Most grammar school parents to pay for travel (From Bucks Free Press)

Absolutely disgraceful from this shambles of a council, making children pay to get to school!
Don't worry though, council leader Chris Williams still gets paid around £¼ million a year. So come on kids, cough up for your bus fare.

Sorry, but if you vote for councillors with a policy of freezing or cutting council tax and MPs committed to slash and burn on the deficit and this is what happens.

Grammar schools are taking on acedemy status, that means they take their share of the money available before the rest of the schools.
.
However what was not calculated properly was how much money out of the the pot was to be used for things like cost of the 11+ Selection process and school transport.
.
In effect the Academies have already had that money given to them. Why should the rest of the schools pay again for transport to schools which have already received the money?

Here we go again, attacking the decent hard working folks who already contribute above what they should whilst the feckless get community centres and other schemes put in place to help them whilst they drag themselves out of bed as and when they feel like it, then proceed to sit in front of their huge wide screen TV's till the pubs open or they have to get themselves twice monthly down to the job centre to yet again tell the person opposite that as there is not a job available that pays the £25k plus they get in benefits to 'sustain their lifestyle' and thus what is the point....... This country is mad.

geoffW wrote:
Grammar schools are taking on acedemy status, that means they take their share of the money available before the rest of the schools. . However what was not calculated properly was how much money out of the the pot was to be used for things like cost of the 11+ Selection process and school transport. . In effect the Academies have already had that money given to them. Why should the rest of the schools pay again for transport to schools which have already received the money?

I didn't vote for them!

To be honest if you can afford to pay £1000s to tutor your child through the 11plus (which is what most of the kids who pass receive) in this age of austerity you can afford to pay for a bus to get them there.

yep yet again middle england pays

we are just keeping our head above water, paying taxes and putting a roof over our head with no subsidies or tax breaks!

why bother?

lets just scrap the 11+ selection system and make all secondaries community schools:

pupils can then go to their nearest school with other pupils who represent their community. the costly 11+ system goes saving money
school transport is then only needed for those who live 3+ miles from any secondary

primary schools will benefit with more mix of pupils as parents wont travel to perceived better primaries who turn out better 11+ results ....oh and think of the fuel saving

dont scrap free buses..scrap the selection at secondary school

my son goes to an upper school (non grammar) they cope with mixed abilities by streaming

i grew up in a non grammar county- my school of 2000+ pupils had 3 streams each subdividied into up to 7 groups to cope with differing abilities

it meant we all went to the same school and mixed!!!!.... radical huh!

I still don't get why out of catchment children are able to get onto school transport, surely if you are out of catchment your parents should get you there. My daughter has to get a taxi pick her and 6 others up as the bus is full? Paid for by BCC, now I know why. The taxi's are a joke they drop the kids off at school too early.

Marlow1] wrote:
To be honest if you can afford to pay £1000s to tutor your child through the 11plus (which is what most of the kids who pass receive) in this age of austerity you can afford to pay for a bus to get them there.

What Total utter dribble and that's being polite.
!
My son failed his 11 plus (as did I), he didn't whine, he didn't moan he got on with it. He went to a secondary school, done very well and for his A levels he EARNED a place at a Grammar School where he although bloddy hard work, is doing well. No private tutoring, no special treatment just hard work and determination.

Marlow1] wrote:
To be honest if you can afford to pay £1000s to tutor your child through the 11plus (which is what most of the kids who pass receive) in this age of austerity you can afford to pay for a bus to get them there.

We couldn't afford to have our children tutored yet they both passed the 11+ due to their own academic ability. Paying £1100 EACH to get them to the school that they deserve to attend will make a serious hole in the family budget. Why should these children, who have earned the right, fair and square, to attend a grammar school, have to pay 3x more than their friends at upper school just to get there and back each day? Yet again the children of hard working folk are punished. Anyone who thinks that an upper school can adequately meet the needs of a grammar school qualified child is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Marlow1] wrote:
To be honest if you can afford to pay £1000s to tutor your child through the 11plus (which is what most of the kids who pass receive) in this age of austerity you can afford to pay for a bus to get them there.

Grammar schools already have the best facilities and the best teachers.... so maybe it's time that parents forked out to sustain their children at tax payer funded public schools. It is no coincidence that a good proportion of students passing the 11+ come from well off areas where coaching is done for up to a year before the exam....it is time for a level playing field!

i agree with this in principle but to bring it in this coming year AFTER parents have selected their secondary school preference is wrong. Different decisions would possibly have been made if all the information had been given. The consultation quotes 'suitable school' therefore if a child is eligible for a grammar school then a grammar school and not an upper school should be their option without having to pay for transport. If however parents chose a grammar school that is not their closest, eg, Marlow kids going to Wycombe High then yes they should have to pay, but it should not be brought in until 2013 when parents making a decision can take all that into account.

Stop whingeing about having to pay for transport, it just means your kids won't be able to boast about their fancy holidays and parents may have to cut back on their fancy meals out and guzzling wine every night at home in order to pay for transport to school. You have kids, and unfortunately they cost money.

I have two great well rounded kids, one is in University and they both attended Secondary school.

So stop tying to keep up with the Jones' with all the tutoring just to get a place in a Grammar school, where many children end up unhappy and inadequate because of their pushy parents. Fair enough if your child gets through with just the help of practice papers done at school, but the adverts for tutors now say they take Year 3 children and upwards for tutoring, please give me a break!

as i said, scrap grammars then all pupils willget a fair chance
why becuase my son didnt pass the 11+ is he any less worthy of decent facilities?

i went through a non grammar system and came out with 9 good o levels

as for uper schools not being suitable for gramar kids- that is because they are not meant to be! but if all secondaries took all levels of pupils, then they would have to be!!

All I ask is please do not tar all Grammar school parents with the same brush. We are certainly not wealthy and we certainly do not guzzle wine and take expensive foreign holidays. We work **** hard for our money and, quite rightly, most of it goes towards looking after our children. There is little left at the end of the month for anything posh or expensive, believe me.
This is about limiting free school buses, not the families of children!!

The 11+ is fundamentally an intelligence test and the only 'tutoring' is practice. Two pupils who lived near me, both from humble working families, qualified for grammars and both won places at Oxford fairly and squarely - no tutoring whatsoever. Another I know is now an orthopaedic surgeon after attending the RGS; again no tutoring, only ability. If you prefer non-native speaking surgeons qualified in EU to do your hip replacements rather than home-grown students, then go ahead and banish grammar schools and the only pupils educated to the right standard will be private school kids - cut out the only chance for less wealthy people's children. Great idea!

deecee01 wrote:
Stop whingeing about having to pay for transport, it just means your kids won't be able to boast about their fancy holidays and parents may have to cut back on their fancy meals out and guzzling wine every night at home in order to pay for transport to school. You have kids, and unfortunately they cost money.

I have two great well rounded kids, one is in University and they both attended Secondary school.

So stop tying to keep up with the Jones' with all the tutoring just to get a place in a Grammar school, where many children end up unhappy and inadequate because of their pushy parents. Fair enough if your child gets through with just the help of practice papers done at school, but the adverts for tutors now say they take Year 3 children and upwards for tutoring, please give me a break!

Did you have to pay for transport for your kids? Probably not! What a completely stupid and ignorant post!! I bet you would be the first to complain if it were you!

The 11+ exam is nothing to do with intelligence....and that is why the system is flawed. You can coach children to pass the exam and that is why schools such as Tylers green have a high pass rate.
A teacher at the RGS once told me that you can tell which pupils have been tutored within a couple of weeks...and they struggle for the rest of their school days. Lets do away with this stupid system and give a chance to all our children.

Marlow1] wrote:
To be honest if you can afford to pay £1000s to tutor your child through the 11plus (which is what most of the kids who pass receive) in this age of austerity you can afford to pay for a bus to get them there.

Nonsense!

deecee01 wrote:
Stop whingeing about having to pay for transport, it just means your kids won't be able to boast about their fancy holidays and parents may have to cut back on their fancy meals out and guzzling wine every night at home in order to pay for transport to school. You have kids, and unfortunately they cost money. I have two great well rounded kids, one is in University and they both attended Secondary school. So stop tying to keep up with the Jones' with all the tutoring just to get a place in a Grammar school, where many children end up unhappy and inadequate because of their pushy parents. Fair enough if your child gets through with just the help of practice papers done at school, but the adverts for tutors now say they take Year 3 children and upwards for tutoring, please give me a break!

What planet are you on?

http://tinyurl.com/5
wuoydz

Try this for yourself and see if it's not an intelligence test! For the record I just did it, got 13 out of 15 right - 86%. Also for the record I failed the 11+ in my youth - quite a while ago. It's not a perfect test but comprehensives haven't exactly covered themselves in glory either, have they?

readerabc wrote:
yep yet again middle england pays

we are just keeping our head above water, paying taxes and putting a roof over our head with no subsidies or tax breaks!

why bother?

lets just scrap the 11+ selection system and make all secondaries community schools:

pupils can then go to their nearest school with other pupils who represent their community. the costly 11+ system goes saving money
school transport is then only needed for those who live 3+ miles from any secondary

primary schools will benefit with more mix of pupils as parents wont travel to perceived better primaries who turn out better 11+ results ....oh and think of the fuel saving

dont scrap free buses..scrap the selection at secondary school

my son goes to an upper school (non grammar) they cope with mixed abilities by streaming

i grew up in a non grammar county- my school of 2000+ pupils had 3 streams each subdividied into up to 7 groups to cope with differing abilities

it meant we all went to the same school and mixed!!!!.... radical huh!

Spot on local school = lower travel costs

If parents want kids want to go out of catchment area or to grammar, single sex or faith schools out or area then its their choice and cost

bobby698 wrote:
All I ask is please do not tar all Grammar school parents with the same brush. We are certainly not wealthy and we certainly do not guzzle wine and take expensive foreign holidays. We work **** hard for our money and, quite rightly, most of it goes towards looking after our children. There is little left at the end of the month for anything posh or expensive, believe me. This is about limiting free school buses, not the families of children!!

I couldn't agree more.

tigeran wrote:

deecee01 wrote:
Stop whingeing about having to pay for transport, it just means your kids won't be able to boast about their fancy holidays and parents may have to cut back on their fancy meals out and guzzling wine every night at home in order to pay for transport to school. You have kids, and unfortunately they cost money.

I have two great well rounded kids, one is in University and they both attended Secondary school.

So stop tying to keep up with the Jones' with all the tutoring just to get a place in a Grammar school, where many children end up unhappy and inadequate because of their pushy parents. Fair enough if your child gets through with just the help of practice papers done at school, but the adverts for tutors now say they take Year 3 children and upwards for tutoring, please give me a break!

Did you have to pay for transport for your kids? Probably not! What a completely stupid and ignorant post!! I bet you would be the first to complain if it were you!

For your information I DID pay for my children to get to their comprehensive school.

It was £100 per month, 5 years for one child and 5 years for another child after that so in 10 years I paid £10,000 for school transport.

What a completely stupid and ignorant post you yourself have made :/

fingersphil wrote:
The 11+ exam is nothing to do with intelligence....and that is why the system is flawed. You can coach children to pass the exam and that is why schools such as Tylers green have a high pass rate.
A teacher at the RGS once told me that you can tell which pupils have been tutored within a couple of weeks...and they struggle for the rest of their school days. Lets do away with this stupid system and give a chance to all our children.

I have also heard the same thing, that tutored kids tend to struggle with the subjects they are taught in school as they have been 'trained' to pass a quiz which plays on words and numbers

Bill Taxpayer wrote:

Marlow1] wrote:
To be honest if you can afford to pay £1000s to tutor your child through the 11plus (which is what most of the kids who pass receive) in this age of austerity you can afford to pay for a bus to get them there.

Nonsense!

I have had 2 kids go through the 11plus now in year 7 and 9 at an Upper School and doing very well..no issues with that. They are both bright and are looking to do well. We didn't tutor either of them because we can't afford it. Every single child who passed in both of their years was heavily tutored. Anyone who thinks the 11plus in Buck is now not a test of tutoring really is mistaken.

Bucks 11+, according to a source I found, uses only reasoning tests, not arithmetical ones, unlike Kent for example. See this quote: "Eleven plus and similar exams vary around the country but will use some or all of the following components:
Verbal reasoning (VR)
Non-Verbal reasoning (NVR)
Mathematics (MA)
English (EN)
In Buckinghamshire children sit just two verbal reasoning papers. In Kent children will sit all four of the above disciplines" Quote ends.

A candidate is either good or not where verbal reasoning is concerned. I fail to see how any tutoring beyond familiarisation can guarantee a pass if the child has not been born with that type of mind. So-called tutoring might remove the fear element from being confronted with a new kind of test, but mainly it's a profit making enterprise tapping into parents' gullibility.

readerabc wrote:
as i said, scrap grammars then all pupils willget a fair chance why becuase my son didnt pass the 11+ is he any less worthy of decent facilities? i went through a non grammar system and came out with 9 good o levels as for uper schools not being suitable for gramar kids- that is because they are not meant to be! but if all secondaries took all levels of pupils, then they would have to be!!

All pupils do get a fair chance, that's what's what's brilliant about the system, that kids from poor families can acheive a place at a world class school is something we should proud of. Unfortunately there are spiteful whining sh!ts who scoff at those who do earn a place then bleat and about it because their own children didn't get a place. I went to Secondary School, I did so because my academic level wasn't suited to Grammar, why should my ability at that time hold somebody else back? Academic ability isn't the be all and end all of life, neither is going to University.
!
The myth trotted out, that people spend thousands on preparing their children for Grammar Schools, when thousands would actually get their children into fee paying schools, highlights just how jealous and stupid some people can be, besides, the 11+ is designed such that it would be very difficult to coach for or indeed tutor for.
!
As for transport, if they choose to go to a particular school then they should pay or make there own arrangements, with that, I agree.

motco wrote:
The 11+ is fundamentally an intelligence test and the only 'tutoring' is practice. Two pupils who lived near me, both from humble working families, qualified for grammars and both won places at Oxford fairly and squarely - no tutoring whatsoever. Another I know is now an orthopaedic surgeon after attending the RGS; again no tutoring, only ability. If you prefer non-native speaking surgeons qualified in EU to do your hip replacements rather than home-grown students, then go ahead and banish grammar schools and the only pupils educated to the right standard will be private school kids - cut out the only chance for less wealthy people's children. Great idea!

Well said!!

If tutoring makes no difference why do so many people use it? I would bet that over 80 percent of kids at Bucks Grammar Schools have had some sort of tutoring outside the 2 practice papers schools are legally allowed to offer. The pass percentage at the 11 plus is around 85-90 per cent. What other exam do you need to score so highly to be seen to achieve an acceptable standard? It is exam techniques to get through all the questions in time and lists and lists of vocab that appear regularly that tutors teach and charge so highly for.

deecee01 wrote:

fingersphil wrote:
The 11+ exam is nothing to do with intelligence....and that is why the system is flawed. You can coach children to pass the exam and that is why schools such as Tylers green have a high pass rate.
A teacher at the RGS once told me that you can tell which pupils have been tutored within a couple of weeks...and they struggle for the rest of their school days. Lets do away with this stupid system and give a chance to all our children.

I have also heard the same thing, that tutored kids tend to struggle with the subjects they are taught in school as they have been 'trained' to pass a quiz which plays on words and numbers

I think this is one of the myths, backed up with anecdotal evidence 'a teacher at the RGS once told me' that people who are scared of the idea of a society of ten-year olds treated respectfully and equally like to peddle - that the 11+ REALLY IS a test of ability, and children who are coached for it ‘struggle’ when they pass, among the ‘natural’ pupils at grammar schools. If the practice of coaching children to pass the 11+ is so widespread (and it IS widespread particularly in this and other areas that continue with this idiotic exam) then the 11+ and ‘selection’ should be abolished. If you are a parent who has paid for coaching for your child then you did the right thing – heads of Oxford colleges have failed the 11+ and achieved success academically after the ‘destruction’ of grammar schools and their replacement by comprehensives. The 11+ is a triumph of irrationality over what we can all see around us to be true.

‘Wayneo’, ‘andy40’ and ‘catflap’ are getting confused – grammar schools are an unfair privilege, not a ‘right’ that you earn ‘fair and square’ and ‘deserve’ and also a privilege that disadvantages the majority of children who fail the 11+. ‘Catflap’ also parrots the absurd idea that parents ‘select their secondary school preference’ and that they might not have sent their children to a grammar school if they had realised they were going to have to pay bus fares – they might have ‘chosen’ to give them an ‘equal but different’ education in one of the numerous secondary modern schools that do not get children into good universities and/or are classified as ‘failing’ by the schools inspectorate. Most parents whose children pass the 11+ are well off in spite of the minority of talented children form working class backgrounds and their parents will continue to get them to school regardless of the extra expense. The problem is the 11+ - most honest people will admit that all the solemn stuff uttered about excellence and choice is bull excrement that obscures the fundamental idiocy of advantaging a small minority of children who are already advantaged enough. Parents wailing about the fact that they are now having to contribute to the cost of the free ride they receive from the taxpayer, are like children wailing because they have been refused an extra ice cream.

