Eleven Plus Exam

I was trying to say that if the grammars disappear[and I am not sure if I am for or against], then some of those students that would have got in, then go to private. Which still means that comprehensives are not a total social or possibly educational mix.

soontobe I don't really understand what you are saying and why it is controversial.

Well, Picky, ...

In my case, it's the arthritis in my fingers. It causes me to shorten all sorts of words and commit all sorts of crimes against the English Language that previously and prior to I would never have dreamt of committing. M'Lud.

Call me picky but I abhor the use of the word uni for university. Why oh why do we have to ape what I think was a term used on the Australian soap Neighbours in the 70's/80's? It was certainly never in use when I was an undergraduate.

Can I be controversial here?
Do we think that standards drop for all at comprehensives. Except for those that instead then go to private school?
In case I failed my 11 plus, my parents also entered me for a private school exam.

Excellent post J52, and totally agree. People like my DH were clear winners- despite their humble origins, because he was so bright. But there were/are millions in the middle and either side- who could so easily, on the strength of an exam, and possibly lack of support or and coaching at home, for whom it was just a toss of the die- and those who 'fell the wrong way' were labelled forever, for the most part. Mind you- some failed and it made them absolutely determined to beat the system- and later became great, successful and often, very rich entrepreneurs. Adversity can push the few the right way, but it is rare, sadly.

We have acknowledged on other threads that every child has different strengths, recognised by Howard Gardener as Multiple Intelligence. Education assessment should take these intelligences into account.

Therefore: assessment using the dated method is no longer acceptable,
How many people who have achieved great things are now described as late developers, when in fact they were very able, but not in the standard assessment model? x

Grammar schools are / were divisive in every sense, but especially socially divisive. Education should encompass all societal aspects if it is to produce well rounded individuals secure in their own worth, academic, social, cultural.

Well said, eloethan. The fact that someone puts quotation marks round a word or phrase does not make it a quote. What it really means in that situation is that you do not want the idea to be thought of as yours, even though you wrote it, mollie. It's a bit like the Ukip man that was caught out saying he only said what he did because he was on tablets.

Where I was at school it was only the boys who went to the grammar school. The girls went to the high school. It was supposed to be the equivalent, but you knew the girls school was not considered to be of such a high standard as the grammar school.

mollie65 Whether they were your words or not, you chose to use them and, as you acknowledge, they reflect the received wisdom of that time - as, no doubt, does the phrase "weed out" (Definition: remove unwanted elements).

You have not, I notice, said whether you believe that designating children "no-hopers" at the age of 11 did not adversely affect their life chances.

To decide at the age of 11 that the vast majority of children are unlikely to be capable of succeeding academically is, I feel, presumptuous and ill advised.

The fact that grammar school girls were also subject to a more narrow curriculum than boys I think demonstrates an approach to education that favoured the maintaining of what was perceived to be the "natural order of things" - male, upper class dominance. I feel that, even if the bias against girls is unlikely to be so overt now, the introduction of more grammar school places, reflects this hierarchical mindset and will further entrench inequality.

one not once. Sorry.

And the ones "left behind" are almost all in low paying jobs by virtue again of where we live.

The not going to uni is rather a big thing round our way. I think it is because to go to uni, by definition of where we are, and where the unis are, the uni students have to move away, and therefore travel. And only come back at holiday times. So there is a real divide, and a feeling of being left behind in more ways than once.
It may not be the same feeling for those that live in cities.

eloethan - you did notice I put these words in quotes (not my words but what was done at the time( but the truth was that many of the 35 who did not get to take the 11 plus would have struggled with the academic bent of the Grammar school
I do wish other posters would not jump down my throat because of my use of such words (as a quote - hence the quotation marks)
by the way even at Grammar school - girls were encouraged to do biology rather than physics and chemistry and cookery instead of wood work
sexist attitudes were alive and well.

The main problem for me, as a No-hoper, was that in my sec mod girls didn't do maths or science after the first year (very exceptional girls were allowed). We did business arithmetic and human biology to train us for office or nursing. It always grated that all boys did maths and science, whatever their ability.

mollie65 Do you really believe that - using your own words - designating children "no-hopers" at the age of 11 did not adversely affect their life chances?

back in the 50s at my village school there was a 'prelim' exam which weeded out the 'no-hopers' and only 5 out of our class of 40 went to take the exam for real (the Grammar school was not particularly good but it had a Kudos) and only 2 of us passed. There were chances to move out and in of the Grammar school at 13 (another exam) for those who were in the 'wrong school'
back then going to a secondary modern was no shame as they learned practical skills and many did well in life - at least as well as us Grammar school kids.
I do think the 50% at university is a mistake - even though it massages the unemployment figures and it hadn't occurred to me that the 50% rejects would feel thick. When only the top 10% went to university having gained good A level marks - to be one of the 90% did not mark you out as a failure - you went on to do other things.

