11+ and its aftermath

[Guest]

But if you hadn't passed the 11+, back in those days of O Levels, you probably wouldn't have been privileged enough to do them. As I remember if you failed your 11+ you went to a secondary mod which involved sitting CSEs and the odd O Level. Many schools didn't teach A levels at all.

I didn't really appreciate my grammar school education, but looking back I know that I wouldn't have gone to university and got the job I have now if I had have failed my 11+. I didn't enjoy my school experience, but I wish I had appreciated the education that they gave me - I certainly do now. My family could never have afforded fees and it really was the only way out of poverty back in the 60s and 70s. It is a pity that the govt, etc, can't see that grammar schools are an excellent way of helping children from poorer families to achieve their full potential. They just look on it as unfair privilege.

[Guest]

But if you hadn't passed the 11+, back in those days of O Levels, you probably wouldn't have been privileged enough to do them. As I remember if you failed your 11+ you went to a secondary mod which involved sitting CSEs and the odd O Level. Many schools didn't teach A levels at all.

Don't know where you lived but I went to grammar and got 10 O levels and 3 A levels. My sister went to a comp and got 8 O levels and 3 A levels easily as good as mine. Both of us got degrees and she is now the one in the better paid job. I'm not complaining about it just pointing out that you can get a good education outside of a grammar school.

[jenstudent]

My family could never have afforded fees and it really was the only way out of poverty back in the 60s and 70s. It is a pity that the govt, etc, can't see that grammar schools are an excellent way of helping children from poorer families to achieve their full potential. They just look on it as unfair privilege.

This may be the case in theory (and in reality for some children/ families (including yours) but studies have consistently shown that the majority of children in grammar schools are (and always were) from wealthier families. It seems likely that this trend will continue (if not become more extreme) as success in 11 plus exams increasingly depends on the ability of some parents to pay for private coaching. In my area, some parents from neighbouring non-selective LEAs opt for their children to take the 11 plus exam. The local grammar schools can therefore be even more selective than they were previously, and we have a situation where parents who can afford to transport their children to non-local schools have an advantage.

From the other side however, parents who are able to do this cannot really be blamed for doing so, as the current emphasis on 'parental choice' places a great deal of responsibility (and therefore pressure) on them for ensuring their child goes to a 'good school' (however a good school is defined). To make a related but different point about selection in general, if in choosing schools/ talking about standards we compare schools on the basis of SATs and GCSE/ A Level results (i.e. look at league tables), grammar schools (having 'creamed off' the highest academic achievers) are always going to 'outperform' non-selective schools in the same area. Surely whilst grammar schools still exist therefore, competition between schools can never be fair.

[Guest]

Surely whilst grammar schools still exist therefore, competition between schools can never be fair.

Don't you think there is competition between comprehensive schools? They want to be at the top of the league tables as much as the grammars. Our comp shouts loudly about its beacon status, its 3 in a row outstanding ofsteds, its 75% A-C GCSE passes and all its A* grades!

Is it not a case of the better schools generally taking from middle class catchments and poorer performing schools taking from areas with more social deprevation? Befor everyone shouts out about their local school - yes I know there are always exceptions. The comprehensive my child goes gets fantastic results but takes from a predominantly well off area. The middle class children socialise with each other in and out of school and compete with each other academically in an environment of high expectation both at school and at home. Children from the local council estate tend to be the ones who don't do so well academically but don't on the whole have the same level of parental support (because they are not willing or able) and often have other social issues. These tend to be the children who don't get the GCSE's/leave school at 16.

I don't think getting rid of grammar schools is the answer. Those that are able will always potentially do well. The issue is more about addressing social inequality - something that will probably never be acheived!