Did you go to a grammar school?

[soft ayperth 11]

I went to High Storrs Grammar 1954-61. Always had my doubts about the fairness of the 11 plus exam though as I knew several kids who were bright but didn't make it. Grammar school education was superb and stood me in good stead for university and a career as an academic. So, yes, I approved of the Grammar school system but no, I didn't like the 11 plus as a selection tool. No idea what would constitute a fairer one though.

[trastrick 866]

I went to High Storrs Grammar 1954-61. Always had my doubts about the fairness of the 11 plus exam though as I knew several kids who were bright but didn't make it. Grammar school education was superb and stood me in good stead for university and a career as an academic. So, yes, I approved of the Grammar school system but no, I didn't like the 11 plus as a selection tool. No idea what would constitute a fairer one though.

 

In some ways the system allowed the lesser lights in school to shine, and come into their own, because all the smarter well dressed A-Team kids had departed to grammar school.

 

Leaving less competition for leadership rolls, sports teams, teacher attention (and even girlfriends). We became bigger fish in a smaller pond?

Edited September 15, 2016 by trastrick

[echo beach 587]

In some ways the system allowed the lesser lights in school to shine, and come into their own, because all the smarter well dressed A-Team kids had departed to grammar school.

 

Leaving less competition for leadership rolls, sports teams, teacher attention (and even girlfriends). We became bigger fish in a smaller pond?

 

Totally agree with your comments trastrick.

 

After a spell at Denby Street nursery I too began my education at Heeley Bank school but I never reached the junior classes because my parents moved to one of the new post war housing developments in the suburbs.

 

If my experience of education is anything to go by then your destiny in terms of secondary schooling was determined well before the 11+ exam. There were only places for 20% of children in grammar schools and, therefore, the primary system streamed youngsters, usually into four or five classes in a year group. The top class was coached to take the 11+ and most passed and successfully entered the grammar school. Everyone else took the exam cold, without any preparation or practice. The result was secondary modern or in a few cases technical school.

 

Youngsters develop at different rates and I, like you trastrick, benefited from the 'second class' education I received and gained my qualifications after leaving school at 15. Subsequently I gained a degree and enjoyed a successful career in teaching. I know many other peers from my school who have had similar success in life and as such I would never endorse a selective system which categorized pupils as 'failures' at such a young age.

 

echo.

[sweetdexter 10]

Totally agree with your comments trastrick.

 

After a spell at Denby Street nursery I too began my education at Heeley Bank school but I never reached the junior classes because my parents moved to one of the new post war housing developments in the suburbs.

 

If my experience of education is anything to go by then your destiny in terms of secondary schooling was determined well before the 11+ exam. There were only places for 20% of children in grammar schools and, therefore, the primary I rsystem streamed youngsters, usually into four or five classes in a year group. The top class was coached to take the 11+ and most passed and successfully entered the grammar school. Everyone else took the exam cold, without any preparation or practice. The result was secondary modern or in a few cases technical school.

 

Youngsters develop at different rates and I, like you trastrick, benefited from the 'second class' education I received and gained my qualifications after leaving school at 15. Subsequently I gained a degree and enjoyed a successful career in teaching. I know many other peers from my school who have had similar success in life and as such I would never endorse a selective system which categorized pupils as 'failures' at such a young age.

 

echo.

i agree

Provisions should be made for late bloomers.To say Yea or Nay for all kids at 11 years of age is wrong

Edited September 16, 2016 by sweetdexter
Did not complete message

[hillsbro 32]

There is no one age that is right for all kids to make the break from primary to secondary education, and this is a powerful argument in favour of the comprehensive system. The 1944 Education Act resulted in the age of 11 being chosen as it's the age when - it was thought - a majority of children would have shown whether or not they might benefit from a grammar school education, or a technical school etc. Some provision - though not enough - was always made for "late bloomers" (I was at college with a student who had failed his 11 plus, but at 13 transferred to a grammar school) but many more pupils were late developers than were able to switch schools in this way. As a back street kid who went to "King Ted's" I suppose I was fortunate; I doubt very much if I would have done as well at a comprehensive school.

[Sidonica 10]

I have a jaded view of grammars, based on my personal experience. Even though I sailed through the 11 plus and the IQ test which we all sat back in the fifties, I achieved nothing academically. A good, flexible comp like my children went to would have suited me far better.

 

I had a similar experience to this, a grammar school was the wrong place for me though I did pass a few '0' levels.

My children went to the local comp and did better, though the school didn't have a very good reputation. I believe any money spent on education should be for the improvement of Comprehensives and I have never understood the need for "Academies".

[DUFFEMS 56]

I passed the 13+ to gain my place in grammar school. It was a good idea for pupils who failed the entry exam at 11+ level but, in practice not so good because 13+ pupils were always playing "catch up" by 2 years. Even some kids in my grammar school class who also passed the 13+ exam had a better grounding than others. I recall being in my first French class being completely out of my depth because most of the class had already done basic level French at their secondary modern schools.

In my opinion, 11+ was a good entry level for kids who would benefit from a grammar school education but, 13+ was never a fair system of entry.

[spider1 11]

Nothing wrong with having a grammar school education ./ My mate went to one and is a lot cleverer than me. Why he is always skint and drives an old car puzzles me . He is good at spelling and maths /me ordinary. Absolutely no common scense at all. I have to lend him my time share for his holidays / Clever but not Bright

Edited September 17, 2016 by spider1
C

[trastrick 866]

Nothing wrong with having a grammar school education ./ My mate went to one and is a lot cleverer than me. Why he is always skint and drives an old car puzzles me . He is good at spelling and maths /me ordinary. Absolutely no common scense at all. I have to lend him my time share for his holidays / Clever but not Bright

 

Well, you can have facts, then there's knowledge, then there's understanding, then there's wisdom, which is the common sense to know the difference.

[spider1 11]

Well, you can have facts, then there's knowledge, then there's understanding, then there's wisdom, which is the common sense to know the difference.

 

This doesnt explain to me why he is so bloody thick , But still a nice man prob a bit to nice and soft.

[beechnut 10]

...In my opinion, 11+ was a good entry level for kids who would benefit from a grammar school education but, 13+ was never a fair system of entry.

I think it depends on the individual child. Hillsbro (Post 17 above) made the point that there is "no one age that is right for all kids to make the break" and his college friend evidently benefited from transfer to a grammar school at 13. Of course, the comprehensive system tries to cater for children of all abilities, and it will always be a moot point as to whether or not grammar schools are a good idea. There is no doubt that many of them provide a first-class education for children who show early promise.

[trastrick 866]

I think it depends on the individual child. Hillsbro (Post 17 above) made the point that there is "no one age that is right for all kids to make the break" and his college friend evidently benefited from transfer to a grammar school at 13. Of course, the comprehensive system tries to cater for children of all abilities, and it will always be a moot point as to whether or not grammar schools are a good idea. There is no doubt that many of them provide a first-class education for children who show early promise.

 

Even though I failed the 11 plus exam I'm a big believer in Grammar Schools.

 

The town I was working in had a Grammar and and Comp, just down the road!

 

The Comp down the road, was graduating thugs and car vandals, with a 30% absentee rate among stressed-out teachers, while the Grammar was sending the odd graduate to Oxford and Cambridge.

 

The differences were so stark, it was embarrassing to the politicians. It got so bad that the politicians wanted to merge the schools, so the the abject failure of the the Secondary school would be covered up and those parents who wanted and could afford the best for their children would be taken down a peg or two.