Bucks CC have done a report on their 11+ test (which you can get from them). Summary below
"• Historically, tests such as verbal reasoning have been used to determine who takes up a place at a grammar school because they are thought to measure fixed or underlying ability – therefore impacted very little by coaching.
• Modern interpretations view reasoning tests as reflecting the pupil’s experiences up to the time of testing rather than providing an indication of fixed potential, and therefore the impact of coaching is much more important for consideration.
• There are few studies which look specifically at the impact of coaching on selection at 11+ in the UK, reflective of the fact that there are now few authorities still operating a selective system.
• The key studies which have been referred to in the press most recently were carried out in Northern Ireland, where the majority of counties operated a selective system (Bunting and Mooney (2001), Egan and Bunting (1991). These studies investigated the impact of coaching on verbal reasoning test scores.
• In Northern Ireland pupils are prepared in school for the tests over a period of at least a year, through regular familiarisation, coaching and practice papers. Bunting and Mooney investigated the effect of 3 hours coaching prior to this longer period and found it lead to a small but significant gain of 5 points. Most significantly the coaching given in schools over the months following this resulting in pupils marks doubling in total.
• Egan and Bunting’s study compared groups of children who were coached for at least a year, with those who had had no coaching. Pupils with higher ability benefited most from coaching, but that even when ability was accounted for, most children could double their scores as a result of coaching. The significant gains in scores attributed to coaching would have meant that, regardless of ability, none of the pupils who had not been coached, would have achieved a score in the top 70% required for selection into grammar school.
• Other studies, though not involving pupils of the same age, and involving tests of a slightly different nature show the same trend, i.e. that coaching can have a significant impact on scores in reasoning tests.
• The current research evidence would suggest that unless you can ensure equal effectiveness or access to coaching, then you cannot make assumptions about ability based on the verbal reasoning tests."

wayneo wrote:

Marlow1] wrote:
To be honest if you can afford to pay £1000s to tutor your child through the 11plus (which is what most of the kids who pass receive) in this age of austerity you can afford to pay for a bus to get them there.

What Total utter dribble and that's being polite.
!
My son failed his 11 plus (as did I), he didn't whine, he didn't moan he got on with it. He went to a secondary school, done very well and for his A levels he EARNED a place at a Grammar School where he although bloddy hard work, is doing well. No private tutoring, no special treatment just hard work and determination.

The mental processes of ‘Wayneo’ in these columns is a frequent source of bafflement (he opposed the BBC licence fee some months ago as well, and gave no reasons for this). ‘Wayneo’ has trotted out the idea before that he might have ‘held back’ brighter pupils if he had passed the 11+– I wonder how he would have done this – would the braininess of the ‘naturally cleverer’ pupils have trickled into his brain and gone to earth like residual voltage from a light bulb? Opposition to the 11+ is not ‘whining’ or 'moaning' resulting from some form of masculinity failure as ‘Wayneo’ seems to believe. If he really believes this trash then he should not impose it on another generation of children in the modern world. If it made no difference to him and his son to fail the 11+ then why have this discredited exam in the first place and if his son ‘EARNED’ a place at A level in a grammar school then why didn’t he pass the 11+ in the first place – what happened to him in the time between 11+ failure and A level success?

'Wayneo' - 'Hercule Poirot' answers my last question - academic research bears out common sense and observation,
'Modern interpretations view reasoning tests as reflecting the pupil’s experiences up to the time of testing rather than providing an indication of fixed potential ... '

‘Wayneo’, ‘andy40’ and ‘catflap’ are getting confused – grammar schools are an unfair privilege, not a ‘right’ that you earn ‘fair and square’ and ‘deserve’ and also a privilege that disadvantages the majority of children who fail the 11+. ‘Catflap’ also parrots the absurd idea that parents ‘select their secondary school preference’ and that they might not have sent their children to a grammar school if they had realised they were going to have to pay bus fares – they might have ‘chosen’ to give them an ‘equal but different’ education in one of the numerous secondary modern schools that do not get children into good universities and/or are classified as ‘failing’ by the schools inspectorate. Most parents whose children pass the 11+ are well off in spite of the minority of talented children form working class backgrounds and their parents will continue to get them to school regardless of the extra expense. The problem is the 11+ - most honest people will admit that all the solemn stuff uttered about excellence and choice is bull excrement that obscures the fundamental idiocy of advantaging a small minority of children who are already advantaged enough. Parents wailing about the fact that they are now having to contribute to the cost of the free ride they receive from the taxpayer, are like children wailing because they have been refused an extra ice cream.

motco wrote:
Bucks 11+, according to a source I found, uses only reasoning tests, not arithmetical ones, unlike Kent for example. See this quote: "Eleven plus and similar exams vary around the country but will use some or all of the following components:
Verbal reasoning (VR)
Non-Verbal reasoning (NVR)
Mathematics (MA)
English (EN)
In Buckinghamshire children sit just two verbal reasoning papers. In Kent children will sit all four of the above disciplines" Quote ends.

A candidate is either good or not where verbal reasoning is concerned. I fail to see how any tutoring beyond familiarisation can guarantee a pass if the child has not been born with that type of mind. So-called tutoring might remove the fear element from being confronted with a new kind of test, but mainly it's a profit making enterprise tapping into parents' gullibility.

The results can be changed by coaching if a pass cannot be 'guaranteed'. All that money wasted on a test that cannot be of any use to a child not 'born with that type of mind' and only motco is smart enough to see through the fraud.

“I don't want to talk about the 11 plus,” he said.

Why not?!

HerculePoirot wrote:
“I don't want to talk about the 11 plus,” he said.

Why not?!

Because it's a source of tremendous animosity and almost impossible to justify on rational grounds.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

HerculePoirot wrote:
“I don't want to talk about the 11 plus,” he said.

Why not?!

Because it's a source of tremendous animosity and almost impossible to justify on rational grounds.

And it is the policy of his party so he would be expected to justify it.

And the results cost a small fortune in bus passes...

Just dashed this off to Steve Cohen,

'I see you have an opinion poll ‘Should the 11-plus grammar school entrance exam be scrapped?' in your online version. Last year you did a similar survey to establish public support or the lack of it for the Booker Stadium. When you published the results you recorded how many responses had been multiple responses from the same person or at least the same computer. Do you intend to do this again when you announce the results of the poll on the 11+?'

HerculePoirot wrote:
And the results cost a small fortune in bus passes...

And a considerable fortune in wasted talent.

I see there is an advert on this page,

'London 11-plus & Common Entrance tuition, qualified private home tutors, top results, est. 1977 www.fleet-tutors.co.
uk'

This is the reality of the 'meritocratic' system.

"Just dashed this off to Steve Cohen"

Send it in 10 times and he might get the message.

'Some bemused mums questioned how the impact on grammar pupils would be fair, arguing grammar schools would become more selective and about who could afford to pay the travel fees – rather than academic ability.'

Why are the poor 'mums' so 'bemused' - the system has little to do with genuine academic ability at the moment?

Weren't any dads bemused or does everything have to be put into BFP/tabloid speak?

'He indicated the council is looking at alternatives to the current exam system to get into grammar schools.'

They're FASCINATED by the idea of separating sheep from goats - even at age ten. Why tinker with the exam system - whatever replaces it will only be gradually hijacked by well-off parents loath to pay school fees - get rid of supposedly 'elite' and 'selective' schools and replace them with a good education for all - level the system upwards?

Actually, I would say that any change to the 11+ exam system is likely to make the problems worse - kids will have to spend even longer in preparation before they can demonstrate their natural ability..

What sort of test is Cllr Appleyard looking at?

Is he worried that the same company that sets the tests also makes squillions flogging "practice" materials and advice to the Council!? No possible conflict of interest there. Imagine the advert: "Coaching materials for our coaching-proof tests!".

motco wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/5

wuoydz

Try this for yourself and see if it's not an intelligence test! For the record I just did it, got 13 out of 15 right - 86%. Also for the record I failed the 11+ in my youth - quite a while ago. It's not a perfect test but comprehensives haven't exactly covered themselves in glory either, have they?

What has this, your life history and your present day score at this test got to do with ANYTHING we are talking about? What is the point of it apart from the fact that it is an intelligence test and how have the comprehensives not 'exactly covered themselves in glory either, have they'?

Up until very recently I was 100% pro selection. I passed my 12 plus ( as it ws then) as did my siblings, as did my children.No coaching involved.
However I am afraid that the days of children being given a fair crack of the whip where grammar schools are concerned are long gone.
The principle is sound - why shouldn't we develop the superior brains of the future? Why shouldn't the working class kid be given the same chance as anyone else?
But it isn't like that anymore. Sadly the more affluent schools do tend to coach, and sadly it is those with the most money who coach their children.
My children both caught the bus to school every day and we paid - it was not a problem. To be fair the school was in our catchment area.
But they both tell tales of the appalling behaviour of these so called well brought up children who were not used to public transport. They also said that it was pretty obvious who had been coached because these kids struggled very quickly.
Which makes it a travesty because those spaces could have been used by children with brains.



The 11 plus exam IMO is not a test of intellectual superiority. If they really wanted to cream off the top 25% they should be doing straight forward tests in the three Rs.

You can coach children to take this exam because it is a matter of knowing how to answer the questions - there is a knack involved. Once you have solved the riddle - it is easy.
So ( as others have said)

And yes Lawrence - that is a U turn!!!! :))))

'If they really wanted to cream off the top 25% they should be doing straight forward tests in the three Rs.'

Dear ‘dts’ – why do they want to 'cream off the top 25%' at age ten in the first place? The 11+ feeds into some people's fantasies of innate hierarchies of natural superiority - even if it were administered with scrupulous accuracy and consistency some small girl or boy might have an off day the morning they took the exam and be unable to achieve their full intellectual potential in adolescence.

"Up until very recently I was 100% pro selection".

I think the same may be true for the Council, for exactly the reasons as you give in your post...

demoness the second wrote:
And yes Lawrence - that is a U turn!!!! :))))

I have made U turns in my life - it would be strange if I still had the opinions and prejudices I had when I was 20 (two years ago). (Lawrence looks guilty.)

It would be interesting to see what would happen if a market research company or better still the Electoral Reform Society did a comprehensive (no pun intended) survey of what local parents with children up to the age of ten and from ten to twenty think of the so-called 'selective system' and what it does.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

wayneo wrote:

Marlow1] wrote:
To be honest if you can afford to pay £1000s to tutor your child through the 11plus (which is what most of the kids who pass receive) in this age of austerity you can afford to pay for a bus to get them there.

What Total utter dribble and that's being polite.
!
My son failed his 11 plus (as did I), he didn't whine, he didn't moan he got on with it. He went to a secondary school, done very well and for his A levels he EARNED a place at a Grammar School where he although bloddy hard work, is doing well. No private tutoring, no special treatment just hard work and determination.

The mental processes of ‘Wayneo’ in these columns is a frequent source of bafflement (he opposed the BBC licence fee some months ago as well, and gave no reasons for this). ‘Wayneo’ has trotted out the idea before that he might have ‘held back’ brighter pupils if he had passed the 11+– I wonder how he would have done this – would the braininess of the ‘naturally cleverer’ pupils have trickled into his brain and gone to earth like residual voltage from a light bulb? Opposition to the 11+ is not ‘whining’ or 'moaning' resulting from some form of masculinity failure as ‘Wayneo’ seems to believe. If he really believes this trash then he should not impose it on another generation of children in the modern world. If it made no difference to him and his son to fail the 11+ then why have this discredited exam in the first place and if his son ‘EARNED’ a place at A level in a grammar school then why didn’t he pass the 11+ in the first place – what happened to him in the time between 11+ failure and A level success?

To quote your final point Lawrence -

'what happened to him in the time between 11+ failure and A level success?'

Why do you deem this child a failure for not achieving the correct number in a test. Why does it have to be a case of passing or failing a word puzzle? No wonder kids get an inferiority complex if at the age of 10/11 years old they are being told they have failed a silly test

deecee01 wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

wayneo wrote:

Marlow1] wrote:
To be honest if you can afford to pay £1000s to tutor your child through the 11plus (which is what most of the kids who pass receive) in this age of austerity you can afford to pay for a bus to get them there.

What Total utter dribble and that's being polite.
!
My son failed his 11 plus (as did I), he didn't whine, he didn't moan he got on with it. He went to a secondary school, done very well and for his A levels he EARNED a place at a Grammar School where he although bloddy hard work, is doing well. No private tutoring, no special treatment just hard work and determination.

The mental processes of ‘Wayneo’ in these columns is a frequent source of bafflement (he opposed the BBC licence fee some months ago as well, and gave no reasons for this). ‘Wayneo’ has trotted out the idea before that he might have ‘held back’ brighter pupils if he had passed the 11+– I wonder how he would have done this – would the braininess of the ‘naturally cleverer’ pupils have trickled into his brain and gone to earth like residual voltage from a light bulb? Opposition to the 11+ is not ‘whining’ or 'moaning' resulting from some form of masculinity failure as ‘Wayneo’ seems to believe. If he really believes this trash then he should not impose it on another generation of children in the modern world. If it made no difference to him and his son to fail the 11+ then why have this discredited exam in the first place and if his son ‘EARNED’ a place at A level in a grammar school then why didn’t he pass the 11+ in the first place – what happened to him in the time between 11+ failure and A level success?

To quote your final point Lawrence -

'what happened to him in the time between 11+ failure and A level success?'

Why do you deem this child a failure for not achieving the correct number in a test. Why does it have to be a case of passing or failing a word puzzle? No wonder kids get an inferiority complex if at the age of 10/11 years old they are being told they have failed a silly test

I DON'T 'deem him a failure' - I think the 'silly test' failed him and a lot of other young people and cannot understand why his dad seems to support the continuation of this test.

To make it clearer 'deecee' - if he had the potential to do A levels at 18 he should surely have passed the 11+ in the first place if the exam means anything in terms of identifying acafemic potential (which it doesn't).

(academic)

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
'If they really wanted to cream off the top 25% they should be doing straight forward tests in the three Rs.'

Dear ‘dts’ – why do they want to 'cream off the top 25%' at age ten in the first place? The 11+ feeds into some people's fantasies of innate hierarchies of natural superiority - even if it were administered with scrupulous accuracy and consistency some small girl or boy might have an off day the morning they took the exam and be unable to achieve their full intellectual potential in adolescence.

I think that it should be done by continuous assessment and to be fair it should be like any big exam such as a GCSE etc. If the child is unwell and it can be proved that is why they did not do as well as expected, then they should be given another go.

I don't see the point in making them into sheep and goats in the first place - it doesn't help anyone achieve their intellectual potetntial - rather the reverse.

Marlow1] wrote:
If tutoring makes no difference why do so many people use it? I would bet that over 80 percent of kids at Bucks Grammar Schools have had some sort of tutoring outside the 2 practice papers schools are legally allowed to offer. The pass percentage at the 11 plus is around 85-90 per cent. What other exam do you need to score so highly to be seen to achieve an acceptable standard? It is exam techniques to get through all the questions in time and lists and lists of vocab that appear regularly that tutors teach and charge so highly for.

As with any exam be it A-levels etc, people believe it will help them, I purchased practise papers for my son, they didn't make one jot of difference other than give him an idea of what to expect, either way, he still didn't pass the exam, that's life and no amount of whining or whinging will change it.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
‘Wayneo’, ‘andy40’ and ‘catflap’ are getting confused – grammar schools are an unfair privilege, not a ‘right’ that you earn ‘fair and square’ and ‘deserve’ and also a privilege that disadvantages the majority of children who fail the 11+. ‘Catflap’ also parrots the absurd idea that parents ‘select their secondary school preference’ and that they might not have sent their children to a grammar school if they had realised they were going to have to pay bus fares – they might have ‘chosen’ to give them an ‘equal but different’ education in one of the numerous secondary modern schools that do not get children into good universities and/or are classified as ‘failing’ by the schools inspectorate. Most parents whose children pass the 11+ are well off in spite of the minority of talented children form working class backgrounds and their parents will continue to get them to school regardless of the extra expense. The problem is the 11+ - most honest people will admit that all the solemn stuff uttered about excellence and choice is bull excrement that obscures the fundamental idiocy of advantaging a small minority of children who are already advantaged enough. Parents wailing about the fact that they are now having to contribute to the cost of the free ride they receive from the taxpayer, are like children wailing because they have been refused an extra ice cream.

