Grammar Schools

[StuartO]

I'm surprised no one has started a thread on this media topic of the day.  Going to a Grammar School allowed me to get on in a way which would otherwise have been difficult or impractical for me.  I had the aptitude and I was given the matching opportunity.  My parents faced quite a challenge paying for uniforms etc (of which I was oblivious at the time) but I got free schooling to a high standard among (and in competition with) people of similar aptitude and this allowed me to enter tertiary education.

 

It wasn't a perfect system but it was a lot better for me than the alternatives of the time and I have always been grateful for that opportunity.

[Tracker]

Me too.

 

Perhaps it is is tme to discard the politically correct leftish view that all young people should be dragged down to the same level so that allegedly disadvantaed kids don't feel disadvantaged.

 

But why should those with real ability or talent still be held back just so those without can feel better about themselves as it does not seem to have worked too well for the last 50 years?

 

It seems to me like it always has seemed - discrimination against those whose parents have made an effort, with or without finanacial help from whatever source, to create a better life for themselves and their families and why should that not be rewarded?

[Randonneur]

I must agree with you, I was a borderline case after failing my 11 plus and went to our local Secondary School. We had the same opportunities as the Grammar Schools so there was no problems at all. One of our neighbours children, who were an extremely poor family, went to Grammar Schools and fared really well although the family struggled with the costs involved. Our Daughter went to a Grammar School when they were being phased out but wasn't allowed to take the subjects she wanted at O level because she was a female, this was Technical Drawing, so although I agree with creating new Grammar Schools they are not the be all and end all of our failing education system.

[StuartO]

Randonneur - 2016-09-09 2:38 PM.. I was a borderline case after failing my 11 plus ...

 

The system in our town involved a "second chance" review (at age 13 as I recall) which could result in a move to a Technical School or Grammar from Secondary Modern.  I doubt it was used frequently but I think the opportunity was nevertheless there.

 

My Grammar was quite a large school (five forms in each year) which was fee-paying for some as well as the "scholarship boys" paid for by the local authority.  The fee payers (mostly sons of farmers) were almost invariably in the D and E forms and didn't make it into the 6th Form.  I don't think they had to do Latin either!

 

[nowtelse2do]

Randonneur - 2016-09-09 2:38 PM

 

I must agree with you, I was a borderline case after failing my 11 plus and went to our local Secondary School. We had the same opportunities as the Grammar Schools so there was no problems at all. One of our neighbours children, who were an extremely poor family, went to Grammar Schools and fared really well although the family struggled with the costs involved. Our Daughter went to a Grammar School when they were being phased out but wasn't allowed to take the subjects she wanted at O level because she was a female, this was Technical Drawing, so although I agree with creating new Grammar Schools they are not the be all and end all of our failing education system.

 

+ 1

 

Dave

[PJay]

StuartO - 2016-09-09 1:29 PMI'm surprised no one has started a thread on this media topic of the day.  Going to a Grammar School allowed me to get on in a way which would otherwise have been difficult or impractical for me.  I had the aptitude and I was given the matching opportunity.  My parents faced quite a challenge paying for uniforms etc (of which I was oblivious at the time) but I got free schooling to a high standard among (and in competition with) people of similar aptitude and this allowed me to enter tertiary education.

 

It wasn't a perfect system but it was a lot better for me than the alternatives of the time and I have always been grateful for that opportunity.

I agree with you Stuart. I also went to a Grammar School, and as I came from a single parent family, which was not so usual at the time, my Dad had a struggle to pay for uniform , and at the time we had to use clothing coupons, as well.The current furore re uniforms, I have to agree, that it makes all equal, and the parents who are complaining , should be told that if the kids don't conform, they should go to another school, where the teachers don't care enough to enforce the rules. Mind you I think the parents are to blame, and feel sorry for the kids!We where steamed into ability for all lessons, so if you where good at something you went into top stream, It worked well , but then the teachers where very strict. Some one mentioned Latin, well I learnt it and to this day it stands me in good stead My eldest son was the last year of Grammar schooling , the school combined with the comprehensive next door, so it made a very large school, too big really . My younger two, went to the same school, and where always in the top streams, as the education was still streamed at that timeI hope we do get more Grammar's as I personally think kids to-day , do need more control. but sadly it will take another generation before that really happens Discipline begins at home!!I get appalled that small kids are given I Pads to keep them quiet, I hate to see them siting at tables in hotels with these awful tablets playing . PJayPS I would also bring back the death penalty, BUt that's another story.

