| Grammar Schools 22:17 - Sep 8 with 19572 views | texasranger |
I can't help feeling that much of the currently fashionable condemnation of grammar schools is based on two false premises; that they are socially divisive, and that kids who failed the old 11-plus were branded as 'failures'. I'm an old geezer now who went to a boys only grammar school in the early 1950's but we had all sorts there, bright academics through to some right tearaways. I was just a boy from a working class family but I enjoyed and benefited from grammar school though not enough to go to university, doing two years National service instead, but my mates outside school were a mixture of Secondary Modern, Technical and Grammar school boys. We got along fine and theTech and S/Modern boys went on to become printers, plumbers, builders and engineers, all of whom I suspect made more money than I did. Surely any school regardless of type will grade kids by ability and attempting to force kids of different backgrounds to socialise will not work. Finally, condemning today's grammar schools on account of the number of kids getting free school meals seems totally irrelevant. I realise I may be the only surviving Rangers supporter who went to a grammar school so if I get any response I expect it to be unfavourable. No matter. Come on you RRRRRRRRRR's ! |  | | |  |
| Grammar Schools on 09:59 - Sep 10 with 2184 views | Gloucs_R |
| Grammar Schools on 08:43 - Sep 10 by nix |
Attitude? Really? If that's the case, why do people spend over £3,000 on tutoring for the tests. Do you honestly think it doesn't make a difference? Why then do private school children do disproportionately well on these tests? It's the same for A levels. Children at private schools do much better than state school educated children. But where there are two people, one from private and one from state, with identical exam results, the state school child will do statistically better in their degree result. Unfortunately, you can teach people fairly easily to pass one off exams
. It's honestly no skin off my nose. My children will be fine as they're already nearly through the system. And they're from relatively privileged backgrounds; I would have made sure they passed the eleven plus anyway. But honestly future generations of poor kids will suffer. Not all of them, but enough to question the system. The BBC website has articles at the moment with the statistics that demonstrate that overall, poorer children do worse in a grammar school system. |
Thank you, you have just enforced my argument....its all about attitude.
Tests and training can be found online, in a library, etc..but lets all worry about a small % that have the funds to receive extra tutoring. Good luck to the rich, some worked hard to get where they are....I'm not bitter of jealous. I am also not worried about competing with them.
If you want what is best for your kids, if you want them to have ambition and drive, if you want them to do well....they will 99% of the time. Teaching starts at home, its not the soul responsibility of teachers. I failed my 11+...wasn't taught how to approach it. My mum, love her, went and bought me the books and sat at home showing me how to pass. Thats a single mum, working part time, never went to grammar school herself, making the effort to help me succeed. I passed the 12+ with flying colours.
Coming from a lesser background makes no difference....10% of Grammar schools may be for the rich...what about the other 90% of normal families? My old school was full of asian kids who came from 1st or 2nd generation immigrants...their mum's didnt speak English a lot of the time, their dad's had lowly paid jobs...but they all still got into Grammar school. Why? Because their parents drove their behaviour.
But here is the twist, I left school at 16...I just didn't enjoy school and wanted to work (I did get good grades). I worked my way up from YTS apprentice through to a top 10% UK earner...looking back, how? I wanted to succeed. Attitude.  |  |
| |
| Grammar Schools on 10:16 - Sep 10 with 2171 views | Dorse |
I found the worst part about Secondary Schools was being chased by Gripper Stebson who wanted to beat me up and take my dinner money because I asked out Trisha Yates in English. But I was lucky, a kid called Zammo in the lower school ended up dead. If it had been a grammar school, everything would have been so much better. |  |
| 'What do we want? We don't know! When do we want it? Now!' |
| |
| Grammar Schools on 10:38 - Sep 10 with 2151 views | PlanetHonneywood |
In every place where you have selection at such a ridiculously early age, then inequality will come to the fore.
Kids who tend to do well in such systems essentially come from backgrounds where; their parents value and excelled in education, smaller households which allow for study i.e. their own room and not being bothered by lots of siblings, good nutrition plays a part as does the not insignificant factor or, being surrounded by like minded kids/families.
That's not to say identifying ability and tailoring teaching is wrong per se, but at 11? I fear that the 'token' places that will be taken up by kids from working class backgrounds will be just that, token gestures and with cost being a determinative factor from age 18 onwards, the goal posts have been moved to before aged 11.