They are not an unfair privilege at all, as my son has recently found out, his secondary school didn't push him half has hard as the Grammar school he attends, does now. Unfortunately certain people attempt to confuse Grammar Schools with that of fee paying schooling as a means of furthering some form of class war, in fact if these people could see further than their own noses, they'd appreciate that Grammar schools serve to do exactly the opposite.
!
Like I said,I never had the opportunity of going to Grammar School myself yet I fully support them, your spiteful insinuation regarding transport for Grammar School pupils highlights your own prejudice for it is not only Grammar pupils who attend schools outside of their catchment areas.
!

demoness the second wrote:
Up until very recently I was 100% pro selection. I passed my 12 plus ( as it ws then) as did my siblings, as did my children.No coaching involved. However I am afraid that the days of children being given a fair crack of the whip where grammar schools are concerned are long gone. The principle is sound - why shouldn't we develop the superior brains of the future? Why shouldn't the working class kid be given the same chance as anyone else? But it isn't like that anymore. Sadly the more affluent schools do tend to coach, and sadly it is those with the most money who coach their children. My children both caught the bus to school every day and we paid - it was not a problem. To be fair the school was in our catchment area. But they both tell tales of the appalling behaviour of these so called well brought up children who were not used to public transport. They also said that it was pretty obvious who had been coached because these kids struggled very quickly. Which makes it a travesty because those spaces could have been used by children with brains. The 11 plus exam IMO is not a test of intellectual superiority. If they really wanted to cream off the top 25% they should be doing straight forward tests in the three Rs. You can coach children to take this exam because it is a matter of knowing how to answer the questions - there is a knack involved. Once you have solved the riddle - it is easy. So ( as others have said)

I because of the target culture much of the curriculum is concerned with coaching as opposed to academic acheivement. Rather than worrying about Grammar education, I am more concerned of the focus of Government of the scrapping of Techs, Polytechnics, colleges to Universities etc.
!
The seed that has been sown is that one is worthless without a University education and there are a considerable number of degrees that aren't worth sh!te. Pretyy ironic seeing as it is manufacturing and engineering that we as a nation used to excel at but are now lagging well behind.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
I don't see the point in making them into sheep and goats in the first place - it doesn't help anyone achieve their intellectual potetntial - rather the reverse.

Life itself makes sheep and goats, nobody is equal no matter how much you want them to be.

May I throw this comment into the mix:

Is there a need to objectively look at the bigger UK picture on 11+? As we all know there are only a few counties left in the Uk which operate this system. So, if we look at some heavily urban areas which do not operate this system we find serious juvenile crime, knife possession and increased teenage pregnancies. Now, is this because intelligence pupils are being held back by the system which puts all intellectual standards together in one school, thereby preventing future role models being created which would, hopefully, lead to less of the above criminal strands? Or wil it have absolutely no effect at all?

What a question to ask!

And should we, as parents, change the Bucks system and thereby potentially damage our children's future potential, not only in a monetary and employment sense, but also for future role models?

I for one am not prepared to take this chance.

For all our sakes, the Bucks Status Quo should remain. Allow our children the opportunity to excel. Life will be hard enough for them.

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
‘Wayneo’, ‘andy40’ and ‘catflap’ are getting confused – grammar schools are an unfair privilege, not a ‘right’ that you earn ‘fair and square’ and ‘deserve’ and also a privilege that disadvantages the majority of children who fail the 11+. ‘Catflap’ also parrots the absurd idea that parents ‘select their secondary school preference’ and that they might not have sent their children to a grammar school if they had realised they were going to have to pay bus fares – they might have ‘chosen’ to give them an ‘equal but different’ education in one of the numerous secondary modern schools that do not get children into good universities and/or are classified as ‘failing’ by the schools inspectorate. Most parents whose children pass the 11+ are well off in spite of the minority of talented children form working class backgrounds and their parents will continue to get them to school regardless of the extra expense. The problem is the 11+ - most honest people will admit that all the solemn stuff uttered about excellence and choice is bull excrement that obscures the fundamental idiocy of advantaging a small minority of children who are already advantaged enough. Parents wailing about the fact that they are now having to contribute to the cost of the free ride they receive from the taxpayer, are like children wailing because they have been refused an extra ice cream.

They are not an unfair privilege at all, as my son has recently found out, his secondary school didn't push him half has hard as the Grammar school he attends, does now. Unfortunately certain people attempt to confuse Grammar Schools with that of fee paying schooling as a means of furthering some form of class war, in fact if these people could see further than their own noses, they'd appreciate that Grammar schools serve to do exactly the opposite.
!
Like I said,I never had the opportunity of going to Grammar School myself yet I fully support them, your spiteful insinuation regarding transport for Grammar School pupils highlights your own prejudice for it is not only Grammar pupils who attend schools outside of their catchment areas.
!

‘… my son has recently found out, his secondary school didn't push him half has hard as the Grammar school he attends, does now.’
You’ve expressed the argument against secondary modern schools perfectly there – that’s why better-off parents push to get their children into grammar schools – so their children will be ‘pushed’ to achieve their full potential. If he had that potential then please explain why he failed the 11+.
‘Unfortunately certain people attempt to confuse Grammar Schools with that of fee paying schooling as a means of furthering some form of class war, in fact if these people could see further than their own noses, they'd appreciate that Grammar schools serve to do exactly the opposite’
Grammar schools are often used as a taxpayer-funded alternative to private schooling. If grammar schools ever did exactly the opposite to class warfare (and they didn’t – this has been proven time and again – for a recent overview see, http://www.guardian.
co.uk/commentisfree/
2012/jan/10/grammar-
school-return) then they have long since stopped and become little fortresses of privilege supported by those who benefit from them and misguided individuals like yourself.
Secondary modern schools usually have a smaller catchment area than grammar schools (after all there are a lot more 11+ failures than passes so there will be a much larger number of schools in a much greater number of locations). People tend not to waste money travelling to secondary modern schools outside the catchment area because no one is going to want to travel miles to get an education that is no better than elsewhere and indeed inferior to some schools’. (See, http://www.bucksfree
press.co.uk/news/942
5560.Academy_looking
_to_alter_admissions
_criteria/) to see the catchment area of one local secondary modern – I have seen children travel from as far away as Denham on the train in RGS uniform.

Yeah – bad isn’t it this class warfare?

wayneo wrote:

Marlow1] wrote:
If tutoring makes no difference why do so many people use it? I would bet that over 80 percent of kids at Bucks Grammar Schools have had some sort of tutoring outside the 2 practice papers schools are legally allowed to offer. The pass percentage at the 11 plus is around 85-90 per cent. What other exam do you need to score so highly to be seen to achieve an acceptable standard? It is exam techniques to get through all the questions in time and lists and lists of vocab that appear regularly that tutors teach and charge so highly for.

As with any exam be it A-levels etc, people believe it will help them, I purchased practise papers for my son, they didn't make one jot of difference other than give him an idea of what to expect, either way, he still didn't pass the exam, that's life and no amount of whining or whinging will change it.

Who is whining and whinging? What is the point of your little story? The experience of your son does not validate the 11+ which has long been a disredited exam

wayneo wrote:

Marlow1] wrote:
If tutoring makes no difference why do so many people use it? I would bet that over 80 percent of kids at Bucks Grammar Schools have had some sort of tutoring outside the 2 practice papers schools are legally allowed to offer. The pass percentage at the 11 plus is around 85-90 per cent. What other exam do you need to score so highly to be seen to achieve an acceptable standard? It is exam techniques to get through all the questions in time and lists and lists of vocab that appear regularly that tutors teach and charge so highly for.

As with any exam be it A-levels etc, people believe it will help them, I purchased practise papers for my son, they didn't make one jot of difference other than give him an idea of what to expect, either way, he still didn't pass the exam, that's life and no amount of whining or whinging will change it.

Who is whining and whinging? What is the point of your little story? The experience of your son does not validate the 11+ which has long been a disredited exam

wayneo wrote:

demoness the second wrote:
Up until very recently I was 100% pro selection. I passed my 12 plus ( as it ws then) as did my siblings, as did my children.No coaching involved. However I am afraid that the days of children being given a fair crack of the whip where grammar schools are concerned are long gone. The principle is sound - why shouldn't we develop the superior brains of the future? Why shouldn't the working class kid be given the same chance as anyone else? But it isn't like that anymore. Sadly the more affluent schools do tend to coach, and sadly it is those with the most money who coach their children. My children both caught the bus to school every day and we paid - it was not a problem. To be fair the school was in our catchment area. But they both tell tales of the appalling behaviour of these so called well brought up children who were not used to public transport. They also said that it was pretty obvious who had been coached because these kids struggled very quickly. Which makes it a travesty because those spaces could have been used by children with brains. The 11 plus exam IMO is not a test of intellectual superiority. If they really wanted to cream off the top 25% they should be doing straight forward tests in the three Rs. You can coach children to take this exam because it is a matter of knowing how to answer the questions - there is a knack involved. Once you have solved the riddle - it is easy. So ( as others have said)

I because of the target culture much of the curriculum is concerned with coaching as opposed to academic acheivement. Rather than worrying about Grammar education, I am more concerned of the focus of Government of the scrapping of Techs, Polytechnics, colleges to Universities etc.
!
The seed that has been sown is that one is worthless without a University education and there are a considerable number of degrees that aren't worth sh!te. Pretyy ironic seeing as it is manufacturing and engineering that we as a nation used to excel at but are now lagging well behind.

If I understand your first sentence aright you seem to be mounting a dogged defence of grammar schools for not ‘worrying about Grammar education, I am more concerned of the focus of Government of the scrapping of Techs, Polytechnics, colleges to Universities etc.’
Broadly speaking a university education is the essential prerequisite for a career that is rewarding financially and personally and you don’t get the sort of degree you need by failing the 11+. That is one reason people support the 11+ - the fact that if their child can get through it a majority of other people's children will be at a disadvantage in comparison. The reason I am opposed to the 11+ is that WASTES so much talent – you get clever men and women who never get the chance to achieve their potential and are fascinated by things they never heard of at school and who defer to people no better than them who are better-educated.
For every ordinary kid like Alistair Cooke, Edward Heath, Alan Bennet or Dudley Moore there thousands put on the scrapheap and hundreds of well-off ones given an unecessary help.

That first sentence should have read 'If I understand your first sentence aright you seem to be mounting a dogged defence of grammar schools for A MAN not ‘worrying '

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
I don't see the point in making them into sheep and goats in the first place - it doesn't help anyone achieve their intellectual potetntial - rather the reverse.

Life itself makes sheep and goats, nobody is equal no matter how much you want them to be.

I don't want everyone to be 'equal' - this is a myth put about by supporters of the 11+. The world would be dull if we were all equally and identically talented. The fact we're not equal is still not a justification for separating children in this way in the first place - what does it ACHIEVE to label them sheep or goat at ten years old? It wastes the potential (or delays its fulfilment) of thousands of children like your son for no reason.

bobby698 wrote:
May I throw this comment into the mix:

Is there a need to objectively look at the bigger UK picture on 11+? As we all know there are only a few counties left in the Uk which operate this system. So, if we look at some heavily urban areas which do not operate this system we find serious juvenile crime, knife possession and increased teenage pregnancies. Now, is this because intelligence pupils are being held back by the system which puts all intellectual standards together in one school, thereby preventing future role models being created which would, hopefully, lead to less of the above criminal strands? Or wil it have absolutely no effect at all?

What a question to ask!

And should we, as parents, change the Bucks system and thereby potentially damage our children's future potential, not only in a monetary and employment sense, but also for future role models?

I for one am not prepared to take this chance.

For all our sakes, the Bucks Status Quo should remain. Allow our children the opportunity to excel. Life will be hard enough for them.

This a very silly, solemn-sounding post - you say’ ‘ As we all know there are only a few counties left in the Uk (sic) which operate this system.’ You then say ‘so’ - as if there were some connection between what you have just said and the next statement’ ‘ So, if we look at some heavily urban areas which do not operate this system we find serious juvenile crime, knife possession and increased teenage pregnancies.’
You then ask a very stupid (and carelessly-construct
ed) question, ‘ … is this because intelligence (sic) pupils are being held back by the system which puts all intellectual standards together in one school, thereby preventing future role models being created which would, hopefully, lead to less of the above criminal strands? Or wil(sic) it have absolutely no effect at all?

You finish by stating the obvious, ‘What a question to ask!’
Comprehensive schools do not ‘put all intellectual standards together in one school’ and if they did then how would this ‘prevent (benevolent) future role models being created’? Yes indeed - a very stupid question to ask and one which you fail to answer – you suggest there may be a connection and fail to show why. There are plenty of comprehensive schools that are not plagued by ‘serious juvenile crime, knife possession and increased teenage pregnancies’ – do you think there could be a connection between the fact that comprehensive schools that DO have these problems are in ‘heavily urban areas’ of poverty and deprivation rather than that the local authority has abolished the 11+?

You also ask, ‘And should we, as parents, change the Bucks system and thereby potentially damage our children's future potential, not only in a monetary and employment sense, but also for future role models?’
Why does this ‘potentially damage’ the ‘future potentia l’ of our children – comprehensive education seems to work well enough elsewhere - I have mentioned above the fact that two heads of Oxford colleges have failed the 11+ and achieved success academically after the ‘destruction’ of grammar schools and their replacement by comprehensives. These two men are not isolated examples. The present system CURRENTLY wastes the potential of perhaps 60% or more of local children.

You then conclude with a further solemn absurdity,
‘I for one am not prepared to take this chance. For all our sakes, the Bucks Status Quo should remain. Allow our children the opportunity to excel.’
What remotely improbable ‘chance’ are you unwilling to take?
Let’s GET RID of the Bucks status quo and allow ALL our children – not the 30% or so who pass the 11+ to ‘excel’.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

wayneo wrote:

Marlow1] wrote: If tutoring makes no difference why do so many people use it? I would bet that over 80 percent of kids at Bucks Grammar Schools have had some sort of tutoring outside the 2 practice papers schools are legally allowed to offer. The pass percentage at the 11 plus is around 85-90 per cent. What other exam do you need to score so highly to be seen to achieve an acceptable standard? It is exam techniques to get through all the questions in time and lists and lists of vocab that appear regularly that tutors teach and charge so highly for.

As with any exam be it A-levels etc, people believe it will help them, I purchased practise papers for my son, they didn't make one jot of difference other than give him an idea of what to expect, either way, he still didn't pass the exam, that's life and no amount of whining or whinging will change it.

Who is whining and whinging? What is the point of your little story? The experience of your son does not validate the 11+ which has long been a disredited exam

Those that claim the 11 plus is unfair; the point of "my little story" is that it puts paid to the claim that one is written off just because they don't pass the 11+. As for the 11+ being discredited, I don't see that it has been discredited at all, why do you think it has?

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

bobby698 wrote:
May I throw this comment into the mix:

Is there a need to objectively look at the bigger UK picture on 11+? As we all know there are only a few counties left in the Uk which operate this system. So, if we look at some heavily urban areas which do not operate this system we find serious juvenile crime, knife possession and increased teenage pregnancies. Now, is this because intelligence pupils are being held back by the system which puts all intellectual standards together in one school, thereby preventing future role models being created which would, hopefully, lead to less of the above criminal strands? Or wil it have absolutely no effect at all?

What a question to ask!

And should we, as parents, change the Bucks system and thereby potentially damage our children's future potential, not only in a monetary and employment sense, but also for future role models?

I for one am not prepared to take this chance.

For all our sakes, the Bucks Status Quo should remain. Allow our children the opportunity to excel. Life will be hard enough for them.

This a very silly, solemn-sounding post - you say’ ‘ As we all know there are only a few counties left in the Uk (sic) which operate this system.’ You then say ‘so’ - as if there were some connection between what you have just said and the next statement’ ‘ So, if we look at some heavily urban areas which do not operate this system we find serious juvenile crime, knife possession and increased teenage pregnancies.’
You then ask a very stupid (and carelessly-construct

ed) question, ‘ … is this because intelligence (sic) pupils are being held back by the system which puts all intellectual standards together in one school, thereby preventing future role models being created which would, hopefully, lead to less of the above criminal strands? Or wil(sic) it have absolutely no effect at all?

You finish by stating the obvious, ‘What a question to ask!’
Comprehensive schools do not ‘put all intellectual standards together in one school’ and if they did then how would this ‘prevent (benevolent) future role models being created’? Yes indeed - a very stupid question to ask and one which you fail to answer – you suggest there may be a connection and fail to show why. There are plenty of comprehensive schools that are not plagued by ‘serious juvenile crime, knife possession and increased teenage pregnancies’ – do you think there could be a connection between the fact that comprehensive schools that DO have these problems are in ‘heavily urban areas’ of poverty and deprivation rather than that the local authority has abolished the 11+?