[Guest pelmetman]

Not fussed about Grammar schools, it suits some no doubt ;-) .........

 

I'm just glad I survived the education system without getting one :D .........

 

I'd probably be in some brain dead job, clock watching and waiting for my pension if I had 8-) ........

 

 

 

 

 

[snowie]

Tracker - 2016-09-09 2:37

 

It seems to me like it always has seemed - discrimination against those whose parents have made an effort, with or without finanacial help from whatever source, to create a better life for themselves and their families and why should that not be rewarded?

 

I too attende a grammar school, as I live in Lincolnshire: not only was there selection at 11, but we had an "uphill" posh kids grammar, and a "downhill" working class grammar.

I' m grateful mostly to my parents for their support and encouragement for about 15 years from age 11.

I had a profession and a lot of other good educational experiences that I've appreciated ever since.

 

I would have loved to attend a Comprehensive, and find selective education repulsive.

 

When will a government have the balls to tackle disinterested parents?

Parents are the deciding factor, discipline, enthusiasm, ambition, you name it,

 

Regards

Alan b

[snowie]

Tracker - 2016-09-09 2:37

 

It seems to me like it always has seemed - discrimination against those whose parents have made an effort, with or without finanacial help from whatever source, to create a better life for themselves and their families and why should that not be rewarded?

 

I too attende a grammar school, as I live in Lincolnshire: not only was there selection at 11, but we had an "uphill" posh kids grammar, and a "downhill" working class grammar.

I' m grateful mostly to my parents for their support and encouragement for about 15 years from age 11.

I had a profession and a lot of other good educational experiences that I've appreciated ever since.

 

I would have loved to attend a Comprehensive, and find selective education repulsive.

 

When will a government have the balls to tackle disinterested parents?

Parents are the deciding factor, discipline, enthusiasm, ambition, you name it,

 

Regards

Alan b

[Tracker]

pelmetman - 2016-09-09 6:48 PM

 

 

I'd probably be in some brain dead job, clock watching and waiting for my pension if I had 8-)

 

 

Or you might have done what others did and saw work as a means to an end, not an end in itself at a younger age and now be happily retired for many years on a good pension?

 

At the end of the day it makes little difference to most people with any sort of get up and go as they will make their own way in life regardless of what others around them say or do - but I still think that it does them and the country no harm to give those with ability and the right attitude a hand up instead of continually putting them down as advantaged whilst belly aching on about the disadvantaged.

[Violet1956]

Children at the age of 11 are not fools many don't respond well if they "fail" the 11 plus and no amount of telling them that it is a proces solely aimed at "finding the right school for them" will convince some of them that they are not failures. I attended an excellent comprehensive school with high standards of discipline and teaching with a compliment of around 800 pupils. I didn't have to take the 11 plus but if I had done so and failed it I think I may well have written myself off and not entered tertiary education. One of my children failed the 11 plus and was ridiculed by her friends who passed it. So bad was her reaction that we decided to send her to a small local non-selective fee paying school that we could barely afford but which saw her thrive, go on to university and qualify in her chosen profession. At her school the classes were no larger than 20 pupils, she received lots of individual attention and encouragement. Every teacher knew every child by name. I think the government should concentrate rescources on improving our existing compliment of comprehensive schools, reduce there overall size so that they do not become impersonal, reduce class sizes and improve discipline rather that re-introduce a divisive system which I am not convinced ensures that as many children as possible reach their maximum potential.

 

If there are any teachers on here it would be interesting to hear their views. I have my own particular bias due to my personal experience as is apparent from the above. They may have a better take on this subject from a much wider perspective. .

[StuartO]

The crux of the debate about grammar schools is whether using selection at age 11 is too early in life and unfair to those who are damaged by failing.  We use selection later on anyway, when children who do less well in their O levels fail to enter 6th Form, so the issue is just whether age 11 is too early to select. 

 

Clearly some children are likely to be damaged by the experience of failing their 11 plus, but is there any evidence that this damage is anything other than temporary - and anyway aren't we talking about only a small minority of children who will have failed inappropriately? 

 

Surely you can't believe that the education of all others should be compromised in order to protect the few from experiencing failure in the 11 plus, when they will surely experience failure, as we all do, in other aspects of school and social life at around this age anyway?

 

If the 11 Plus is complimented by a review process (historically at age 13) which gives children who have failed inappropriately a second chance when their teacher spot their true aptitude, what's the problem?