I agree about the good start at primary school, before then actually.

But I think that those not going to uni, and their peers going, is a worse problem than the 11+.
Only a small % go to grammar.
50% go to uni.

I concluded it because I had never heard of it. Admittedly I didnt google.
Personally I wouldnt trust Cuba statistics. And some of those other countries on the wikipedia list at all.
But countries like Finland , Norway and Greenland should be ok.

soontobe What makes you conclude that nowhere achieves a good degree of literacy for most of the population? Trisher has already mentioned Cuba.

In 1996 UNICEF found that 41% of Swedish people aged 16-25 were able to achieve the highest level of literacy (this included the ability to proficiently read all types of texts including documents such as tables, schedules, job applications, graphics, charts and maps). The figure for the USA was 18% and Germany was only just above it.

Although this research is old, it does demonstrate that there have been , and probably continue to be, huge differences in literacy levels between developed countries. This, I think, results from the level of priority a country gives to ensuring that every young person receives a good education - and the resources it commits towards achieving that aim.

I still feel that the emphasis should be on getting children off to a good start at primary level. If a child starts to fall behind in reading, writing or arithmetic, more intensive support should be given to help them to catch up. Young people entering into secondary education without these core skills may never attain literacy and numeracy skills at more than a very basic level.

There are another 8 countries which have a literacy rate of 100% at 15 years of age, including Finland, Norway and Greenland.
Where did you get the idea that nobody achieves it, soontobe?

soontobe Cuba has a literacy rate of 99.8%. Something they achieved after they threw out the Americans (when it was only 50-60 %).

The same parents who are paying for tutors for the 11+ will also be paying when it is GCSE and Alevel time, so that their children get all A stars. Of course it isn't fair, but it is a fact of life. The problem is that we no longer value education for its self, only as a series of hoops children have to jump through.

soontobe I think the main emphasis and bulk of resources should be targeted to ensure that all young people leave school being able to read and write properly

I used to think that too.
But I have come to the conclusion, that if nowhere appears to achieve this ideal in the whole world, after 50 years of decentish education in a lot of countries around the world, that for some reason, this is not going to happen.
I can only conclude that it has to be something that happens between conception and say 5, that means there are a significant number of children who are unable to achieve this.

soontobe I think the main emphasis and bulk of resources should be targeted to ensure that all young people leave school being able to read and write properly, to communicate with clarity and confidence, and to analyse and present information. It's vitally important that everyone achieves these objectives, enabling them to go forward in the world, whether it be through further training, going to university or getting an entry level job.

I don't think university education should be the preserve of the middle classes but neither do I think everyone should feel they ought to go to university. These days higher education has just become a money making business anyway and quite a few students are dissatisfied with the standard of tuition.

If young people who don't go to university do think of themselves as "thick" I think this is partly due to the fact that in this country there is too much emphasis on academia and not enough value placed on non-academic occupations.

On the issue of grammar schools in the 60's, although your experience was different, the figures show that, countrywide, there were significantly fewer places allocated to girls.

What do you think of unis Eloethan.
Round our way, the ones who dont go label themselves as thick, because 50% have been going to uni, so the ones left behind assume they must be thick. I think in some ways, that must be a lot harder, especially as the division is made at 18 and not merely 11.
I have been surprised that more has not been made of this nationally.

To balance a bit what has beem said upthread, where I used to live, there was a grammar school for girls, but none for boys.

The 11+ system was never fair. Of course, everyone knows that middle class children were much more likely to pass the 11+ but there were also huge regional disparities in the provision of grammar school places. For example, 35% of pupils in the South West secured a grammar school place, whereas it was only 10% in Nottinghamshire. Also, there were fewer places allocated to girls than boys.

My own view is no doubt coloured by the fact that I failed the 11+. I and many of my friends had, in effect, been labelled as "not very bright" and most of us believed that to be true. However, I would like to think that even if I had passed the 11+ I would still believe it to be an unfair system that creates division and stifles potential.

So much research has been done on different education systems throughout the world and whether selective education produces more effective results. There is so much fluctuation from year to year as to which country is deemed to have the "best" system and so much conflicting evidence that I don't think the research is particularly reliable or useful.

My view is that if you create a system where only a tiny percentage of young people are expected to achieve and, relatively speaking, the remainder will not, that is exactly what you will get - millions of people who have little belief in their abilities and who will never reach their full potential. That surely is not good for the individual or for the country as a whole.