You also ask, ‘And should we, as parents, change the Bucks system and thereby potentially damage our children's future potential, not only in a monetary and employment sense, but also for future role models?’
Why does this ‘potentially damage’ the ‘future potentia l’ of our children – comprehensive education seems to work well enough elsewhere - I have mentioned above the fact that two heads of Oxford colleges have failed the 11+ and achieved success academically after the ‘destruction’ of grammar schools and their replacement by comprehensives. These two men are not isolated examples. The present system CURRENTLY wastes the potential of perhaps 60% or more of local children.

You then conclude with a further solemn absurdity,
‘I for one am not prepared to take this chance. For all our sakes, the Bucks Status Quo should remain. Allow our children the opportunity to excel.’
What remotely improbable ‘chance’ are you unwilling to take?
Let’s GET RID of the Bucks status quo and allow ALL our children – not the 30% or so who pass the 11+ to ‘excel’.

ImpeturbableLawrence
:

Thanks for your comments which of course I note. Apologies for my sic, sadly the result of a sink Comprehensive in a West Midlands urban area.....

My point is this: in Bucks we have a system that allows ALL pupils to excel at their given level of education. for the brighter pupils the Grammar school exists, and for those who have not achieved this level there exists, in my opinion, an excellent range of Bucks secondary/academy schools which will allow these pupils to thrive.
Perhaps I did not make myself clear - again apologies from the West Midlands: I want ALL our children to thrive, not just 'the chosen 30%'.

Mixing and matching high-level achievers with lower-level performers does not appear to work. Clearly the rationale is to improve the lower-level, but studies show this simply does not work. Answer? I don't know, I went to school in the West Midlands....

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

wayneo wrote:

demoness the second wrote: Up until very recently I was 100% pro selection. I passed my 12 plus ( as it ws then) as did my siblings, as did my children.No coaching involved. However I am afraid that the days of children being given a fair crack of the whip where grammar schools are concerned are long gone. The principle is sound - why shouldn't we develop the superior brains of the future? Why shouldn't the working class kid be given the same chance as anyone else? But it isn't like that anymore. Sadly the more affluent schools do tend to coach, and sadly it is those with the most money who coach their children. My children both caught the bus to school every day and we paid - it was not a problem. To be fair the school was in our catchment area. But they both tell tales of the appalling behaviour of these so called well brought up children who were not used to public transport. They also said that it was pretty obvious who had been coached because these kids struggled very quickly. Which makes it a travesty because those spaces could have been used by children with brains. The 11 plus exam IMO is not a test of intellectual superiority. If they really wanted to cream off the top 25% they should be doing straight forward tests in the three Rs. You can coach children to take this exam because it is a matter of knowing how to answer the questions - there is a knack involved. Once you have solved the riddle - it is easy. So ( as others have said)

I because of the target culture much of the curriculum is concerned with coaching as opposed to academic acheivement. Rather than worrying about Grammar education, I am more concerned of the focus of Government of the scrapping of Techs, Polytechnics, colleges to Universities etc. ! The seed that has been sown is that one is worthless without a University education and there are a considerable number of degrees that aren't worth sh!te. Pretyy ironic seeing as it is manufacturing and engineering that we as a nation used to excel at but are now lagging well behind.

If I understand your first sentence aright you seem to be mounting a dogged defence of grammar schools for not ‘worrying about Grammar education, I am more concerned of the focus of Government of the scrapping of Techs, Polytechnics, colleges to Universities etc.’ Broadly speaking a university education is the essential prerequisite for a career that is rewarding financially and personally and you don’t get the sort of degree you need by failing the 11+. That is one reason people support the 11+ - the fact that if their child can get through it a majority of other people's children will be at a disadvantage in comparison. The reason I am opposed to the 11+ is that WASTES so much talent – you get clever men and women who never get the chance to achieve their potential and are fascinated by things they never heard of at school and who defer to people no better than them who are better-educated. For every ordinary kid like Alistair Cooke, Edward Heath, Alan Bennet or Dudley Moore there thousands put on the scrapheap and hundreds of well-off ones given an unecessary help.

No, the defence of the 11+ and Grammar education does not rely on polytechnics or higher education, my point concerned the focus on degrees being the be-all and end-all to a successful future. Your insinuation that a university degree is a prerequisite for a for a career that is rewarding both financially and personally is quite simply not true, we well know with the amount of graduates becoming gas engineers and plumbers etc; as for financial rewards, I think the chap who owns castle cafe probably earns more in a year than many teachers, college lecturers, engineers etc etc.
!
The idea that a degree is all that is required to be successful or for somebody to reach their full potential is complete cr@p, what Grammar schools allow students to do, is for more academically minded children to pursue a more vigorous academic path than those whowould likely struggle under the workload, that you would hold back those people (or suppress their potential) makes you every bit as guilty as the system you claim is somehow elitist.
!
Lastly, clever men and women as you put it, will find their own potential, they don't need degrees, they don't need examinations, they find their own way in life, being clever, is not always determined by academic ability alone.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote: I don't see the point in making them into sheep and goats in the first place - it doesn't help anyone achieve their intellectual potetntial - rather the reverse.

Life itself makes sheep and goats, nobody is equal no matter how much you want them to be.

I don't want everyone to be 'equal' - this is a myth put about by supporters of the 11+. The world would be dull if we were all equally and identically talented. The fact we're not equal is still not a justification for separating children in this way in the first place - what does it ACHIEVE to label them sheep or goat at ten years old? It wastes the potential (or delays its fulfilment) of thousands of children like your son for no reason.

Again, I find it puzzling that you should complain about separating children based on their academic ability, yet are content to insinuate that:

Broadly speaking a university education is the essential prerequisite for a career that is rewarding financially and personally

What you are doing is wrongly assuming that contentment financially and personally can be obtained from a university education, it can't and it doesn't.
!
There are of course certain careers that require pre-requisite qualification, a tech, would be more alligned to somebody who wanted a trade, a University, would be more suited the academic.
!
Surely the idea of lumping all and sundry together in a comprehensive means more constraints, wastes more potential or fulfilment than the separation of ones abilities and attributes?

bobby698 wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

bobby698 wrote:
May I throw this comment into the mix:

Is there a need to objectively look at the bigger UK picture on 11+? As we all know there are only a few counties left in the Uk which operate this system. So, if we look at some heavily urban areas which do not operate this system we find serious juvenile crime, knife possession and increased teenage pregnancies. Now, is this because intelligence pupils are being held back by the system which puts all intellectual standards together in one school, thereby preventing future role models being created which would, hopefully, lead to less of the above criminal strands? Or wil it have absolutely no effect at all?

What a question to ask!

And should we, as parents, change the Bucks system and thereby potentially damage our children's future potential, not only in a monetary and employment sense, but also for future role models?

I for one am not prepared to take this chance.

For all our sakes, the Bucks Status Quo should remain. Allow our children the opportunity to excel. Life will be hard enough for them.

This a very silly, solemn-sounding post - you say’ ‘ As we all know there are only a few counties left in the Uk (sic) which operate this system.’ You then say ‘so’ - as if there were some connection between what you have just said and the next statement’ ‘ So, if we look at some heavily urban areas which do not operate this system we find serious juvenile crime, knife possession and increased teenage pregnancies.’
You then ask a very stupid (and carelessly-construct


ed) question, ‘ … is this because intelligence (sic) pupils are being held back by the system which puts all intellectual standards together in one school, thereby preventing future role models being created which would, hopefully, lead to less of the above criminal strands? Or wil(sic) it have absolutely no effect at all?

You finish by stating the obvious, ‘What a question to ask!’
Comprehensive schools do not ‘put all intellectual standards together in one school’ and if they did then how would this ‘prevent (benevolent) future role models being created’? Yes indeed - a very stupid question to ask and one which you fail to answer – you suggest there may be a connection and fail to show why. There are plenty of comprehensive schools that are not plagued by ‘serious juvenile crime, knife possession and increased teenage pregnancies’ – do you think there could be a connection between the fact that comprehensive schools that DO have these problems are in ‘heavily urban areas’ of poverty and deprivation rather than that the local authority has abolished the 11+?

You also ask, ‘And should we, as parents, change the Bucks system and thereby potentially damage our children's future potential, not only in a monetary and employment sense, but also for future role models?’
Why does this ‘potentially damage’ the ‘future potentia l’ of our children – comprehensive education seems to work well enough elsewhere - I have mentioned above the fact that two heads of Oxford colleges have failed the 11+ and achieved success academically after the ‘destruction’ of grammar schools and their replacement by comprehensives. These two men are not isolated examples. The present system CURRENTLY wastes the potential of perhaps 60% or more of local children.

You then conclude with a further solemn absurdity,
‘I for one am not prepared to take this chance. For all our sakes, the Bucks Status Quo should remain. Allow our children the opportunity to excel.’
What remotely improbable ‘chance’ are you unwilling to take?
Let’s GET RID of the Bucks status quo and allow ALL our children – not the 30% or so who pass the 11+ to ‘excel’.

ImpeturbableLawrence

:

Thanks for your comments which of course I note. Apologies for my sic, sadly the result of a sink Comprehensive in a West Midlands urban area.....

My point is this: in Bucks we have a system that allows ALL pupils to excel at their given level of education. for the brighter pupils the Grammar school exists, and for those who have not achieved this level there exists, in my opinion, an excellent range of Bucks secondary/academy schools which will allow these pupils to thrive.
Perhaps I did not make myself clear - again apologies from the West Midlands: I want ALL our children to thrive, not just 'the chosen 30%'.

Mixing and matching high-level achievers with lower-level performers does not appear to work. Clearly the rationale is to improve the lower-level, but studies show this simply does not work. Answer? I don't know, I went to school in the West Midlands....

You're generalising very widely on the basis of your own experience and intuition and I would say that you are condemning a further generation of children to second-class education.

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

wayneo wrote:

Marlow1] wrote: If tutoring makes no difference why do so many people use it? I would bet that over 80 percent of kids at Bucks Grammar Schools have had some sort of tutoring outside the 2 practice papers schools are legally allowed to offer. The pass percentage at the 11 plus is around 85-90 per cent. What other exam do you need to score so highly to be seen to achieve an acceptable standard? It is exam techniques to get through all the questions in time and lists and lists of vocab that appear regularly that tutors teach and charge so highly for.

As with any exam be it A-levels etc, people believe it will help them, I purchased practise papers for my son, they didn't make one jot of difference other than give him an idea of what to expect, either way, he still didn't pass the exam, that's life and no amount of whining or whinging will change it.

Who is whining and whinging? What is the point of your little story? The experience of your son does not validate the 11+ which has long been a disredited exam

Those that claim the 11 plus is unfair; the point of "my little story" is that it puts paid to the claim that one is written off just because they don't pass the 11+. As for the 11+ being discredited, I don't see that it has been discredited at all, why do you think it has?

I don't understand your 'explanation' of the little story and I think the 11+ is discredited - from the point of view of giving all children a chance at a first-rate education - because of the different research projects that show it largely overlooks bright working-class children, because it has been got rid of with success elsewhere and using commonsense and looking at the intelligent 11+ failures at I see around me every day and the people I have seen in the past taking evening classes (successfully) to remedy the gaps in their education after failing the 11+.

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

wayneo wrote:

Marlow1] wrote: If tutoring makes no difference why do so many people use it? I would bet that over 80 percent of kids at Bucks Grammar Schools have had some sort of tutoring outside the 2 practice papers schools are legally allowed to offer. The pass percentage at the 11 plus is around 85-90 per cent. What other exam do you need to score so highly to be seen to achieve an acceptable standard? It is exam techniques to get through all the questions in time and lists and lists of vocab that appear regularly that tutors teach and charge so highly for.

As with any exam be it A-levels etc, people believe it will help them, I purchased practise papers for my son, they didn't make one jot of difference other than give him an idea of what to expect, either way, he still didn't pass the exam, that's life and no amount of whining or whinging will change it.

Who is whining and whinging? What is the point of your little story? The experience of your son does not validate the 11+ which has long been a disredited exam

Those that claim the 11 plus is unfair; the point of "my little story" is that it puts paid to the claim that one is written off just because they don't pass the 11+. As for the 11+ being discredited, I don't see that it has been discredited at all, why do you think it has?

I don't understand your 'explanation' of the little story and I think the 11+ is discredited - from the point of view of giving all children a chance at a first-rate education - because of the different research projects that show it largely overlooks bright working-class children, because it has been got rid of with success elsewhere and using commonsense and looking at the intelligent 11+ failures at I see around me every day and the people I have seen in the past taking evening classes (successfully) to remedy the gaps in their education after failing the 11+.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

wayneo wrote:

Marlow1] wrote: If tutoring makes no difference why do so many people use it? I would bet that over 80 percent of kids at Bucks Grammar Schools have had some sort of tutoring outside the 2 practice papers schools are legally allowed to offer. The pass percentage at the 11 plus is around 85-90 per cent. What other exam do you need to score so highly to be seen to achieve an acceptable standard? It is exam techniques to get through all the questions in time and lists and lists of vocab that appear regularly that tutors teach and charge so highly for.

As with any exam be it A-levels etc, people believe it will help them, I purchased practise papers for my son, they didn't make one jot of difference other than give him an idea of what to expect, either way, he still didn't pass the exam, that's life and no amount of whining or whinging will change it.

Who is whining and whinging? What is the point of your little story? The experience of your son does not validate the 11+ which has long been a disredited exam

Those that claim the 11 plus is unfair; the point of "my little story" is that it puts paid to the claim that one is written off just because they don't pass the 11+. As for the 11+ being discredited, I don't see that it has been discredited at all, why do you think it has?

I don't understand your 'explanation' of the little story and I think the 11+ is discredited - from the point of view of giving all children a chance at a first-rate education - because of the different research projects that show it largely overlooks bright working-class children, because it has been got rid of with success elsewhere and using commonsense and looking at the intelligent 11+ failures at I see around me every day and the people I have seen in the past taking evening classes (successfully) to remedy the gaps in their education after failing the 11+.

The explanation is simple enough, nevermind. If you think the 11+ is discredited then please feel free to provide the evidence that backs your assertion, in what way does Grammar School prevent all from having a first class education? All Grammar Schools do, is offer students a different learning pace than that of a Secondary School, to lump all academic abilities or more importantly maturity under one umbrella suppresses one at the expense of another.
!
Your comment

11+ failures at I see around me every day and the people I have seen in the past taking evening classes (successfully) to remedy the gaps in their education after failing the 11+.

You say 11+ failures, but you could equally apply such a label to anybody who fails exams, the WHOLE point of exams is some form of selection or another or to put it more simply, a QUALIFICATION.
!
It Is puzzling, you seem to me to be suggesting that some are held back in order that others somehow catch up????? I too caught up with further education but it was after I reached the maturity and obtained the ability to do so, would I of changed it? no, I couldn't, was I ready or for Grammar School? no! would I stop somebody else from going to Grammar school just because I couldn't? definately not and I for one, despite having never been, am proud that as a County we still have such a system.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

bobby698 wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

bobby698 wrote: May I throw this comment into the mix: Is there a need to objectively look at the bigger UK picture on 11+? As we all know there are only a few counties left in the Uk which operate this system. So, if we look at some heavily urban areas which do not operate this system we find serious juvenile crime, knife possession and increased teenage pregnancies. Now, is this because intelligence pupils are being held back by the system which puts all intellectual standards together in one school, thereby preventing future role models being created which would, hopefully, lead to less of the above criminal strands? Or wil it have absolutely no effect at all? What a question to ask! And should we, as parents, change the Bucks system and thereby potentially damage our children's future potential, not only in a monetary and employment sense, but also for future role models? I for one am not prepared to take this chance. For all our sakes, the Bucks Status Quo should remain. Allow our children the opportunity to excel. Life will be hard enough for them.