What is needed in my view, are well funded/resourced schools, teachers actually valued and frankly, I wouldn't rule out returning the bamboo thrashing canes for some. The first outing of which, would be to batter this idea which really has more potential to be divisive than being really inclusive.
I feel sorry for kids, messed about at a time when its bloody hard going for them.
I'd also add, it was a bad day when we decided that exam results and university was everything and that trades were something to be looked down upon and outsourced to people prepared to work for less money. |  |
| |
| Grammar Schools on 11:16 - Sep 10 with 2123 views | nix |
| Grammar Schools on 09:59 - Sep 10 by Gloucs_R |
Thank you, you have just enforced my argument....its all about attitude.
Tests and training can be found online, in a library, etc..but lets all worry about a small % that have the funds to receive extra tutoring. Good luck to the rich, some worked hard to get where they are....I'm not bitter of jealous. I am also not worried about competing with them.
If you want what is best for your kids, if you want them to have ambition and drive, if you want them to do well....they will 99% of the time. Teaching starts at home, its not the soul responsibility of teachers. I failed my 11+...wasn't taught how to approach it. My mum, love her, went and bought me the books and sat at home showing me how to pass. Thats a single mum, working part time, never went to grammar school herself, making the effort to help me succeed. I passed the 12+ with flying colours.
Coming from a lesser background makes no difference....10% of Grammar schools may be for the rich...what about the other 90% of normal families? My old school was full of asian kids who came from 1st or 2nd generation immigrants...their mum's didnt speak English a lot of the time, their dad's had lowly paid jobs...but they all still got into Grammar school. Why? Because their parents drove their behaviour.
But here is the twist, I left school at 16...I just didn't enjoy school and wanted to work (I did get good grades). I worked my way up from YTS apprentice through to a top 10% UK earner...looking back, how? I wanted to succeed. Attitude. |
Your mum sounds fantastic. Good on her and you for going for it. I'm just worried for those kids who don't have a parent like yours. Shouldn't they have the opportunities too that a decent school affords? My point is they just won't get into grammar schools because they'll be pushed out. A decent school might just give them a second chance to be encouraged by other role models, teachers or peers, to do their best and succeed. Being written off at eleven and having a parent that doesn't support them seems a double whammy that's just going to push children who might have succeeded given a better set of circumstances right to the bottom of the pile.
It sounds like you succeeded because your mum had belief in you and instilled in you the idea that you could achieve what you wanted in life. Not everyone is that lucky. Why entrench disadvantage even further by cutting off less fortunate children from the chance of a decent education. |  | | |
| Grammar Schools on 12:16 - Sep 10 with 2089 views | Clive_Anderson |
| Grammar Schools on 17:54 - Sep 9 by Antti_Heinola |
Clive - let's discuss this over a pint mate. I'm not a million miles away from you on this, but honestly haven't got time to write an essay on it! Suffice to say, though, that firstly Unis consider much more than grades and secondly by the age of 18 people are more rounded and their abilities are clearer than they are at the tender age of 10/11, where it seems mad to me to start hacking them apart.
Absolutely believe different schools should tailor to different people - but Grammars are a different thing altogether to that, IMO. Also, there were tons of people who did bugger all at my Grammar because they simply found it too taxing, so they just got left behind too. It did give the best students a better chance of going to Oxbridge, but that was a tiny percentage. They got extra truition (free), coaching etc - yet they were the ones that needed it least. It was a joke. |
Fair play it's all about opinions, I'm just a bit sore from having my education completely and utterly ruined by morons.
I'd agree that the ability to join a grammar later on should be introduced. I don't see where kids are getting torn apart though.
I just don't think we should purposely wreck the chances of all school kids just because we're paranoid that some kids might be getting a better deal somewhere along the line. Yes some people have better parents and of course that is going to give them an advantage in life, but we shouldn't spend 90% of our time and money stopping that giving them a leg up whilst preventing other kids who would have benefitted from the system as well. Discouraging parents helping their kids learn just seems a bit counter-productive. | | | |
| Grammar Schools on 15:38 - Sep 10 with 1984 views | ShotKneesHoop |
| Grammar Schools on 04:33 - Sep 10 by LadbrokeR |
Cranmer avenue Northfields that was where I went for two years and then the school amalgamated with Bordeston boys and Northfields girls. Great years we came second in the league and it was a time that fully cemented my feelings towards Chelscum. |
Ladbroke R,
When did you leave the crumbling joint? I just hope you enjoyed it your schooldays more at Walpole than I did. Bored to distraction, teachers were vindictive tw@ts. Divisive - my mates from primary school were subbed off all over the place with up to 10 mile journeys to schools. I had to commute on the Piccadilly line to get to grammar school.