 

Incidentally the private school sector has always made it's selection later, at age 13, when children sit the Common Entrance Exam at their Prep School, to test their eligibility for secondary education.  Prep schools are effectively comprehensives, except of course the need to pay fees keeps out most of the poor parents - and the schools are well practiced at coping with the relatively few poor parents whom they encounter.  By "poor" I mean of course poor quality rather than financially disadvantaged.  These schools also provide discrete bursaries for families which fall on hard times too - very generously so.

 

So there is plenty of evidence of effective selection in the 11-13 age group.  Only "level downwards" left wing politics stands in its way.

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Violet1956 - 2016-09-10 12:18 AM

 

Children at the age of 11 are not fools many don't respond well if they "fail" the 11 plus and no amount of telling them that it is a proces solely aimed at "finding the right school for them" will convince some of them that they are not failures. I attended an excellent comprehensive school with high standards of discipline and teaching with a compliment of around 800 pupils. I didn't have to take the 11 plus but if I had done so and failed it I think I may well have written myself off and not entered tertiary education. One of my children failed the 11 plus and was ridiculed by her friends who passed it. So bad was her reaction that we decided to send her to a small local non-selective fee paying school that we could barely afford but which saw her thrive, go on to university and qualify in her chosen profession. At her school the classes were no larger than 20 pupils, she received lots of individual attention and encouragement. Every teacher knew every child by name. I think the government should concentrate rescources on improving our existing compliment of comprehensive schools, reduce there overall size so that they do not become impersonal, reduce class sizes and improve discipline rather that re-introduce a divisive system which I am not convinced ensures that as many children as possible reach their maximum potential.

 

If there are any teachers on here it would be interesting to hear their views. I have my own particular bias due to my personal experience as is apparent from the above. They may have a better take on this subject from a much wider perspective. .

 

I went to a all boys school that went comprehensive in my final 2 years except for my class.

 

They also brought out a new uniform which none of my class had to wear......

 

Coz we woz in a special class B-) .......

 

Made up of the schools reprobates and they didn't want us to be associated with the school :D .......

 

That probably explains quite a lot (lol)........

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Tracker - 2016-09-09 7:05 PM

 

pelmetman - 2016-09-09 6:48 PM

 

 

I'd probably be in some brain dead job, clock watching and waiting for my pension if I had 8-)

 

 

Or you might have done what others did and saw work as a means to an end, not an end in itself at a younger age and now be happily retired for many years on a good pension?

.

 

Which is wot I is aint I? :-S .........

 

Semi retired at 46.....retired at 58.....and now living of my ass..ets :D.....

 

 

[Violet1956]

I accept Stuart that for some the feeling of failure it may be temporary. It really depends on the child I suppose and whether the school they end up in is a good or a bad one. But where is the evidence that it is the comprehensive system per se and not other features of it that compromises the education of all others as you put it?

 

I don’t believe that only a few fail nor is my concern only for those on the borderline. I have a particular perspective because of my experience of it, not one borne of a political dogma. You as a beneficiary of the grammar system quite naturally have your own. Many like you (can I hazard a guess - as a baby boomer) really benefited from the system and that is to be celebrated. I believe it is important to strive to provide equal opportunity for all children regardless of their socio-economic background. I merely question whether the same type of social and economic mobility achieved for our generation can only be achieved today by the same system today. Is Britain the same place it was back then in terms of the proportion of very bright children who would have been held back but for the Grammar school system because they were from families on low incomes?

 

On another note the review process you mention is compromised by league tables these days. How could we ensure that their existence would not threaten a school's desire to promote a move for children who show an aptitude fitting them for grammar school later on?

 

Veronica

 

[Violet1956]

 

I went to a all boys school that went comprehensive in my final 2 years except for my class.

 

They also brought out a new uniform which none of my class had to wear......

 

Coz we woz in a special class B-) .......

 

Made up of the schools reprobates and they didn't want us to be associated with the school :D .......

 

That probably explains quite a lot (lol)........

 

I’ve a sneaky feeling Dave that you are someone the Grammar School/Secondary Modern system “failed” in terms of how far you continued into higher education. That’s not to say that higher education is the be all and end all of course. You’re obviously not a failure in more important aspects of your life. Your incisive wit gives a clue to just how smart you are. I always look forward to reading your posts.

(lol)

Veronica

 

[StuartO]

Violet1956 - 2016-09-10 11:08 AM .... where is the evidence that it is the comprehensive system per se and not other features of it that compromises the education of all others as you put it?....

