Did you go to a grammar school?

[TORONTONY]

The 1954 Kelly's Directory has "Oakwood Techinical High School for Boys" and "Oakwood Techinical High School for Girls" - see here.

 

That is probably right, come to think of it, as the uniform is what I remember. Now I think about it my mother and another cousin went to Dinnington Tech. and they wore brown blazers with badges.

 

---------- Post added 20-09-2016 at 13:07 ----------

 

The senior part of Notre Dame High School for Girls was called OAKBROOK and we spent a lot of our time trying to see the boys from De La Salle College, as we were repressed convent school girls! The boys from there seemed to spend most of their time trying to get away from the masters!! (forum link on De La Salle)

 

Yes, both I and Andycott above have made several comments on the later pages of the forum link for DLSC

[andycott]

The senior part of Notre Dame High School for Girls was called OAKBROOK and we spent a lot of our time trying to see the boys from De La Salle College, as we were repressed convent school girls! The boys from there seemed to spend most of their time trying to get away from the masters!! (forum link on De La Salle)

 

That made me smile:) When did you go to Notre Dame? You might know my cousin Margaret Ryalls who started around 1963 I think.

[jmdee]

Don't forget the intermediate schools. These were kind of halfway between a grammar and secondary modern. I failed the 11+ but was told my score was almost good enough, and if I applied to an intermediate school, there was a good chance I would be accepted. This was done and I was admitted to Marlcliffe. A big mistake, I still wasn't good enough, and would have performed much better at a secondary modern. Oh well, too much watter over t'weir int' t'wicker as they used to say.

[GOLDEN OLDIE]

I went to Notre Dame between 1952 and 1959!!!!

[handypandy]

This is news to me but it's clear that, in any one intake year, the number of places at local grammar schools was limited. This meant that the 11-plus was competitive, with a more-or-less fixed number of grammar school places being available. This in turn was reflected in the "pass mark" so that if more 11-plus pupils than usual did well in the examination, the pass mark was raised so that the potential grammar school intake reflected the places available.

 

Thanks hillsbro, that makes more sense, it sounds fairer although I suppose it does mean that a pass one year, may not have passed the next year, or the year previous. which still makes it a little flawed.

 

 

 

.

[beechnut]

Well, I wouldn't say that this shows a flaw in the system. Clearly there was a fixed number of grammar school places each year, and the difficulty for the people who set the questions was achieving the same "level" with each exam. If in any one year too many pupils "passed" so that the pass mark had to be raised, this could simply have been because the questions were easier.

[trastrick]

Well, I wouldn't say that this shows a flaw in the system. Clearly there was a fixed number of grammar school places each year, and the difficulty for the people who set the questions was achieving the same "level" with each exam. If in any one year too many pupils "passed" so that the pass mark had to be raised, this could simply have been because the questions were easier.

 

There was a great deal of politics in the education system in general.

 

Every summer my partner and I (she was an educational PhD) would take on a huge amount of term papers to mark, on contract. I would generally mark the English Lit.

 

In spite of the fact that she had been doing this for years, she was still required to go for a weeks "training" to be advised "how" to mark the papers "this" year.

 

Always the first sample batch of papers we marked had to be sent in for review, to see if they were being marked "correctly", in accordance withe the new benchmark. Only then would they ship the bulk of the papers to us.

 

They changed the standards arbitrarily, depending on the political pressure on the Education Ministry at the time.

 

I saw this first hand. There was no consistency, what was marked a 8 one year was a 7 the next, and maybe a 9 the next. This was readily apparent as the exam papers often dealt with the same assignment.

 

Since all pupils for that year were all judged by the same standard, I suppose it was reasonably fair, but by following politics, I could always guess whether this would be an "easy" marking year, or a "tough" one.

Edited October 8, 2016 by trastrick

[handypandy]

So....Child (a) could have taken the exam one year and pass. Child (b) takes the same exam the following year, produces the same standard as Child (a) but may fail. With no consistency, it certainly seems like flawed system to me.

 

 

 

[TORONTONY]

So....Child (a) could have taken the exam one year and pass. Child (b) takes the same exam the following year, produces the same standard as Child (a) but may fail. With no consistency, it certainly seems like flawed system to me.

 

 

 

 

Very flawed, I was child (a), I finished up a tradesman and worked until I was 69. My cousin was child (b) he became a Bank President for the whole country. He retired at 55 with 90% salary for 10 years, he now lives a life of luxury in Bondi Beach Australia. It is what you make of yourself after your schooling that matters.

[hillsbro]

So....Child (a) could have taken the exam one year and pass. Child (b) takes the same exam the following year, produces the same standard as Child (a) but may fail. With no consistency, it certainly seems like flawed system to me.

I trhink the difficulty lies in the words "the same exam". Despite all attempts to set questions at the same level, it would have been difficult to achieve the same degree of "hardness" each year. When child (b) took the exam the questions might have been easier, as beechnut suggested, and if the previous year's pass mark were maintained, the number of pupils qualifying for grammar schools would have exceeded the number of available places. Another problem with the 11-plus related to the fact that schools opened, closed, were enlarged etc. and so the availability of grammar school places in any one area varied over time, independently of the number of local pupils who were potential grammar school entrants.