Having said that the school season tube ticket was free so that was another reason to support QPR because the pass was valid as far as Park Royal.
Then I had wait yonks for the sodding lousy piss poor 105 bus and pay to go down the Western Avenue to walk down Bloemfontein Road to Loftus Road. So it had its good points. |  |
| Why does it feel like R'SWiPe is still on the books? Yer Couldn't Make It Up.Well Done Me! |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Grammar Schools on 20:47 - Sep 10 with 1928 views | martincook |
| Grammar Schools on 08:43 - Sep 10 by nix |
Attitude? Really? If that's the case, why do people spend over £3,000 on tutoring for the tests. Do you honestly think it doesn't make a difference? Why then do private school children do disproportionately well on these tests? It's the same for A levels. Children at private schools do much better than state school educated children. But where there are two people, one from private and one from state, with identical exam results, the state school child will do statistically better in their degree result. Unfortunately, you can teach people fairly easily to pass one off exams
. It's honestly no skin off my nose. My children will be fine as they're already nearly through the system. And they're from relatively privileged backgrounds; I would have made sure they passed the eleven plus anyway. But honestly future generations of poor kids will suffer. Not all of them, but enough to question the system. The BBC website has articles at the moment with the statistics that demonstrate that overall, poorer children do worse in a grammar school system. |
Much as I agree with what you've been saying, can you post a link to the BBC articles in question because I'm not sure that's right.
Thanks. |  | | |
| Grammar Schools on 20:57 - Sep 10 with 1917 views | martincook |
| Grammar Schools on 10:38 - Sep 10 by PlanetHonneywood |
In every place where you have selection at such a ridiculously early age, then inequality will come to the fore.
Kids who tend to do well in such systems essentially come from backgrounds where; their parents value and excelled in education, smaller households which allow for study i.e. their own room and not being bothered by lots of siblings, good nutrition plays a part as does the not insignificant factor or, being surrounded by like minded kids/families.
That's not to say identifying ability and tailoring teaching is wrong per se, but at 11? I fear that the 'token' places that will be taken up by kids from working class backgrounds will be just that, token gestures and with cost being a determinative factor from age 18 onwards, the goal posts have been moved to before aged 11.
What is needed in my view, are well funded/resourced schools, teachers actually valued and frankly, I wouldn't rule out returning the bamboo thrashing canes for some. The first outing of which, would be to batter this idea which really has more potential to be divisive than being really inclusive.
I feel sorry for kids, messed about at a time when its bloody hard going for them.
I'd also add, it was a bad day when we decided that exam results and university was everything and that trades were something to be looked down upon and outsourced to people prepared to work for less money. |
"I wouldn't rule out the bamboo thrashing canes for some." Disagree.
"It was a bad day when someone decided that exam results and university was everything and that trades were something to be looked down upon and outsourced to people prepared to work for less money." Right on. | | | |
| Grammar Schools on 21:42 - Sep 10 with 1886 views | martincook |
Thanks for these links. They compare pupil achievement in state and private education. What I wanted to know was the BBC's take on poorer children doing worse in Grammar Schools because I'm not sure it's been demonstrated that they do. | | | |
| Grammar Schools on 03:51 - Sep 11 with 1836 views | nix |
| Grammar Schools on 21:42 - Sep 10 by martincook |
Thanks for these links. They compare pupil achievement in state and private education. What I wanted to know was the BBC's take on poorer children doing worse in Grammar Schools because I'm not sure it's been demonstrated that they do. |
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-37310541e
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-37320794
They don't obviously show that poorer children do worse in grammar schools than if they were at comprehensives. That would be unlikely as grammars cream off the best and also are likely to have better teaching, more resources etc. But what they do appear to show is that overall poorer children do worse in areas where grammar schools exist, poorer children are less likely to get into grammar schools (for the reasons I gave earlier) and that when the EBacc is considered as a measure of achievement (the gold standard for assessment), there is still a gap of 12 percentage points between attainment of the richer and poorer pupils. Is it really worth disrupting everyone's education, disadvantaging the majority of poorer children, for the benefit of a minority of children, who still may not achieve what their richer friends do?