 

My understanding of the comprehensive system is that it does put all the eggs in one basket - and that "streaming" of any kind is forbidden.  Large classes of mixed ability are bound to encourage  if not impose a "one size fits all" approach to teaching.  The "needs" children might get extra support in the form of a personal teaching assistant or whatever (including learning difficulties children so they can "be included" in mainstream but there's no special support for bright children at all is there?

 

Fifty percent of (caucasian) children have an IQ below 100, which means not very bright.  Historically only the top 2% or so went to (what would then have been a proper) university, and they would have an IQ of maybe 120.  And by the way the average IQ for afro-carribeans is only 80 (in contrast the average for some asian peoples is higher than 100) so if your class has a mixture of races, the teacher faces an even broader spectrum of aptitudes and abilities to cope with.

 

The fundamental problem is that lefties and liberals want to believe that all children are born with the same potential ability, if only they could be given a fair share of educational resources.  The reality is that an individual child's intellectual potential is determined partly by randon mutation but mostly by the genotype they inherit and then by the quality of their parenting - and if they were bred selectively following the methods of animal husbandry, you would not breed from the thick ones, nor allow them to become parents.

 

Human Eugenics developed in America in the early 20th Century and the theories were applied - for example by passing laws for compulsory sterilisation of stupid people.  The Nazis took the ideas a lot further and we ended up with the Hollocust, so it all became thoroughly unacceptable but the science of eugenics is still valid and some US States did not repeal their eugenics laws until the 1970s.

 

So for lots of reasons putting all your children in the same educational basket and providing only the most needy with additional support dooms those with the best potential to a distinctly sub-optimal education.  In international terms this means the UK slips down the merit order in a big way.

 

So by all means help the most needy to develop their best but let's not neglect the needs of the children with the best potential too.

 

[Violet1956]

StuartO - 2016-09-10 12:15 PM

Violet1956 - 2016-09-10 11:08 AM .... where is the evidence that it is the comprehensive system per se and not other features of it that compromises the education of all others as you put it?....

 

My understanding of the comprehensive system is that it does put all the eggs in one basket - and that "streaming" of any kind is forbidden.  Large classes of mixed ability are bound to encourage  if not impose a "one size fits all" approach to teaching.  The "needs" children might get extra support in the form of a personal teaching assistant or whatever (including learning difficulties children so they can "be included" in mainstream but there's no special support for bright children at all is there?

 

Fifty percent of (caucasian) children have an IQ below 100, which means not very bright.  Historically only the top 2% or so went to (what would then have been a proper) university, and they would have an IQ of maybe 120.  And by the way the average IQ for afro-carribeans is only 80 (in contrast the average for some asian peoples is higher than 100) so if your class has a mixture of races, the teacher faces an even broader spectrum of aptitudes and abilities to cope with.

 

The fundamental problem is that lefties and liberals want to believe that all children are born with the same potential ability, if only they could be given a fair share of educational resources.  The reality is that an individual child's intellectual potential is determined partly by randon mutation but mostly by the genotype they inherit and then by the quality of their parenting - and if they were bred selectively following the methods of animal husbandry, you would not breed from the thick ones, nor allow them to become parents.

 

Human Eugenics developed in America in the early 20th Century and the theories were applied - for example by passing laws for compulsory sterilisation of stupid people.  The Nazis took the ideas a lot further and we ended up with the Hollocust, so it all became thoroughly unacceptable but the science of eugenics is still valid and some US States did not repeal their eugenics laws until the 1970s.

 

So for lots of reasons putting all your children in the same educational basket and providing only the most needy with additional support dooms those with the best potential to a distinctly sub-optimal education.  In international terms this means the UK slips down the merit order in a big way.

 

So by all means help the most needy to develop their best but let's not neglect the needs of the children with the best potential too.

I've no issue with streaming within schools and if there are schools that don't do that then that needs to be changed. I entirely agree that a one size fits all approach to education is completely daft for the reasons you have given. I don't believe that all or even a majority of comprehensive schools do not put children in particular streams for different subjects according to their ability. If we compare the achievement of children in non-selective independent schools with those in the state system the one thing that stands out to me is the difference in class size.

[Guest pelmetman]

Violet1956 - 2016-09-10 11:50 AM

 

 

I went to a all boys school that went comprehensive in my final 2 years except for my class.

 

They also brought out a new uniform which none of my class had to wear......

 

Coz we woz in a special class B-) .......

 

Made up of the schools reprobates and they didn't want us to be associated with the school :D .......