This a very silly, solemn-sounding post - you say’ ‘ As we all know there are only a few counties left in the Uk (sic) which operate this system.’ You then say ‘so’ - as if there were some connection between what you have just said and the next statement’ ‘ So, if we look at some heavily urban areas which do not operate this system we find serious juvenile crime, knife possession and increased teenage pregnancies.’ You then ask a very stupid (and carelessly-construct ed) question, ‘ … is this because intelligence (sic) pupils are being held back by the system which puts all intellectual standards together in one school, thereby preventing future role models being created which would, hopefully, lead to less of the above criminal strands? Or wil(sic) it have absolutely no effect at all? You finish by stating the obvious, ‘What a question to ask!’ Comprehensive schools do not ‘put all intellectual standards together in one school’ and if they did then how would this ‘prevent (benevolent) future role models being created’? Yes indeed - a very stupid question to ask and one which you fail to answer – you suggest there may be a connection and fail to show why. There are plenty of comprehensive schools that are not plagued by ‘serious juvenile crime, knife possession and increased teenage pregnancies’ – do you think there could be a connection between the fact that comprehensive schools that DO have these problems are in ‘heavily urban areas’ of poverty and deprivation rather than that the local authority has abolished the 11+? You also ask, ‘And should we, as parents, change the Bucks system and thereby potentially damage our children's future potential, not only in a monetary and employment sense, but also for future role models?’ Why does this ‘potentially damage’ the ‘future potentia l’ of our children – comprehensive education seems to work well enough elsewhere - I have mentioned above the fact that two heads of Oxford colleges have failed the 11+ and achieved success academically after the ‘destruction’ of grammar schools and their replacement by comprehensives. These two men are not isolated examples. The present system CURRENTLY wastes the potential of perhaps 60% or more of local children. You then conclude with a further solemn absurdity, ‘I for one am not prepared to take this chance. For all our sakes, the Bucks Status Quo should remain. Allow our children the opportunity to excel.’ What remotely improbable ‘chance’ are you unwilling to take? Let’s GET RID of the Bucks status quo and allow ALL our children – not the 30% or so who pass the 11+ to ‘excel’.

ImpeturbableLawrence : Thanks for your comments which of course I note. Apologies for my sic, sadly the result of a sink Comprehensive in a West Midlands urban area..... My point is this: in Bucks we have a system that allows ALL pupils to excel at their given level of education. for the brighter pupils the Grammar school exists, and for those who have not achieved this level there exists, in my opinion, an excellent range of Bucks secondary/academy schools which will allow these pupils to thrive. Perhaps I did not make myself clear - again apologies from the West Midlands: I want ALL our children to thrive, not just 'the chosen 30%'. Mixing and matching high-level achievers with lower-level performers does not appear to work. Clearly the rationale is to improve the lower-level, but studies show this simply does not work. Answer? I don't know, I went to school in the West Midlands....

You're generalising very widely on the basis of your own experience and intuition and I would say that you are condemning a further generation of children to second-class education.

By proclaiming Secondary education to be second class, then logically you define Grammar Education to be first class, that being so, what would the class of education be of the comprehensive system that would result from scrapping Grammar schools? It would have to still be second class.
!
If the 11 plus, an examination that qualifies those that pass for a Grammar school place were to be scrapped, why then bother with GCSE, A-levels, BTEC, Degrees, Industry qualifications etc etc? Why bother having any qualification whatsoever unless some form of selection was to result from having those qualifications?

I think it is brilliant that Bucks Education Authority thinks that it can predict how a child will develop between 11 and 18 by scoring them on a heavily tutored exam to segregate them into different schools . Could the sports department sort out the next England football team please

LOL, the irony that you should approach selective education with sarcasm yet offer up an example of a competitive sport that also relies heavily on selection, also from a very young age.

I actually thought this was about travel to school and not the 11+. Yes I know they want to charge for the grammer schools but if it's your catchment you shouldn't have to pay,like the rest of us who's children got to their upper schools in the catchment. I'd gladly pay a percentage of the fair if I could have a say on who takes them because Clown Taxis that take them now are a complete joke. And yes I have complained many times about them..

This is going back to how the system worked when I was a kid growing up in Bucks some 40 years ago. Only kids more than three miles from their local school as the bird flew got a bus pass. I didn't qualify, my friend 10 houses away did, same bus stop. Such is life.

I always tthink it is was grossly unfair that Amersham boys get passes to go to Chesham when there's a perfectly good grammar school here, yet anyone wanting to send their child to Chesham Park have to pay themselves.

This is just making it as fair a system as possible for the most number of people.

trot on wrote:
I actually thought this was about travel to school and not the 11+. Yes I know they want to charge for the grammer schools but if it's your catchment you shouldn't have to pay,like the rest of us who's children got to their upper schools in the catchment. I'd gladly pay a percentage of the fair if I could have a say on who takes them because Clown Taxis that take them now are a complete joke. And yes I have complained many times about them..

I think one only has to mention Grammar schools and it invokes passions on either side of the fence, that and the the bfp are running are running a poll on whether selective education should continue, would undoubtedly mean that people would comment in it. Other than that, I agree with yout sentiment regarding taxis.

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
I don't see the point in making them into sheep and goats in the first place - it doesn't help anyone achieve their intellectual potetntial - rather the reverse.

Life itself makes sheep and goats, nobody is equal no matter how much you want them to be.

There should be also a portion of pigs , a quantity of cows and a handful of horses.
.
Oh and a flock of birds - to allow for high fliers.
.
All animals are equal , but some are more equal than others. (George Owl)

I think the the flying pigs thread was about Buckinghamshire HighWays saying they had fixed the roads.

The day pigs fly, there may be lots of flying pigs reported in the news media. But until then , there will be rasher statements made in the BFP.

The Walker wrote:
This is going back to how the system worked when I was a kid growing up in Bucks some 40 years ago. Only kids more than three miles from their local school as the bird flew got a bus pass. I didn't qualify, my friend 10 houses away did, same bus stop. Such is life. I always tthink it is was grossly unfair that Amersham boys get passes to go to Chesham when there's a perfectly good grammar school here, yet anyone wanting to send their child to Chesham Park have to pay themselves. This is just making it as fair a system as possible for the most number of people.

That's the current system - if you live within 3 miles of a catchment school you pay for transport or your child walks. If you choose to send your child to a non-catchment you pay whatever the distance or walk/drive. However, as there are more Uppers than Grammars it is highly likely that an Upper is closer so under the proposed system you pay if you choose the Grammar. It is illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of age, race, sex etc but seemingly OK to discriminate against bright children in this age of mediocrity for all.

andy40 wrote:

The Walker wrote:
This is going back to how the system worked when I was a kid growing up in Bucks some 40 years ago. Only kids more than three miles from their local school as the bird flew got a bus pass. I didn't qualify, my friend 10 houses away did, same bus stop. Such is life. I always tthink it is was grossly unfair that Amersham boys get passes to go to Chesham when there's a perfectly good grammar school here, yet anyone wanting to send their child to Chesham Park have to pay themselves. This is just making it as fair a system as possible for the most number of people.

That's the current system - if you live within 3 miles of a catchment school you pay for transport or your child walks. If you choose to send your child to a non-catchment you pay whatever the distance or walk/drive. However, as there are more Uppers than Grammars it is highly likely that an Upper is closer so under the proposed system you pay if you choose the Grammar. It is illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of age, race, sex etc but seemingly OK to discriminate against bright children in this age of mediocrity for all.

So why do boys in Amersham get passes to Chesham High when there is a perfectly good grammar school here? And certainly within three miles of the families I know who have this privilege.

Just because the boys have passes and travel on a school bus doesn't mean they haven't had to pay. We are in the same situation as you were - "10 houses too close to the school to get a pass but all the other children get one" - we pay BCC for the privilege of a seat on a bus that is travelling past our house on its way to the school, thereby subsidising the travel of those entitled to a free pass because they live 200m down the road. BCC would rather run the bus with empty seats than give a pass away for free for the sake of 200m.

Marlow1] wrote:
To be honest if you can afford to pay £1000s to tutor your child through the 11plus (which is what most of the kids who pass receive) in this age of austerity you can afford to pay for a bus to get them there.

Complete and utter ****. I passed my 12+ (showing my age) as did a lot of my contemporaries, on my own academic merit. My dad was a builder and my mum a housewife and we were by no means well off. I can't imagine that things have changed that much in the 16 years since I left school. All this crap about grammar schoools being elitist and for the rich is utter drivel and I find it frankly offensive that you seem to think intelligence is the preserve of the privileged.

With that in mind, charging kids to go to school because they have displayed an aptitiude for learning is unfair and outrageous.

"I can't imagine that things have changed that much in the 16 years since I left school."

Never mind the 20+ years since you took the tests, I would say that things have changed a lot in the last 3-4 years. Otherwise, why would a pro-Grammar Conservative councillor indicate that the council is looking at alternatives to the current exam system to get into grammar schools?

Seconded Cressex Offender. My boy attends a grammar school because he is exceptionally bright and studies very hard. I'm far from well off and he wasn't tutored but just to demonstrate how much the school in question assumes that the majority of their pupil's families do have money; they don't bat an eyelid at requesting the pupil's parents pay for expensive text books, specialist uniforms, lavish school trips - and frequently at very short notice (i.e. just assuming that the parents can immediately pay up without having to budget for larger expenses).

Nevertheless, he has taken full advantage of what the school has availed to him and looks set to leave with a sizeable clutch of academic achievements.

What parent wouldn't want that for their child if it were offered to them?

(And yes, I've paid for every bus fare because if you choose a school, it's a given that you're child will have to get there somehow!!)

Our kids went to a secondary modern and we still had to pay all of their bus fares because it was just under three miles. Free bus passes should be means tested like free school meals. I would find it obscene as a taxpayer if I was asked to supply a free bus pass to a family which had a decent income anyway. And as for the eleven plus - don't make me laugh: the private tutoring system has made a mockery of it. It tells you more about the parents than it does about the kids.

HerculePoirot wrote:
"I can't imagine that things have changed that much in the 16 years since I left school." Never mind the 20+ years since you took the tests, I would say that things have changed a lot in the last 3-4 years. Otherwise, why would a pro-Grammar Conservative councillor indicate that the council is looking at alternatives to the current exam system to get into grammar schools?

Perhaps he's not a Conservative.

Cressex Offender wrote:

Marlow1] wrote: To be honest if you can afford to pay £1000s to tutor your child through the 11plus (which is what most of the kids who pass receive) in this age of austerity you can afford to pay for a bus to get them there.

Complete and utter ****. I passed my 12+ (showing my age) as did a lot of my contemporaries, on my own academic merit. My dad was a builder and my mum a housewife and we were by no means well off. I can't imagine that things have changed that much in the 16 years since I left school. All this crap about grammar schoools being elitist and for the rich is utter drivel and I find it frankly offensive that you seem to think intelligence is the preserve of the privileged. With that in mind, charging kids to go to school because they have displayed an aptitiude for learning is unfair and outrageous.

Well said!

Well my kids are currently in the secondary school system and that is EXACTLY how it is now. As I say every single child who passed in both my sons primary years had been heavily tutored.

Marlow1] wrote:
Well my kids are currently in the secondary school system and that is EXACTLY how it is now. As I say every single child who passed in both my sons primary years had been heavily tutored.

I don't believe you i'm afraid.

You're right I am lying . most of the kids at grammar schools come from deprived backgrounds and no one in Bucks uses tutors charging up to £40 an hour; it's all a figment of my imagination.

Marlow1] wrote:
You're right I am lying . most of the kids at grammar schools come from deprived backgrounds and no one in Bucks uses tutors charging up to £40 an hour; it's all a figment of my imagination.

Thanks for the clarification and for your honesty.

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

bobby698 wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

bobby698 wrote: May I throw this comment into the mix: Is there a need to objectively look at the bigger UK picture on 11+? As we all know there are only a few counties left in the Uk which operate this system. So, if we look at some heavily urban areas which do not operate this system we find serious juvenile crime, knife possession and increased teenage pregnancies. Now, is this because intelligence pupils are being held back by the system which puts all intellectual standards together in one school, thereby preventing future role models being created which would, hopefully, lead to less of the above criminal strands? Or wil it have absolutely no effect at all? What a question to ask! And should we, as parents, change the Bucks system and thereby potentially damage our children's future potential, not only in a monetary and employment sense, but also for future role models? I for one am not prepared to take this chance. For all our sakes, the Bucks Status Quo should remain. Allow our children the opportunity to excel. Life will be hard enough for them.

This a very silly, solemn-sounding post - you say’ ‘ As we all know there are only a few counties left in the Uk (sic) which operate this system.’ You then say ‘so’ - as if there were some connection between what you have just said and the next statement’ ‘ So, if we look at some heavily urban areas which do not operate this system we find serious juvenile crime, knife possession and increased teenage pregnancies.’ You then ask a very stupid (and carelessly-construct ed) question, ‘ … is this because intelligence (sic) pupils are being held back by the system which puts all intellectual standards together in one school, thereby preventing future role models being created which would, hopefully, lead to less of the above criminal strands? Or wil(sic) it have absolutely no effect at all? You finish by stating the obvious, ‘What a question to ask!’ Comprehensive schools do not ‘put all intellectual standards together in one school’ and if they did then how would this ‘prevent (benevolent) future role models being created’? Yes indeed - a very stupid question to ask and one which you fail to answer – you suggest there may be a connection and fail to show why. There are plenty of comprehensive schools that are not plagued by ‘serious juvenile crime, knife possession and increased teenage pregnancies’ – do you think there could be a connection between the fact that comprehensive schools that DO have these problems are in ‘heavily urban areas’ of poverty and deprivation rather than that the local authority has abolished the 11+? You also ask, ‘And should we, as parents, change the Bucks system and thereby potentially damage our children's future potential, not only in a monetary and employment sense, but also for future role models?’ Why does this ‘potentially damage’ the ‘future potentia l’ of our children – comprehensive education seems to work well enough elsewhere - I have mentioned above the fact that two heads of Oxford colleges have failed the 11+ and achieved success academically after the ‘destruction’ of grammar schools and their replacement by comprehensives. These two men are not isolated examples. The present system CURRENTLY wastes the potential of perhaps 60% or more of local children. You then conclude with a further solemn absurdity, ‘I for one am not prepared to take this chance. For all our sakes, the Bucks Status Quo should remain. Allow our children the opportunity to excel.’ What remotely improbable ‘chance’ are you unwilling to take? Let’s GET RID of the Bucks status quo and allow ALL our children – not the 30% or so who pass the 11+ to ‘excel’.

ImpeturbableLawrence : Thanks for your comments which of course I note. Apologies for my sic, sadly the result of a sink Comprehensive in a West Midlands urban area..... My point is this: in Bucks we have a system that allows ALL pupils to excel at their given level of education. for the brighter pupils the Grammar school exists, and for those who have not achieved this level there exists, in my opinion, an excellent range of Bucks secondary/academy schools which will allow these pupils to thrive. Perhaps I did not make myself clear - again apologies from the West Midlands: I want ALL our children to thrive, not just 'the chosen 30%'. Mixing and matching high-level achievers with lower-level performers does not appear to work. Clearly the rationale is to improve the lower-level, but studies show this simply does not work. Answer? I don't know, I went to school in the West Midlands....

You're generalising very widely on the basis of your own experience and intuition and I would say that you are condemning a further generation of children to second-class education.

By proclaiming Secondary education to be second class, then logically you define Grammar Education to be first class, that being so, what would the class of education be of the comprehensive system that would result from scrapping Grammar schools? It would have to still be second class.
!
If the 11 plus, an examination that qualifies those that pass for a Grammar school place were to be scrapped, why then bother with GCSE, A-levels, BTEC, Degrees, Industry qualifications etc etc? Why bother having any qualification whatsoever unless some form of selection was to result from having those qualifications?

Dear Wayneo

Apologies for taking so long to get back.
I am taking people like you at your word – you and other supporters of the 11+ are the people who speak of ‘excellence’ – if YOU ‘proclaim’ – to use your own word - that grammar schools are excellent then ‘logically’ - to use another one of your words - you are proclaiming secondary moderns to be inferior to them. And they are – grammar schools regularly attain near- perfect percentile scores in major GCSE examination subjects compared with secondary moderns and secondary moderns round here are regularly classed as ‘failing’ and are re-branded and reopened under another name – something that has never happened to a grammar school. I would say that grammars are better than secondary moderns and that they give children a better chance at the satisfying things in life – that is why parents want their chidren to pass the exam and are willing to pay large sums to have their children coached for it.
In answer to your question what would the class of education be if we were to scrap grammar schools then I would say look around you at the rest of the country where comprehensive schools are producing results in every way comparable to grammar schools - you talk as if the grammar schools were going to be replaced with nothing – both they and the secondary moderns would be replaced with a system that is comprehensive in its intake – hence the name - and comprehensive in the choices it offers to all children.
Your question why bother with any exam if you scrap the 11+ is not comparing like with like – we are the only country in the world that selects children for university education (that IS what the 11+ does) at the age of ten – the other exams are all intended to measure the knowledge or the understanding of subjects by young or mature adults.
Studies since the 1960s have shown what we all see around us in our lifetimes – that children from less well-off and less aspirational families are largely passed over by the 11+ which if it ever was a meritocratic exam has long since ceased to be.
By the way you still haven’t answered my question from last Saturday – If it made no difference to you and your son to fail the 11+ then why have this discredited exam in the first place and if your son ‘EARNED’ a place at A level in a grammar school then why didn’t he pass the 11+ in the first place – what happened to him in the time between 11+ failure and A level success?