What worries me is that politicians seem to base their decision-making wholly on their own personal experiences of health services, education etc and illogically think that what worked or didn't work for them is the basis of a complete overhaul of our education or health services, with no consideration of how the country will benefit overall. | | | |
| Grammar Schools on 05:28 - Sep 11 with 1827 views | LadbrokeR |
| Grammar Schools on 15:38 - Sep 10 by ShotKneesHoop |
Ladbroke R,
When did you leave the crumbling joint? I just hope you enjoyed it your schooldays more at Walpole than I did. Bored to distraction, teachers were vindictive tw@ts. Divisive - my mates from primary school were subbed off all over the place with up to 10 mile journeys to schools. I had to commute on the Piccadilly line to get to grammar school.
Having said that the school season tube ticket was free so that was another reason to support QPR because the pass was valid as far as Park Royal.
Then I had wait yonks for the sodding lousy piss poor 105 bus and pay to go down the Western Avenue to walk down Bloemfontein Road to Loftus Road. So it had its good points. |
I left in 1977. I had two years before it became Elthorne High. I remember the head teacher being Nobby Clarke and walks to games lessons at Blondin park. I remember a prefect called Birch who was years older that us but seemed enjoy picking on us. Of course all this changed in 1974 when the Grammar school changed to become a high school. | | | |
| Grammar Schools on 08:15 - Sep 11 with 1806 views | martincook |
| Grammar Schools on 03:51 - Sep 11 by nix |
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-37310541e
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-37320794
They don't obviously show that poorer children do worse in grammar schools than if they were at comprehensives. That would be unlikely as grammars cream off the best and also are likely to have better teaching, more resources etc. But what they do appear to show is that overall poorer children do worse in areas where grammar schools exist, poorer children are less likely to get into grammar schools (for the reasons I gave earlier) and that when the EBacc is considered as a measure of achievement (the gold standard for assessment), there is still a gap of 12 percentage points between attainment of the richer and poorer pupils. Is it really worth disrupting everyone's education, disadvantaging the majority of poorer children, for the benefit of a minority of children, who still may not achieve what their richer friends do?
What worries me is that politicians seem to base their decision-making wholly on their own personal experiences of health services, education etc and illogically think that what worked or didn't work for them is the basis of a complete overhaul of our education or health services, with no consideration of how the country will benefit overall. |
OK, so the BBC doesn't have have an article showing that poorer children do worse at grammar schools. Thanks for clearing that up. | | | |
| Grammar Schools (n/t) on 08:32 - Sep 11 with 1796 views | ElHoop |
| Grammar Schools (n/t) on 13:23 - Sep 10 by Pommyhoop |
Completely with you bro on the lack of females at school. I was at an EX Grammar Catholic All Boys school. Hated it ..I mean HATED ..I didn't go at all in the 5th year.I swore my Son wouldn't go to an all boys school and he didn't ..My two girls went to good Catholic all girls schools tho .until we came over here ...  [Post edited 10 Sep 2016 13:53]
|
The other two went to a mixed grammar but youngest got into boys only grammar and he didn't mind that at all. I guess it's down to what suits you. Thinking about that boys school, I can see why they've wanted to allow grammars to expand as it wasn't fair on them to be stuck with what they've got. This school had an unusual problem which probably wouldn't have arisen in many schools but it's indicative of the sort of stupid situation that can arise when you dictate that they can't expand.
This school would be one of the best performing schools in the country, but it didn't have a dining room or refectory as it's called at the school. It didn't have a dining room when he did the entrance exam and it hadn't had one for yonks. The boys ate at tables outside unless it was too cold or wet, at which point they could eat in the classroom if they wanted. I can't remember the precise details but I think this is pretty much it.
Anyhow, Ofsted comes along and it's outstanding in most respects, apart from the lack of a dining room. So Ofsted dictates that they must provide a proper dining room by such and such a date. So the fun starts.