 

That probably explains quite a lot (lol)........

 

I’ve a sneaky feeling Dave that you are someone the Grammar School/Secondary Modern system “failed” in terms of how far you continued into higher education. That’s not to say that higher education is the be all and end all of course. You’re obviously not a failure in more important aspects of your life. Your incisive wit gives a clue to just how smart you are. I always look forward to reading your posts.

(lol)

Veronica

 

I suppose to some I was failed by the education system.......for me I consider myself lucky to have survived the education system without getting one :D .......

 

I once for a laugh did a test for MENSA, apparently at 114 I'm the top end of average, they said I could join .......for a fee..........I ain't that daft 8-) ......

 

 

[StuartO]

The great value (to the general population) of having a private education system running in parallel with the state system is that it provides a basis for comparison, without which we would struggle to judge whether the state system is achieving an adequate standard. Those lefties who would close private education down (because in their view privileged facilities should be banned) would deny us all this vital facility.

 

Private schools are available in a wide spectrum of variants, which cater well for the wide variety of needs which individual children present.  Children who lack academic potential are given skills, especially social and communication skills, which will allow them to make their way in life even if they aren't very bright.  There are academically focused public school for the very bright, like Winchester, but schools like Eton College are less pushy in that respect and aim to deliver a pupil who is nevertheless confident and able and has leadership and management potential.  There are a whole range of second tier public schools which do similar things - including less expensively.

 

I don't believe the state system offers anything like the range and quality which the public schools deliver.  They aren't perfect of course and they make mistakes, but the overall quality presents a terrific example for the state system to aspire to.

 

We cannot afford a good state system of course, hence the compromises like big class sizes, and we also compromise it by allowing political correctness to call too many shots.

 

[Violet1956]

pelmetman - 2016-09-10 1:19 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2016-09-10 11:50 AM

 

 

I suppose to some I was failed by the education system.......for me I consider myself lucky to have survived the education system without getting one :D .......

 

I once for a laugh did a test for MENSA, apparently at 114 I'm the top end of average, they said I could join .......for a fee..........I ain't that daft 8-) ......

 

I have an older sister who went to a Grammar School, came out with one O level and who scored 156 on the Mensa test. Don't have a clue what that shows about whether all really clever kids would benefit from a Grammar School education. She was a bit of a rebel like you and is uproariously funny and good company. I daren't take the MENSA because I fear the outcome. And please spare me any comments from those who would like to hazard a guess what my score would be. (lol)

[Brian Kirby]

One thing that becomes clear from reading all posts in this thread is that everyone’s experience of grammar schools and the 11+ differs. Another thing that becomes clear, is that what people are relating is their experience when they were at school, which I’d guess is quite a few years ago, with only the odd reference to how their children fared more recently. It is also clear that the way in which various education authorities around the country interpreted the 1944 Education Act varied quite widely, so that one person’s experience of a grammar school, and therefore their expectation for such schools, is very different to that of someone educated under a different education authority. This must be borne in mind: there was no universally applicable standard, and under the present mix of free schools, faith schools, academies, and plain vanilla comprehensive schools, the likelihood of newly created grammar schools providing a consistent product seems remote in the extreme. After all, “grammar school” is, until defined, just another name.

 

My own experience of 11+ selection was that it was immensely divisive, that friendships were fractured (among parents as well as children), and that it was socially divisive in a way difficult to imagine today. Why? Largely because the local education authority adopted a very simple model. It designated relatively few grammar schools, to which it allocated the best teaching staff and resources (even the art, woodwork, metalwork, and domestic science classrooms being better equipped at the grammars), designating all other secondary schools as “secondary modern” schools, which got the remaining teaching staff and the remaining resources. (This improved over the following decades, but it represents education as it was when I was at school.) Those who failed the 11+ had no second chances, and there were no technical schools as envisaged by the ’44 Act, and the sec-mods did not teach to GCE standard, so the ability of bright “late developers” to gain advantage from transfer to a grammar could not arise. None of these schools were co-ed. The number of places available at grammar schools (constant, no expansion) dictated the 11+ pass mark each year, which therefore fluctuated accordingly. Some year’s intakes were renowned for being exceptionally bright, other year’s otherwise! No comment! :-) Being a rural area, children travelled from up to 15 miles around to attend the grammar schools, while those attending the more widely distributed sec-mods, although greater in number, generally spent much less time on buses and trains.