Unlike nearly every other exam the 11+ is a form of pre-selection (or pre-rejection in the vast majority of cases) which denies or entitles a child the chance of a decent education.

wayneo wrote:

Marlow1] wrote:
To be honest if you can afford to pay £1000s to tutor your child through the 11plus (which is what most of the kids who pass receive) in this age of austerity you can afford to pay for a bus to get them there.

What Total utter dribble and that's being polite.
!
My son failed his 11 plus (as did I), he didn't whine, he didn't moan he got on with it. He went to a secondary school, done very well and for his A levels he EARNED a place at a Grammar School where he although bloddy hard work, is doing well. No private tutoring, no special treatment just hard work and determination.

People who oppose the 11+ are not 'whining' or 'moaning' - they are expressing a principled and reasonable objection to an unjust and irrational exam - you are showing them disrespect to use this language and are implicitly praising yourself and your son for being brave and dogged for not 'whining' or 'moaning'. The experiences of your son and yourself are irrelevant any way - why do so many supporters of the 11+ have to tell us of their success or lack of it - and justify themselves in terms of being plucky and indomitable? Comprehensive education is about giving all children a decent start.

wayneo wrote:

readerabc wrote:
as i said, scrap grammars then all pupils willget a fair chance why becuase my son didnt pass the 11+ is he any less worthy of decent facilities? i went through a non grammar system and came out with 9 good o levels as for uper schools not being suitable for gramar kids- that is because they are not meant to be! but if all secondaries took all levels of pupils, then they would have to be!!

All pupils do get a fair chance, that's what's what's brilliant about the system, that kids from poor families can acheive a place at a world class school is something we should proud of. Unfortunately there are spiteful whining sh!ts who scoff at those who do earn a place then bleat and about it because their own children didn't get a place. I went to Secondary School, I did so because my academic level wasn't suited to Grammar, why should my ability at that time hold somebody else back? Academic ability isn't the be all and end all of life, neither is going to University.
!
The myth trotted out, that people spend thousands on preparing their children for Grammar Schools, when thousands would actually get their children into fee paying schools, highlights just how jealous and stupid some people can be, besides, the 11+ is designed such that it would be very difficult to coach for or indeed tutor for.
!
As for transport, if they choose to go to a particular school then they should pay or make there own arrangements, with that, I agree.

A brilliant chance for 30% or so of kids.
Why do so few kids from poor families get the chance of a decent education then and why do they do equally well or better in comprehensive counties?
Have you ever looked at yourself while calling other whining sh!ts?
‘Academic ability isn't the be all and end all of life, neither is going to University.’ Up to a point this is true but if this is the case then why do so many parents spend money on getting their children through the 11+?

It’s not a myth that people trot out money to get their children coached into grammar schools – see some of the other letters here – I know more than one (privately educated) parent who has done this for the obvious reason that it is far less expensive to get your kid through the 11+ than to pay years of school fees – in any case most public schools take their pupils from private preparatory schools and grammar school children have gone to local junior schools.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

bobby698 wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

bobby698 wrote: May I throw this comment into the mix: Is there a need to objectively look at the bigger UK picture on 11+? As we all know there are only a few counties left in the Uk which operate this system. So, if we look at some heavily urban areas which do not operate this system we find serious juvenile crime, knife possession and increased teenage pregnancies. Now, is this because intelligence pupils are being held back by the system which puts all intellectual standards together in one school, thereby preventing future role models being created which would, hopefully, lead to less of the above criminal strands? Or wil it have absolutely no effect at all? What a question to ask! And should we, as parents, change the Bucks system and thereby potentially damage our children's future potential, not only in a monetary and employment sense, but also for future role models? I for one am not prepared to take this chance. For all our sakes, the Bucks Status Quo should remain. Allow our children the opportunity to excel. Life will be hard enough for them.

This a very silly, solemn-sounding post - you say’ ‘ As we all know there are only a few counties left in the Uk (sic) which operate this system.’ You then say ‘so’ - as if there were some connection between what you have just said and the next statement’ ‘ So, if we look at some heavily urban areas which do not operate this system we find serious juvenile crime, knife possession and increased teenage pregnancies.’ You then ask a very stupid (and carelessly-construct ed) question, ‘ … is this because intelligence (sic) pupils are being held back by the system which puts all intellectual standards together in one school, thereby preventing future role models being created which would, hopefully, lead to less of the above criminal strands? Or wil(sic) it have absolutely no effect at all? You finish by stating the obvious, ‘What a question to ask!’ Comprehensive schools do not ‘put all intellectual standards together in one school’ and if they did then how would this ‘prevent (benevolent) future role models being created’? Yes indeed - a very stupid question to ask and one which you fail to answer – you suggest there may be a connection and fail to show why. There are plenty of comprehensive schools that are not plagued by ‘serious juvenile crime, knife possession and increased teenage pregnancies’ – do you think there could be a connection between the fact that comprehensive schools that DO have these problems are in ‘heavily urban areas’ of poverty and deprivation rather than that the local authority has abolished the 11+? You also ask, ‘And should we, as parents, change the Bucks system and thereby potentially damage our children's future potential, not only in a monetary and employment sense, but also for future role models?’ Why does this ‘potentially damage’ the ‘future potentia l’ of our children – comprehensive education seems to work well enough elsewhere - I have mentioned above the fact that two heads of Oxford colleges have failed the 11+ and achieved success academically after the ‘destruction’ of grammar schools and their replacement by comprehensives. These two men are not isolated examples. The present system CURRENTLY wastes the potential of perhaps 60% or more of local children. You then conclude with a further solemn absurdity, ‘I for one am not prepared to take this chance. For all our sakes, the Bucks Status Quo should remain. Allow our children the opportunity to excel.’ What remotely improbable ‘chance’ are you unwilling to take? Let’s GET RID of the Bucks status quo and allow ALL our children – not the 30% or so who pass the 11+ to ‘excel’.

ImpeturbableLawrence : Thanks for your comments which of course I note. Apologies for my sic, sadly the result of a sink Comprehensive in a West Midlands urban area..... My point is this: in Bucks we have a system that allows ALL pupils to excel at their given level of education. for the brighter pupils the Grammar school exists, and for those who have not achieved this level there exists, in my opinion, an excellent range of Bucks secondary/academy schools which will allow these pupils to thrive. Perhaps I did not make myself clear - again apologies from the West Midlands: I want ALL our children to thrive, not just 'the chosen 30%'. Mixing and matching high-level achievers with lower-level performers does not appear to work. Clearly the rationale is to improve the lower-level, but studies show this simply does not work. Answer? I don't know, I went to school in the West Midlands....

You're generalising very widely on the basis of your own experience and intuition and I would say that you are condemning a further generation of children to second-class education.

By proclaiming Secondary education to be second class, then logically you define Grammar Education to be first class, that being so, what would the class of education be of the comprehensive system that would result from scrapping Grammar schools? It would have to still be second class.
!
If the 11 plus, an examination that qualifies those that pass for a Grammar school place were to be scrapped, why then bother with GCSE, A-levels, BTEC, Degrees, Industry qualifications etc etc? Why bother having any qualification whatsoever unless some form of selection was to result from having those qualifications?

Dear Wayneo

Apologies for taking so long to get back.
I am taking people like you at your word – you and other supporters of the 11+ are the people who speak of ‘excellence’ – if YOU ‘proclaim’ – to use your own word - that grammar schools are excellent then ‘logically’ - to use another one of your words - you are proclaiming secondary moderns to be inferior to them. And they are – grammar schools regularly attain near- perfect percentile scores in major GCSE examination subjects compared with secondary moderns and secondary moderns round here are regularly classed as ‘failing’ and are re-branded and reopened under another name – something that has never happened to a grammar school. I would say that grammars are better than secondary moderns and that they give children a better chance at the satisfying things in life – that is why parents want their chidren to pass the exam and are willing to pay large sums to have their children coached for it.
In answer to your question what would the class of education be if we were to scrap grammar schools then I would say look around you at the rest of the country where comprehensive schools are producing results in every way comparable to grammar schools - you talk as if the grammar schools were going to be replaced with nothing – both they and the secondary moderns would be replaced with a system that is comprehensive in its intake – hence the name - and comprehensive in the choices it offers to all children.
Your question why bother with any exam if you scrap the 11+ is not comparing like with like – we are the only country in the world that selects children for university education (that IS what the 11+ does) at the age of ten – the other exams are all intended to measure the knowledge or the understanding of subjects by young or mature adults.
Studies since the 1960s have shown what we all see around us in our lifetimes – that children from less well-off and less aspirational families are largely passed over by the 11+ which if it ever was a meritocratic exam has long since ceased to be.
By the way you still haven’t answered my question from last Saturday – If it made no difference to you and your son to fail the 11+ then why have this discredited exam in the first place and if your son ‘EARNED’ a place at A level in a grammar school then why didn’t he pass the 11+ in the first place – what happened to him in the time between 11+ failure and A level success?

I am taking people like you at your word – you and other supporters of the 11+ are the people who speak of ‘excellence’ – if YOU ‘proclaim’ – to use your own word - that grammar schools are excellent then ‘logically’ - to use another one of your words - you are proclaiming secondary moderns to be inferior to them

Let's see if we can wade through this scattergun aproach of a post. I don't believe i've "spoken of excellence" at all, I see Selective education as means of categorising those who are more academically suited to the general pace of Grammar schools to that of Secondary, there isn't a class distinction as proponents of scrapping Grammar Schools would have us believe. Incidentally, as I stated earlier, it was you who inferred that Children who failed the 11+ were destined for a second class education which could only mean that in your world, Grammar is first class; All schools are a mixed bag in my opinion but the focus has often been on examination results alone as opposed to .

And they are – grammar schools regularly attain near- perfect percentile scores in major GCSE examination subjects compared with secondary moderns and secondary moderns round here are regularly classed as ‘failing’ and are re-branded and reopened under another name,something that has never happened to a grammar school

So why change a model that is consistent and proven successful rather than resolving the issues of the not so successful, what is wrong in having a model with which one can aspire? The are many excellent Secondary Schools which offer an excellent education but at a slower rate or expectation than of Grammar Schools, this is a much more effective method at nurturing children than chucking them into the deep end. As for people paying large sums to coach their Children, where's your evidence for that and if it is happening, where is the evidence that it is effective in the first place? Remember, Middle Schools often 'coach' their pupils with mock papers, i myself passed mock papers but failed the actual exam, big deal, that's life.

both they and the secondary moderns would be replaced with a system that is comprehensive in its intake – hence the name - and comprehensive in the choices it offers to all children.

Your question why bother with any exam if you scrap the 11+ is not comparing like with like

Sure it is, any examination or qualification is a form of selection, it qualifies one for further education, college, University, employment etc etc, Unfortunately various Governments have determined success to be one of academic ability rather than vocational, the idea that you can lump everybody of all abilities into the same pot is disingenuous to those who have other very important qualities to offer.

we are the only country in the world that selects children for university education (that IS what the 11+ does) at the age of ten

You said earlier that "grammar schools regularly attain near- perfect percentile scores in major GCSE examination subjects", the reason for that is not because Grammar's are anything special educationally speaking, it's because children are deemed more mature or able to cope with the extra workload that Grammar's give to their students.

tudies since the 1960s have shown what we all see around us in our lifetimes – that children from less well-off and less aspirational families are largely passed over by the 11+ which if it ever was a meritocratic exam has long since ceased to be.

Sources please

By the way you still haven’t answered my question from last Saturday – If it made no difference to you and your son to fail the 11+ then why have this discredited exam in the first place and if your son ‘EARNED’ a place at A level in a grammar school then why didn’t he pass the 11+ in the first place – what happened to him in the time between 11+ failure and A level success?

It's not a discredited exam and please provide the evidence that it is? As for my son, he had to work very hard to gain his GCSE results, extra study time etc etc, his Secondary School was quite good but he was held back by idiots who felt more the need to impress girls than of listening in class and a general ethos of, it was square to be be academically successful. He worked much harder by his own volition to pass his exams, but he matured enough to cope with the extra work. Would he have been able to undertake the workload of Grammar when he was younger, I doubt it.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

wayneo wrote:

Marlow1] wrote:
To be honest if you can afford to pay £1000s to tutor your child through the 11plus (which is what most of the kids who pass receive) in this age of austerity you can afford to pay for a bus to get them there.

What Total utter dribble and that's being polite.
!
My son failed his 11 plus (as did I), he didn't whine, he didn't moan he got on with it. He went to a secondary school, done very well and for his A levels he EARNED a place at a Grammar School where he although bloddy hard work, is doing well. No private tutoring, no special treatment just hard work and determination.

People who oppose the 11+ are not 'whining' or 'moaning' - they are expressing a principled and reasonable objection to an unjust and irrational exam - you are showing them disrespect to use this language and are implicitly praising yourself and your son for being brave and dogged for not 'whining' or 'moaning'. The experiences of your son and yourself are irrelevant any way - why do so many supporters of the 11+ have to tell us of their success or lack of it - and justify themselves in terms of being plucky and indomitable? Comprehensive education is about giving all children a decent start.

People who oppose the 11+ are not 'whining' or 'moaning' - they are expressing a principled and reasonable objection to an unjust and irrational exam

It is whining and moaning, some didn't pass so they bleat about how unfair life is then accuse those that do pass of spending thousands of pounds on extra tuition, it's a totally unfounded and irrational assumption to make as well as spiteful.

you are showing them disrespect to use this language and are implicitly praising yourself and your son for being brave and dogged for not 'whining' or 'moaning

Respect has nothing to do with it; I accepted my lot, I failed the exam and I accepted it, it wasn't because my parents didn't give me tuition, it wasn't because I didn't have wealthy parents, I simply wasn't good enough, that's life and I don't need an apologist to speak on my behalf. For those that do pass the examination for Grammar, good for you.

The experiences of your son and yourself are irrelevant any way - why do so many supporters of the 11+ have to tell us of their success or lack of it - and justify themselves in terms of being plucky and indomitable? Comprehensive education is about giving all children a decent start.

It's relevant to me and are relevant to the subject, it might not suit your agenda, if that is so you won't be asking me further questions about it will you? Aside from being pleased for those that are successful or who do pass the exams, I don't see that pluck or being indomitable are qualities to be ashamed of though I would attribute aspiration and determination to be more applicable, one certainly does not require examinations in order to procure such qualities.

brilliant chance for 30% or so of kids.
Why do so few kids from poor families get the chance of a decent education

Again, instead of generalising, then please provide the source to back your claim that "kids from poor families don't get the chance of a decent education!

then and why do they do equally well or better in comprehensive counties?

Source? I expect however, that the more academically minded Children mask the examination results of those that don't do so well, the real question, is as to whether those that do well in examinations could do better, or that those that aren't academically well positioned, give up because the gap between the top and the bottom is deemed too great. Either way, if you have figures to back up your claim, then provide them.

Have you ever looked at yourself while calling other whining sh!ts?

Of course but I don't see how being pleased for others who do pass the 11+ would put me in the same category as those who blame failing it on everybody else.

‘Academic ability isn't the be all and end all of life, neither is going to University.’ Up to a point this is true but if this is the case then why do so many parents spend money on getting their children through the 11+?

I've not seen any evidence that they do, you are still to provide it but anyway, the enthesis of success has been attributed to academic achievement alone; A number of generations have lost out from gaining good trade or industry qualifications, apprenticeships, because of the drive towards University.
!

It’s not a myth that people trot out money to get their children coached into grammar schools – see some of the other letters here – I know more than one (privately educated) parent who has done this for the obvious reason that it is far less expensive to get your kid through the 11+ than to pay years of school fees

Strewth, I know a mate darn the street who did x & y, so z must be true, yes, that's a logical fallacy known as Argumentum ad populam, it really means very little unless you've the minerals to back up your assertion.
!

– in any case most public schools take their pupils from private preparatory schools and grammar school children have gone to local junior schools.

Really? but earlier you stated " Apart from this statement directly contradicting that of the previous, I'm not sure again, unless being one of your assumptions again, as to how you've come to this conclusion; Public Schools have varying degrees of entry requirements that are determined by the school themselves, that includes bursaries.