Well building a dining room is expansion, so there's no finance from the local authority or central government. I don't think that expansion was actually ever forbidden, it just wasn't financed, which was the same thing. However, here Ofsted had deemed that the dining room be built, but there's no finance. So that's hard luck on the school and the fundraising process started, clearly aimed at parents although the old boys society organised the fundraising I think and contributed quite a lot. Anyhow, they're getting the money together and drawing up plans and eventually they start the planning process. So they've designed this refectory and presumably put it to the council and the council was happy with the design. However it's mostly a listed building so the plans then go to English Heritage or whoever it is that looks at these plans, and they aren't happy as some view or other is destroyed by the new refectory. So they have to completely redesign the building so that it's got loads of glass instead of brick and eventually English Heritage are happy and they can go back to the council with these new plans. However, the council isn't happy because the new plans fail on some heat efficiency regulation or the other, and so now there's a planning gridlock. Somehow or the other they manage to get both bodies happy - at more expense I think, and eventually it's built and paid for by the parents and old boys and it looks fantastic. Nobody is or was complaining about this, it's just how it was, but I think that the system did need to be changed and in that respect at least I welcome the plans.
Whether whole new grammar schools are a good idea, I doubt, and ideally we'd get a political consensus over the way forward and try to build something better, but at the moment there's not even a credible opposition party so looking at it logically the kids are likely to continue to suffer from a tangled cluttered and in many respects inadequate system. [Post edited 11 Sep 2016 8:34]
|  | | |
| Grammar Schools on 09:17 - Sep 11 with 1776 views | ShotKneesHoop |
| Grammar Schools on 05:28 - Sep 11 by LadbrokeR |
I left in 1977. I had two years before it became Elthorne High. I remember the head teacher being Nobby Clarke and walks to games lessons at Blondin park. I remember a prefect called Birch who was years older that us but seemed enjoy picking on us. Of course all this changed in 1974 when the Grammar school changed to become a high school. |
Was Nobby Clark the history teacher we nicknamed "Barrel" because of his gut? How did he get a headship?. Blondin Park and Boston Manor Playing Fields were the sports grounds we had to walk to for cricket and football. Felt I was commuting even to play sport there; I couldn't wait to leave in 1963, it must have had some influence on me because I went to a PE College afterwards and was a PE teacher for 4 years before I had to get a job in sales to earn some proper money.
There was talk of Walpole becoming a comprehensive when I left in 1963, I'm amazed it lasted so long. Now I see it has been bulldozed into housing, so no surprise there. I don't have many happy memories of being a pupil there and like Clive I reckon I got on in life in spite of a grammar school education and not because of it. Mostly because I loved sport. | |
| Why does it feel like R'SWiPe is still on the books? Yer Couldn't Make It Up.Well Done Me! |
| |
| Grammar Schools on 14:06 - Sep 11 with 1732 views | derbyhoop |
The problem with grammar schools (and I speak as someone who went to one) is not what happens to the bright students at 11(!!!), it's what happens to the rest, who, in many cases are written off as failures before their 12th birthday.
And, despite the protestations of the OP, they are socially divisive. Not for everyone affected but for far too many. |  |
| Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one’s lifetime. (Mark Twain)
Find me on twitter @derbyhoop |
| |
| Grammar Schools on 15:56 - Sep 11 with 1711 views | nix |
| Grammar Schools on 08:15 - Sep 11 by martincook |
OK, so the BBC doesn't have have an article showing that poorer children do worse at grammar schools. Thanks for clearing that up. |
Actually I never said they did. I said they did worse overall in a grammar school system. This means that includes both those who do get in and that don't. But just puff up your ego a bit if you like. | | | |
| Grammar Schools on 16:37 - Sep 11 with 1708 views | ShotKneesHoop |
A straw poll on this site shows that most of those who went to a grammar school in the past, didn't value what they got there. Which is a pretty damming argument against them, as it appears to benefit the small majority who went there, and pisses off the rest who got ignored there plus everyone who was rejected and went to a secondary modern.
It's elitist, out of date, divisive and unwanted by the majority of the population. | |
| Why does it feel like R'SWiPe is still on the books? Yer Couldn't Make It Up.Well Done Me! |
| |
| Grammar Schools on 18:12 - Sep 11 with 1690 views | Gloucs_R |
| Grammar Schools on 16:37 - Sep 11 by ShotKneesHoop |
A straw poll on this site shows that most of those who went to a grammar school in the past, didn't value what they got there. Which is a pretty damming argument against them, as it appears to benefit the small majority who went there, and pisses off the rest who got ignored there plus everyone who was rejected and went to a secondary modern.