 

In that context, I find some of the comments made in this string disconcerting. I still see some of those 11+ “failures”, and can assure anyone willing to listen that the scarring, and some of the resentment, is still there. To what end this could have been beneficial I cannot imagine. If the parents of those who failed had the means they were sent to one of a number of private, fee paying, schools (from which most ultimately emerged to do quite well). The local boys’ version being named, perhaps significantly, the “Old Grammar School”, the girls’ variety being “this or that” “House”, or similar. So, all loss of social status astutely plastered over. Relevant? To education overall no; but to the consequences of that system, I think highly relevant. Those whose parents could afford it regained their confidence, their prospects, and a good education, as the 11+ “mark of Cain” was expunged from their educational records.

 

The real point, of course, is that those sec-mods became, in general, “sink” schools, with poor staff, poor resources, no remedial teaching, and poor outcomes for those consigned to them by their one-off performance at the 11+, and not having chosen parents wisely. What talent was squandered in this way, and did the enhanced prospects for those who attended the grammars compensate for this? In national terms possibly, though I have serious doubts. But, for those individuals affected?

 

That surely is the real point about grammar schools (i.e. selective state schools), whatever form they take. First, they cater for a minority who can demonstrate (through whatever selection process is adopted) that they are “academically gifted”. This group will then be filtered out of whatever schools are designated for the less “academically gifted” rest, lowering the overall academic level of those schools, probably to be reflected in the allocation of teaching staff – limited budgets, best teachers to the brightest kids, or the less bright kids? Tough call?

 

That, ultimately, is my hostility to selection. The academically gifted are, by and large, although demanding of their teachers, the easiest of all to teach. Tell them once and it goes in and stays in, and it doesn’t require that much explanation. It is those others, the late developers, the ones who need more teaching input, the ones who need more encouragement, who perhaps need some remedial teaching, who in reality cost the most in time and resources to educate, and who are substantially the largest in number, who get left behind (and in too many cases failed) through our collective fixation with academic achievement. Through that process we waste talent and turn out disaffected and disadvantaged children into an increasingly technically demanding world.

 

It is not this or that system per se that is wrong – though the present version of a “system” seems to me one that is designed to shield those ultimately responsible from any criticism of its shortcomings – it is that the quality of schools and their teachers, and the amount of resource we are prepared to contribute, is sufficient to allow that that the academically gifted can fly as high as their ability allows, while also allowing the less academically gifted to fly as high as their less academic abilities allow. Presently, I think we are failing the latter group, and I don’t see how putting more resource behind the gifted minority can do other than further prejudice their chances. So, for me, selection along grammar school lines is a false path, and a diversion from the path we should be following.

 

Oh yes, and I also think the idea that comprehensive type schools cramp academic attainment for the gifted is complete nonsense. That school I attended is a very highly reputed comprehensive, which both my children attended, with the numbers leaving to university among the best in the country, and my children’s contemporaries having entered medicine, the law, the arts, and various other fields, while turning out well adjusted, sensible, students at all academic levels. It depends on the head, their staff, and a willingness to put in the necessary resources at all levels, not on selection.

 

[derek pringle]

StuartO - 2016-09-09 3:42 PM

Randonneur - 2016-09-09 2:38 PM.. I was a borderline case after failing my 11 plus ...

 

The system in our town involved a "second chance" review (at age 13 as I recall) which could result in a move to a Technical School or Grammar from Secondary Modern.  I doubt it was used frequently but I think the opportunity was nevertheless there.

 

My Grammar was quite a large school (five forms in each year) which was fee-paying for some as well as the "scholarship boys" paid for by the local authority.  The fee payers (mostly sons of farmers) were almost invariably in the D and E forms and didn't make it into the 6th Form.  I don't think they had to do Latin either!

hi, I was part of the 13plus gang and went to a technical school for their subjects.I did pass the 11 plus but believe it or not my mum wouldnt let me go to the school/s on offer. Stupid but I was only a kid and they didn't involve me in the choice-sad. Anyway all turned out ok for me but I do strongly agree with Trackers comments.cheersderek

[Guest pelmetman]

Talking of education..... how did the education system bods come up with the idea reading writing and arithmetic should be called the 3 "r's" ? :-S ..........

 

 

[malc d]

pelmetman - 2016-09-11 9:28 AM

 

Talking of education..... how did the education system bods come up with the idea reading writing and arithmetic should be called the 3 "r's" ? :-S ..........

 

 

 

 

Readin'

 

Ritin'

 

Rithmatic

 

 

Every grammar school pupil should know that.

 

:-| :-|