position and a few teachers that offered their own time to help especially at A Level maths.
All I have done in my posts is tried to explain that the 11 plus system has flaws just like the comprehensive system. The 11 plus system favours your child but can be detrimental to others (such as me). You want your child to have the best opportunities but can't see why I want others to.
As for the glee, if you were told at 11 by a friend that their grammar school teacher had made comments that put these kids on a pedestal and implied you were stupid, would you not at least be a bit pleased that you have proved the teacher wrong?! If another child had labelled you a failure but you got better GCSEs would you not feel a tiny bit of satisfaction? If course you would.
My dad was a teacher who put kids through the 11+ tests for many years. He passed himself but as a teacher he was very much against the system.so, whilst you have an opinion from a personal perspective for your gifted child, my personal experience and the opinions shared by him perhaps give me the advantage in seeing the wider picture.
Most of the kids who go to grammar schools aren't gifted. They are above average. The gifted ones end up in top sets. Isn't that how comprehensive schools work? Perhaps you see a grammar school as a utopia full of gifted angels? They aren't. The grammar school kids I knew were a bit obnoxious.
The 11+ system was scrapped throughout the majority of the UK in the 60s. Perhaps you need to read a few articles about the reasons. There will be a lot of correlation with what I have written.
Now call it a chip if you want. It's not. It's a pragmatic view and I am fine thanks.
I hear you and your frustration is palpable. I still maintain the issue is/was not Grammar Schools but the Secondary Moderns failing. The article backs that up. I know plenty of people who did go to Grammar and had a great time and did very well. Your experience is not universal but it is understandably your world view.
I went to a Comprehensive School (as I said there were no grammars in my county). Maybe it was a particularly good school but we were nurtured and encouraged academically and had great teachers. I did very well in education and HE and have enjoyed a very successful career. That is my direct experience of state school many years ago. Now it is different and my experience as a parent means I would welcome back Grammars BUT as I said early in this thread, that doesn’t mean the 11+ as it stood is the right assessment.
The idea that wanting my child to get the best experience/education but that it is somehow at the expense of anyone else is crazy. Everyone should get a good education but providing extra opportunities and environments for those of higher ability and potential is not a bad thing.
Correct, my experience wasn't universal but it most certainly wasn't unique. Based on my experience at my school I would take a reasonable estimate that about 20% were misplaced. My world view is based on just my experiences. I thought that would have been clear in my previous post.
The secondary moderns did what they were supposed to do at the time when the workforce structure was completely different to now. It provide education that would benefit those who failed and therefore weren't expected to go to uni.
I actually don't have a problem with the idea of a 2 tier education system but it needs to be flexible and not a line in the sand that labels a child a success or a failure. That system still exists in parts of England.
Out of interest, given you didn't live in a county that had grammar schools and there are so few of them (9 I think), how do you know plenty of people who did? I don't think I have discussed schools with anyone at uni or work (where my colleague have come from all over the country) . No idea if any whent to private school.
"Went to Uni with some. Moved around for work and became friends with colleagues who went. Just through life I guess. | |||
| |||