It's elitist, out of date, divisive and unwanted by the majority of the population. |
How is it elitist?
Lets call the Top 10% of earners "rich"....who makes up the other 90% at Grammar schools?
My lad is 6 and in the top group for Maths and reading, is that unfair that they have put him into a different group based on ability? Or is it acceptable to divide based on ability....as long as its within the same school? | |
| |
| Grammar Schools on 18:50 - Sep 11 with 1671 views | ShotKneesHoop |
| Grammar Schools on 18:12 - Sep 11 by Gloucs_R |
How is it elitist?
Lets call the Top 10% of earners "rich"....who makes up the other 90% at Grammar schools?
My lad is 6 and in the top group for Maths and reading, is that unfair that they have put him into a different group based on ability? Or is it acceptable to divide based on ability....as long as its within the same school? |
The rich top 10% would't dream of lowering themselves to send their little darlings to the state school system - that's why they pay for the privilege of sending them to public schools.
It's acceptable to divide within schools, its called streaming - or setting - and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. It happens in most state schools.
It's elitist when the 20% are selected by one exam at a particular age in a child's life to get a perceived better academic standard of secondary education in a specific school - not on ability, but on where they live - and what background they come from - regardless of ability or attitude or effort. Add religion to that proposal- as the current government are doing - and you've got a toxic mix of potential divided communities. | |
| Why does it feel like R'SWiPe is still on the books? Yer Couldn't Make It Up.Well Done Me! |
| |
| Grammar Schools on 19:08 - Sep 11 with 1662 views | Gloucs_R |
| Grammar Schools on 18:50 - Sep 11 by ShotKneesHoop |
The rich top 10% would't dream of lowering themselves to send their little darlings to the state school system - that's why they pay for the privilege of sending them to public schools.
It's acceptable to divide within schools, its called streaming - or setting - and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. It happens in most state schools.
It's elitist when the 20% are selected by one exam at a particular age in a child's life to get a perceived better academic standard of secondary education in a specific school - not on ability, but on where they live - and what background they come from - regardless of ability or attitude or effort. Add religion to that proposal- as the current government are doing - and you've got a toxic mix of potential divided communities. |
I'm a top 10% earner, my kids dont go to private school. A top 10% earner probably doesnt earn as much as you think.
Gloucester- the Grammar schools here accept kids from a pretty large catchment area. All the way from Stroud and Cheltenham (15 miles away).
Slough - I was in a minority as a white British pupil, 60% were asian.
I want my kids to go to Grammar school as I think it removes the little gobshites who dont care and their parents dont care...giving them a better chance at getting good grades. | |
| |
| Grammar Schools on 19:16 - Sep 11 with 1657 views | QPR_Jim |
| Grammar Schools on 18:50 - Sep 11 by ShotKneesHoop |
The rich top 10% would't dream of lowering themselves to send their little darlings to the state school system - that's why they pay for the privilege of sending them to public schools.
It's acceptable to divide within schools, its called streaming - or setting - and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. It happens in most state schools.
It's elitist when the 20% are selected by one exam at a particular age in a child's life to get a perceived better academic standard of secondary education in a specific school - not on ability, but on where they live - and what background they come from - regardless of ability or attitude or effort. Add religion to that proposal- as the current government are doing - and you've got a toxic mix of potential divided communities. |
Not on ability? It's all about the ability to pass a test. I passed it despite coming from the worst primary school in the catchment area and my own teachers thinking i wasn't good enough, they had to take me.
The main advantage grammar schools have is that there are less disruptive students, in my experience there are still the odd poor teacher, generation old textbooks and bullying. But it was nothing like what NorthernR describes.
My sister didn't pass the 11+ and I don't think she felt like she was written off, she had other talents that were more creative and focused on them. I think the approach in our household was more that grammar school was hard to get into and that there was no shame in failing the test as most people would, that's the point of it.
I'm yet to be convinced that there is an alternative system being proposed that would bridge the gap between state school and private school for those that can't afford to pay for their education. The German system sounds ideal but I don't know if any party in the UK is proposing that. As it is we continue down a road where most of the people in power come from private schools and we don't seem to have a method of changing that. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