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

wayneo wrote:

demoness the second wrote: Up until very recently I was 100% pro selection. I passed my 12 plus ( as it ws then) as did my siblings, as did my children.No coaching involved. However I am afraid that the days of children being given a fair crack of the whip where grammar schools are concerned are long gone. The principle is sound - why shouldn't we develop the superior brains of the future? Why shouldn't the working class kid be given the same chance as anyone else? But it isn't like that anymore. Sadly the more affluent schools do tend to coach, and sadly it is those with the most money who coach their children. My children both caught the bus to school every day and we paid - it was not a problem. To be fair the school was in our catchment area. But they both tell tales of the appalling behaviour of these so called well brought up children who were not used to public transport. They also said that it was pretty obvious who had been coached because these kids struggled very quickly. Which makes it a travesty because those spaces could have been used by children with brains. The 11 plus exam IMO is not a test of intellectual superiority. If they really wanted to cream off the top 25% they should be doing straight forward tests in the three Rs. You can coach children to take this exam because it is a matter of knowing how to answer the questions - there is a knack involved. Once you have solved the riddle - it is easy. So ( as others have said)

I because of the target culture much of the curriculum is concerned with coaching as opposed to academic acheivement. Rather than worrying about Grammar education, I am more concerned of the focus of Government of the scrapping of Techs, Polytechnics, colleges to Universities etc. ! The seed that has been sown is that one is worthless without a University education and there are a considerable number of degrees that aren't worth sh!te. Pretyy ironic seeing as it is manufacturing and engineering that we as a nation used to excel at but are now lagging well behind.

If I understand your first sentence aright you seem to be mounting a dogged defence of grammar schools for not ‘worrying about Grammar education, I am more concerned of the focus of Government of the scrapping of Techs, Polytechnics, colleges to Universities etc.’ Broadly speaking a university education is the essential prerequisite for a career that is rewarding financially and personally and you don’t get the sort of degree you need by failing the 11+. That is one reason people support the 11+ - the fact that if their child can get through it a majority of other people's children will be at a disadvantage in comparison. The reason I am opposed to the 11+ is that WASTES so much talent – you get clever men and women who never get the chance to achieve their potential and are fascinated by things they never heard of at school and who defer to people no better than them who are better-educated. For every ordinary kid like Alistair Cooke, Edward Heath, Alan Bennet or Dudley Moore there thousands put on the scrapheap and hundreds of well-off ones given an unecessary help.

No, the defence of the 11+ and Grammar education does not rely on polytechnics or higher education, my point concerned the focus on degrees being the be-all and end-all to a successful future. Your insinuation that a university degree is a prerequisite for a for a career that is rewarding both financially and personally is quite simply not true, we well know with the amount of graduates becoming gas engineers and plumbers etc; as for financial rewards, I think the chap who owns castle cafe probably earns more in a year than many teachers, college lecturers, engineers etc etc.
!
The idea that a degree is all that is required to be successful or for somebody to reach their full potential is complete cr@p, what Grammar schools allow students to do, is for more academically minded children to pursue a more vigorous academic path than those whowould likely struggle under the workload, that you would hold back those people (or suppress their potential) makes you every bit as guilty as the system you claim is somehow elitist.
!
Lastly, clever men and women as you put it, will find their own potential, they don't need degrees, they don't need examinations, they find their own way in life, being clever, is not always determined by academic ability alone.

I didn’t say your defence of the 11+ relied on polytechnics or higher education – I said that you seemed to be paying a great deal of attention to the 11+ for a man who was ‘… more concerned of (sic) the focus of Government of the scrapping of Techs, Polytechnics, colleges to Universities etc.’

Your stories about ‘graduates becoming gas engineers and plumbers etc; as for financial rewards’ and ‘… the chap who owns castle cafe probably earns more in a year than many teachers, college lecturers, engineers etc etc’ are urban myths like so much stuff in defence of the 11+. I have never met a graduate heating engineer (and training as a gas engineer is as time-consuming as becoming a graduate). Your statement that my ‘insinuation that a university degree is a prerequisite for a for a career that is rewarding both financially and personally is quite simply not true,’ is mistaken in its emphasis – I said that ‘Broadly speaking a university education is the essential prerequisite for a career that is rewarding financially and personally and you don’t get the sort of degree you need by failing the 11+.’ Broadly speaking most learned professions require a degree before you can enter training or require O and A levels at grades that are not commonly earned at secondary modern schools – look at medicine and the law. ( By the way I don’t know why you keep saying I am ‘insinuating’ stuff – I would have said I am quite open and direct in my hostility to so-called ‘selection’.)
I agree with you that being a graduate is not the be-all and end-all of life – I have post graduate degrees and my brother remarked some years ago (with a sly look at me) that he had not read a book for twenty years – my father was the same and they have had happy and successful lives, however that is not a justification for denying an overwhelming majority of children admission to academia and then doggedly thinking up rationalisations for this. What do kids at grammar schools learn? A lot of it is the sort of stuff that enables them to become graduates and earn better than average salaries – in the case of many of them much better than average and in much more interesting jobs. If they don’t learn this then what do they learn? Why else do grammar schools pride themselves on the high rate of successful entries to examinations that are university entrance requirements? How do you know the proprietor of the Castle Café didn’t want to become an English teacher? Elsewhere on this page you say, ‘Lastly, clever men and women as you put it, will find their own potential, they don't need degrees, they don't need examinations, they find their own way in life, being clever, is not always determined by academic ability alone.’ Then what is the purpose of grammar schools and the 11+?
You say ‘what Grammar schools allow students to do, is for more academically minded children to pursue a more vigorous academic path than those who would likely struggle under the workload’. What do you mean by ‘academically minded’? The Oxford Dictionary, among other definitions, says academic means, ‘6. Of a person, esp. a child: interested in or excelling at scholarly pursuits and activities; bookish, studious; clever’. Do you really believe parents sit down and think ‘ooh he’s interested in or excelling at scholarly pursuits and activities; bookish, and studious’ so we’ll get him through the 11+ so he can study literature, history or nature in books – if this is true what is the reason for ‘allowing’ the more academically-able to do this – from what you say it would appear to be a form of intellectual self-indulgence, and why do parents pay for their children to be coached to pass the 11+ - is it because all their children are bookish and intellectual or because entrance to grammar school gives them a much better chance in life when they leave school?
Also why do secondary moderns fall so far behind grammars? Is it because the 11+ pass mark (which varies from year to year depending on the size of the school population that year) indicates a point below which children in secondary moderns really become only a fraction as talented as the kids who get through the 11+ or is it, as a friend’s son said to me, he was already being coached for O level at age 11 whereas his best friend at school – who had failed the 11+ - was carrying on undemandingly with what they had been doing at junior school so that his potential lay undeveloped?
What do you think secondary modern schools do for their students (cue for some faux respectful stuff about why am I calling them failures) – what is the purpose of secondary modern schools? The disadvantage in ‘selection’ and the 11+ is often said to be summed up in the three words ‘secondary modern schools’ – the unspoken assumption behind ‘selection’ is that some people’s children are not worth wasting too much time educating.

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

bobby698 wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

bobby698 wrote: May I throw this comment into the mix: Is there a need to objectively look at the bigger UK picture on 11+? As we all know there are only a few counties left in the Uk which operate this system. So, if we look at some heavily urban areas which do not operate this system we find serious juvenile crime, knife possession and increased teenage pregnancies. Now, is this because intelligence pupils are being held back by the system which puts all intellectual standards together in one school, thereby preventing future role models being created which would, hopefully, lead to less of the above criminal strands? Or wil it have absolutely no effect at all? What a question to ask! And should we, as parents, change the Bucks system and thereby potentially damage our children's future potential, not only in a monetary and employment sense, but also for future role models? I for one am not prepared to take this chance. For all our sakes, the Bucks Status Quo should remain. Allow our children the opportunity to excel. Life will be hard enough for them.

This a very silly, solemn-sounding post - you say’ ‘ As we all know there are only a few counties left in the Uk (sic) which operate this system.’ You then say ‘so’ - as if there were some connection between what you have just said and the next statement’ ‘ So, if we look at some heavily urban areas which do not operate this system we find serious juvenile crime, knife possession and increased teenage pregnancies.’ You then ask a very stupid (and carelessly-construct ed) question, ‘ … is this because intelligence (sic) pupils are being held back by the system which puts all intellectual standards together in one school, thereby preventing future role models being created which would, hopefully, lead to less of the above criminal strands? Or wil(sic) it have absolutely no effect at all? You finish by stating the obvious, ‘What a question to ask!’ Comprehensive schools do not ‘put all intellectual standards together in one school’ and if they did then how would this ‘prevent (benevolent) future role models being created’? Yes indeed - a very stupid question to ask and one which you fail to answer – you suggest there may be a connection and fail to show why. There are plenty of comprehensive schools that are not plagued by ‘serious juvenile crime, knife possession and increased teenage pregnancies’ – do you think there could be a connection between the fact that comprehensive schools that DO have these problems are in ‘heavily urban areas’ of poverty and deprivation rather than that the local authority has abolished the 11+? You also ask, ‘And should we, as parents, change the Bucks system and thereby potentially damage our children's future potential, not only in a monetary and employment sense, but also for future role models?’ Why does this ‘potentially damage’ the ‘future potentia l’ of our children – comprehensive education seems to work well enough elsewhere - I have mentioned above the fact that two heads of Oxford colleges have failed the 11+ and achieved success academically after the ‘destruction’ of grammar schools and their replacement by comprehensives. These two men are not isolated examples. The present system CURRENTLY wastes the potential of perhaps 60% or more of local children. You then conclude with a further solemn absurdity, ‘I for one am not prepared to take this chance. For all our sakes, the Bucks Status Quo should remain. Allow our children the opportunity to excel.’ What remotely improbable ‘chance’ are you unwilling to take? Let’s GET RID of the Bucks status quo and allow ALL our children – not the 30% or so who pass the 11+ to ‘excel’.

ImpeturbableLawrence : Thanks for your comments which of course I note. Apologies for my sic, sadly the result of a sink Comprehensive in a West Midlands urban area..... My point is this: in Bucks we have a system that allows ALL pupils to excel at their given level of education. for the brighter pupils the Grammar school exists, and for those who have not achieved this level there exists, in my opinion, an excellent range of Bucks secondary/academy schools which will allow these pupils to thrive. Perhaps I did not make myself clear - again apologies from the West Midlands: I want ALL our children to thrive, not just 'the chosen 30%'. Mixing and matching high-level achievers with lower-level performers does not appear to work. Clearly the rationale is to improve the lower-level, but studies show this simply does not work. Answer? I don't know, I went to school in the West Midlands....

You're generalising very widely on the basis of your own experience and intuition and I would say that you are condemning a further generation of children to second-class education.

By proclaiming Secondary education to be second class, then logically you define Grammar Education to be first class, that being so, what would the class of education be of the comprehensive system that would result from scrapping Grammar schools? It would have to still be second class.
!
If the 11 plus, an examination that qualifies those that pass for a Grammar school place were to be scrapped, why then bother with GCSE, A-levels, BTEC, Degrees, Industry qualifications etc etc? Why bother having any qualification whatsoever unless some form of selection was to result from having those qualifications?

Dear Wayneo

Apologies for taking so long to get back.
I am taking people like you at your word – you and other supporters of the 11+ are the people who speak of ‘excellence’ – if YOU ‘proclaim’ – to use your own word - that grammar schools are excellent then ‘logically’ - to use another one of your words - you are proclaiming secondary moderns to be inferior to them. And they are – grammar schools regularly attain near- perfect percentile scores in major GCSE examination subjects compared with secondary moderns and secondary moderns round here are regularly classed as ‘failing’ and are re-branded and reopened under another name – something that has never happened to a grammar school. I would say that grammars are better than secondary moderns and that they give children a better chance at the satisfying things in life – that is why parents want their chidren to pass the exam and are willing to pay large sums to have their children coached for it.
In answer to your question what would the class of education be if we were to scrap grammar schools then I would say look around you at the rest of the country where comprehensive schools are producing results in every way comparable to grammar schools - you talk as if the grammar schools were going to be replaced with nothing – both they and the secondary moderns would be replaced with a system that is comprehensive in its intake – hence the name - and comprehensive in the choices it offers to all children.
Your question why bother with any exam if you scrap the 11+ is not comparing like with like – we are the only country in the world that selects children for university education (that IS what the 11+ does) at the age of ten – the other exams are all intended to measure the knowledge or the understanding of subjects by young or mature adults.
Studies since the 1960s have shown what we all see around us in our lifetimes – that children from less well-off and less aspirational families are largely passed over by the 11+ which if it ever was a meritocratic exam has long since ceased to be.
By the way you still haven’t answered my question from last Saturday – If it made no difference to you and your son to fail the 11+ then why have this discredited exam in the first place and if your son ‘EARNED’ a place at A level in a grammar school then why didn’t he pass the 11+ in the first place – what happened to him in the time between 11+ failure and A level success?

I am taking people like you at your word – you and other supporters of the 11+ are the people who speak of ‘excellence’ – if YOU ‘proclaim’ – to use your own word - that grammar schools are excellent then ‘logically’ - to use another one of your words - you are proclaiming secondary moderns to be inferior to them

Let's see if we can wade through this scattergun aproach of a post. I don't believe i've "spoken of excellence" at all, I see Selective education as means of categorising those who are more academically suited to the general pace of Grammar schools to that of Secondary, there isn't a class distinction as proponents of scrapping Grammar Schools would have us believe. Incidentally, as I stated earlier, it was you who inferred that Children who failed the 11+ were destined for a second class education which could only mean that in your world, Grammar is first class; All schools are a mixed bag in my opinion but the focus has often been on examination results alone as opposed to .

And they are – grammar schools regularly attain near- perfect percentile scores in major GCSE examination subjects compared with secondary moderns and secondary moderns round here are regularly classed as ‘failing’ and are re-branded and reopened under another name,something that has never happened to a grammar school

So why change a model that is consistent and proven successful rather than resolving the issues of the not so successful, what is wrong in having a model with which one can aspire? The are many excellent Secondary Schools which offer an excellent education but at a slower rate or expectation than of Grammar Schools, this is a much more effective method at nurturing children than chucking them into the deep end. As for people paying large sums to coach their Children, where's your evidence for that and if it is happening, where is the evidence that it is effective in the first place? Remember, Middle Schools often 'coach' their pupils with mock papers, i myself passed mock papers but failed the actual exam, big deal, that's life.

both they and the secondary moderns would be replaced with a system that is comprehensive in its intake – hence the name - and comprehensive in the choices it offers to all children.

Your question why bother with any exam if you scrap the 11+ is not comparing like with like

Sure it is, any examination or qualification is a form of selection, it qualifies one for further education, college, University, employment etc etc, Unfortunately various Governments have determined success to be one of academic ability rather than vocational, the idea that you can lump everybody of all abilities into the same pot is disingenuous to those who have other very important qualities to offer.

we are the only country in the world that selects children for university education (that IS what the 11+ does) at the age of ten

You said earlier that "grammar schools regularly attain near- perfect percentile scores in major GCSE examination subjects", the reason for that is not because Grammar's are anything special educationally speaking, it's because children are deemed more mature or able to cope with the extra workload that Grammar's give to their students.

tudies since the 1960s have shown what we all see around us in our lifetimes – that children from less well-off and less aspirational families are largely passed over by the 11+ which if it ever was a meritocratic exam has long since ceased to be.

Sources please

By the way you still haven’t answered my question from last Saturday – If it made no difference to you and your son to fail the 11+ then why have this discredited exam in the first place and if your son ‘EARNED’ a place at A level in a grammar school then why didn’t he pass the 11+ in the first place – what happened to him in the time between 11+ failure and A level success?

It's not a discredited exam and please provide the evidence that it is? As for my son, he had to work very hard to gain his GCSE results, extra study time etc etc, his Secondary School was quite good but he was held back by idiots who felt more the need to impress girls than of listening in class and a general ethos of, it was square to be be academically successful. He worked much harder by his own volition to pass his exams, but he matured enough to cope with the extra work. Would he have been able to undertake the workload of Grammar when he was younger, I doubt it.

Let's see if we can wade through this scattergun aproach of a post. I don't believe i've "spoken of excellence" at all, I see Selective education as means of categorising those who are more academically suited to the general pace of Grammar schools to that of Secondary, there isn't a class distinction as proponents of scrapping Grammar Schools would have us believe. Incidentally, as I stated earlier, it was you who inferred that Children who failed the 11+ were destined for a second class education which could only mean that in your world, Grammar is first class; All schools are a mixed bag in my opinion but the focus has often been on examination results alone as opposed to .

I said ‘you and other supporters of the 11+ are the people who speak of ‘excellence’’ – a lot of people who agree with you do - do you disagree with these others?
Selective education does not categorise ‘… those who are more academically suited to the general pace of Grammar schools to that of Secondary’. The success of people who have failed their 11+ shows this.
There is a vast body of evidence going back to the so-called ‘Golden Age’ of grammar schools to show that the number of talented working-class children who passed the 11+ was a tiny percentage.
I haven’t ‘inferred’ (or ‘insinuated’) that secondary moderns are a second-class form of education - I’ve stated it as a fact - the number of ‘failing’ ones and the type of education the y offer show this. If you think most schools are a mixed bag then what is the point of trying to ‘select’ the ‘more academically-able’ children? And if it’s a matter of ‘pace’ then why are the syllabuses so different?

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

bobby698 wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

bobby698 wrote: May I throw this comment into the mix: Is there a need to objectively look at the bigger UK picture on 11+? As we all know there are only a few counties left in the Uk which operate this system. So, if we look at some heavily urban areas which do not operate this system we find serious juvenile crime, knife possession and increased teenage pregnancies. Now, is this because intelligence pupils are being held back by the system which puts all intellectual standards together in one school, thereby preventing future role models being created which would, hopefully, lead to less of the above criminal strands? Or wil it have absolutely no effect at all? What a question to ask! And should we, as parents, change the Bucks system and thereby potentially damage our children's future potential, not only in a monetary and employment sense, but also for future role models? I for one am not prepared to take this chance. For all our sakes, the Bucks Status Quo should remain. Allow our children the opportunity to excel. Life will be hard enough for them.

This a very silly, solemn-sounding post - you say’ ‘ As we all know there are only a few counties left in the Uk (sic) which operate this system.’ You then say ‘so’ - as if there were some connection between what you have just said and the next statement’ ‘ So, if we look at some heavily urban areas which do not operate this system we find serious juvenile crime, knife possession and increased teenage pregnancies.’ You then ask a very stupid (and carelessly-construct ed) question, ‘ … is this because intelligence (sic) pupils are being held back by the system which puts all intellectual standards together in one school, thereby preventing future role models being created which would, hopefully, lead to less of the above criminal strands? Or wil(sic) it have absolutely no effect at all? You finish by stating the obvious, ‘What a question to ask!’ Comprehensive schools do not ‘put all intellectual standards together in one school’ and if they did then how would this ‘prevent (benevolent) future role models being created’? Yes indeed - a very stupid question to ask and one which you fail to answer – you suggest there may be a connection and fail to show why. There are plenty of comprehensive schools that are not plagued by ‘serious juvenile crime, knife possession and increased teenage pregnancies’ – do you think there could be a connection between the fact that comprehensive schools that DO have these problems are in ‘heavily urban areas’ of poverty and deprivation rather than that the local authority has abolished the 11+? You also ask, ‘And should we, as parents, change the Bucks system and thereby potentially damage our children's future potential, not only in a monetary and employment sense, but also for future role models?’ Why does this ‘potentially damage’ the ‘future potentia l’ of our children – comprehensive education seems to work well enough elsewhere - I have mentioned above the fact that two heads of Oxford colleges have failed the 11+ and achieved success academically after the ‘destruction’ of grammar schools and their replacement by comprehensives. These two men are not isolated examples. The present system CURRENTLY wastes the potential of perhaps 60% or more of local children. You then conclude with a further solemn absurdity, ‘I for one am not prepared to take this chance. For all our sakes, the Bucks Status Quo should remain. Allow our children the opportunity to excel.’ What remotely improbable ‘chance’ are you unwilling to take? Let’s GET RID of the Bucks status quo and allow ALL our children – not the 30% or so who pass the 11+ to ‘excel’.

ImpeturbableLawrence : Thanks for your comments which of course I note. Apologies for my sic, sadly the result of a sink Comprehensive in a West Midlands urban area..... My point is this: in Bucks we have a system that allows ALL pupils to excel at their given level of education. for the brighter pupils the Grammar school exists, and for those who have not achieved this level there exists, in my opinion, an excellent range of Bucks secondary/academy schools which will allow these pupils to thrive. Perhaps I did not make myself clear - again apologies from the West Midlands: I want ALL our children to thrive, not just 'the chosen 30%'. Mixing and matching high-level achievers with lower-level performers does not appear to work. Clearly the rationale is to improve the lower-level, but studies show this simply does not work. Answer? I don't know, I went to school in the West Midlands....

You're generalising very widely on the basis of your own experience and intuition and I would say that you are condemning a further generation of children to second-class education.

By proclaiming Secondary education to be second class, then logically you define Grammar Education to be first class, that being so, what would the class of education be of the comprehensive system that would result from scrapping Grammar schools? It would have to still be second class.
!
If the 11 plus, an examination that qualifies those that pass for a Grammar school place were to be scrapped, why then bother with GCSE, A-levels, BTEC, Degrees, Industry qualifications etc etc? Why bother having any qualification whatsoever unless some form of selection was to result from having those qualifications?

Dear Wayneo

Apologies for taking so long to get back.
I am taking people like you at your word – you and other supporters of the 11+ are the people who speak of ‘excellence’ – if YOU ‘proclaim’ – to use your own word - that grammar schools are excellent then ‘logically’ - to use another one of your words - you are proclaiming secondary moderns to be inferior to them. And they are – grammar schools regularly attain near- perfect percentile scores in major GCSE examination subjects compared with secondary moderns and secondary moderns round here are regularly classed as ‘failing’ and are re-branded and reopened under another name – something that has never happened to a grammar school. I would say that grammars are better than secondary moderns and that they give children a better chance at the satisfying things in life – that is why parents want their chidren to pass the exam and are willing to pay large sums to have their children coached for it.
In answer to your question what would the class of education be if we were to scrap grammar schools then I would say look around you at the rest of the country where comprehensive schools are producing results in every way comparable to grammar schools - you talk as if the grammar schools were going to be replaced with nothing – both they and the secondary moderns would be replaced with a system that is comprehensive in its intake – hence the name - and comprehensive in the choices it offers to all children.
Your question why bother with any exam if you scrap the 11+ is not comparing like with like – we are the only country in the world that selects children for university education (that IS what the 11+ does) at the age of ten – the other exams are all intended to measure the knowledge or the understanding of subjects by young or mature adults.
Studies since the 1960s have shown what we all see around us in our lifetimes – that children from less well-off and less aspirational families are largely passed over by the 11+ which if it ever was a meritocratic exam has long since ceased to be.
By the way you still haven’t answered my question from last Saturday – If it made no difference to you and your son to fail the 11+ then why have this discredited exam in the first place and if your son ‘EARNED’ a place at A level in a grammar school then why didn’t he pass the 11+ in the first place – what happened to him in the time between 11+ failure and A level success?

I am taking people like you at your word – you and other supporters of the 11+ are the people who speak of ‘excellence’ – if YOU ‘proclaim’ – to use your own word - that grammar schools are excellent then ‘logically’ - to use another one of your words - you are proclaiming secondary moderns to be inferior to them

Let's see if we can wade through this scattergun aproach of a post. I don't believe i've "spoken of excellence" at all, I see Selective education as means of categorising those who are more academically suited to the general pace of Grammar schools to that of Secondary, there isn't a class distinction as proponents of scrapping Grammar Schools would have us believe. Incidentally, as I stated earlier, it was you who inferred that Children who failed the 11+ were destined for a second class education which could only mean that in your world, Grammar is first class; All schools are a mixed bag in my opinion but the focus has often been on examination results alone as opposed to .

And they are – grammar schools regularly attain near- perfect percentile scores in major GCSE examination subjects compared with secondary moderns and secondary moderns round here are regularly classed as ‘failing’ and are re-branded and reopened under another name,something that has never happened to a grammar school

So why change a model that is consistent and proven successful rather than resolving the issues of the not so successful, what is wrong in having a model with which one can aspire? The are many excellent Secondary Schools which offer an excellent education but at a slower rate or expectation than of Grammar Schools, this is a much more effective method at nurturing children than chucking them into the deep end. As for people paying large sums to coach their Children, where's your evidence for that and if it is happening, where is the evidence that it is effective in the first place? Remember, Middle Schools often 'coach' their pupils with mock papers, i myself passed mock papers but failed the actual exam, big deal, that's life.

both they and the secondary moderns would be replaced with a system that is comprehensive in its intake – hence the name - and comprehensive in the choices it offers to all children.

Your question why bother with any exam if you scrap the 11+ is not comparing like with like

Sure it is, any examination or qualification is a form of selection, it qualifies one for further education, college, University, employment etc etc, Unfortunately various Governments have determined success to be one of academic ability rather than vocational, the idea that you can lump everybody of all abilities into the same pot is disingenuous to those who have other very important qualities to offer.

we are the only country in the world that selects children for university education (that IS what the 11+ does) at the age of ten

You said earlier that "grammar schools regularly attain near- perfect percentile scores in major GCSE examination subjects", the reason for that is not because Grammar's are anything special educationally speaking, it's because children are deemed more mature or able to cope with the extra workload that Grammar's give to their students.

tudies since the 1960s have shown what we all see around us in our lifetimes – that children from less well-off and less aspirational families are largely passed over by the 11+ which if it ever was a meritocratic exam has long since ceased to be.

Sources please

By the way you still haven’t answered my question from last Saturday – If it made no difference to you and your son to fail the 11+ then why have this discredited exam in the first place and if your son ‘EARNED’ a place at A level in a grammar school then why didn’t he pass the 11+ in the first place – what happened to him in the time between 11+ failure and A level success?

It's not a discredited exam and please provide the evidence that it is? As for my son, he had to work very hard to gain his GCSE results, extra study time etc etc, his Secondary School was quite good but he was held back by idiots who felt more the need to impress girls than of listening in class and a general ethos of, it was square to be be academically successful. He worked much harder by his own volition to pass his exams, but he matured enough to cope with the extra work. Would he have been able to undertake the workload of Grammar when he was younger, I doubt it.

‘So why change a model that is consistent and proven successful rather than resolving the issues of the not so successful, what is wrong in having a model with which one can aspire?’
Obviously the system is ‘consistent’ with a small number of children who are the most easy to give success to and how can one ‘aspire’ to something one has been excluded from aged 10? The not so successful schools are intended to be less successful and are part of a system that rejects over two-thirds of children.
The are many excellent Secondary Schools which offer an excellent education but at a slower rate or expectation than of Grammar Schools, this is a much more effective method at nurturing children than chucking them into the deep end.
You don’t need to ‘chuck children in at the deep end’ just because they are no longer rejected by the educational system – that’s why so many children from non 11+ areas do well at school and university. The disadvantage of the pace argument is that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy – you said earlier ‘‘… my son has recently found out, his secondary school didn't push him half has hard as the Grammar school he attends, does now’
‘As for people paying large sums to coach their Children, where's your evidence for that and if it is happening, where is the evidence that it is effective in the first place?’
It is obviously impossible to produce evidence to show how much money people pay on coaching their children but commonsense would suggest quite a large number and that it’s quite effective – Councillor Appleyard says, ‘It may be that (the test) and the coaching which has a far bigger effect on who goes to a grammar.’ ‘Demoness the second’ says, ‘Sadly the more affluent schools do tend to coach, and sadly it is those with the most money who coach their children.’ ‘HerculePoirot’ quoting an academic research project says’ ‘Bunting and Mooney investigated the effect of 3 hours coaching prior to this longer period and found it lead to a small but significant gain of 5 points. Most significantly the coaching given in schools over the months following this resulting in pupils marks doubling in total.’ ‘fingersphil’ says, ‘fingersphil’
‘Remember, Middle Schools often 'coach' their pupils with mock papers, i myself passed mock papers but failed the actual exam, big deal, that's life.’
There are supposed to be strict limitations on the amount of coaching in school so parents who can afford to do it privately are distorting an already weirdly distorting system still further. (I am sure I speak for a lot of people when I ask you to lay off the subject of you own (highly courageous) refusal to be rebuffed by failure at the 11+ and your son’s similar behaviour – if you MUST go on about this confine it to answering the question I posed earlier – ‘if your son ‘EARNED’ a place at A level in a grammar school then why didn’t he pass the 11+ in the first place – what happened to him in the time between 11+ failure and A level success?’)

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

bobby698 wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

bobby698 wrote: May I throw this comment into the mix: Is there a need to objectively look at the bigger UK picture on 11+? As we all know there are only a few counties left in the Uk which operate this system. So, if we look at some heavily urban areas which do not operate this system we find serious juvenile crime, knife possession and increased teenage pregnancies. Now, is this because intelligence pupils are being held back by the system which puts all intellectual standards together in one school, thereby preventing future role models being created which would, hopefully, lead to less of the above criminal strands? Or wil it have absolutely no effect at all? What a question to ask! And should we, as parents, change the Bucks system and thereby potentially damage our children's future potential, not only in a monetary and employment sense, but also for future role models? I for one am not prepared to take this chance. For all our sakes, the Bucks Status Quo should remain. Allow our children the opportunity to excel. Life will be hard enough for them.

This a very silly, solemn-sounding post - you say’ ‘ As we all know there are only a few counties left in the Uk (sic) which operate this system.’ You then say ‘so’ - as if there were some connection between what you have just said and the next statement’ ‘ So, if we look at some heavily urban areas which do not operate this system we find serious juvenile crime, knife possession and increased teenage pregnancies.’ You then ask a very stupid (and carelessly-construct ed) question, ‘ … is this because intelligence (sic) pupils are being held back by the system which puts all intellectual standards together in one school, thereby preventing future role models being created which would, hopefully, lead to less of the above criminal strands? Or wil(sic) it have absolutely no effect at all? You finish by stating the obvious, ‘What a question to ask!’ Comprehensive schools do not ‘put all intellectual standards together in one school’ and if they did then how would this ‘prevent (benevolent) future role models being created’? Yes indeed - a very stupid question to ask and one which you fail to answer – you suggest there may be a connection and fail to show why. There are plenty of comprehensive schools that are not plagued by ‘serious juvenile crime, knife possession and increased teenage pregnancies’ – do you think there could be a connection between the fact that comprehensive schools that DO have these problems are in ‘heavily urban areas’ of poverty and deprivation rather than that the local authority has abolished the 11+? You also ask, ‘And should we, as parents, change the Bucks system and thereby potentially damage our children's future potential, not only in a monetary and employment sense, but also for future role models?’ Why does this ‘potentially damage’ the ‘future potentia l’ of our children – comprehensive education seems to work well enough elsewhere - I have mentioned above the fact that two heads of Oxford colleges have failed the 11+ and achieved success academically after the ‘destruction’ of grammar schools and their replacement by comprehensives. These two men are not isolated examples. The present system CURRENTLY wastes the potential of perhaps 60% or more of local children. You then conclude with a further solemn absurdity, ‘I for one am not prepared to take this chance. For all our sakes, the Bucks Status Quo should remain. Allow our children the opportunity to excel.’ What remotely improbable ‘chance’ are you unwilling to take? Let’s GET RID of the Bucks status quo and allow ALL our children – not the 30% or so who pass the 11+ to ‘excel’.

ImpeturbableLawrence : Thanks for your comments which of course I note. Apologies for my sic, sadly the result of a sink Comprehensive in a West Midlands urban area..... My point is this: in Bucks we have a system that allows ALL pupils to excel at their given level of education. for the brighter pupils the Grammar school exists, and for those who have not achieved this level there exists, in my opinion, an excellent range of Bucks secondary/academy schools which will allow these pupils to thrive. Perhaps I did not make myself clear - again apologies from the West Midlands: I want ALL our children to thrive, not just 'the chosen 30%'. Mixing and matching high-level achievers with lower-level performers does not appear to work. Clearly the rationale is to improve the lower-level, but studies show this simply does not work. Answer? I don't know, I went to school in the West Midlands....

You're generalising very widely on the basis of your own experience and intuition and I would say that you are condemning a further generation of children to second-class education.

By proclaiming Secondary education to be second class, then logically you define Grammar Education to be first class, that being so, what would the class of education be of the comprehensive system that would result from scrapping Grammar schools? It would have to still be second class.
!
If the 11 plus, an examination that qualifies those that pass for a Grammar school place were to be scrapped, why then bother with GCSE, A-levels, BTEC, Degrees, Industry qualifications etc etc? Why bother having any qualification whatsoever unless some form of selection was to result from having those qualifications?

Dear Wayneo

Apologies for taking so long to get back.
I am taking people like you at your word – you and other supporters of the 11+ are the people who speak of ‘excellence’ – if YOU ‘proclaim’ – to use your own word - that grammar schools are excellent then ‘logically’ - to use another one of your words - you are proclaiming secondary moderns to be inferior to them. And they are – grammar schools regularly attain near- perfect percentile scores in major GCSE examination subjects compared with secondary moderns and secondary moderns round here are regularly classed as ‘failing’ and are re-branded and reopened under another name – something that has never happened to a grammar school. I would say that grammars are better than secondary moderns and that they give children a better chance at the satisfying things in life – that is why parents want their chidren to pass the exam and are willing to pay large sums to have their children coached for it.
In answer to your question what would the class of education be if we were to scrap grammar schools then I would say look around you at the rest of the country where comprehensive schools are producing results in every way comparable to grammar schools - you talk as if the grammar schools were going to be replaced with nothing – both they and the secondary moderns would be replaced with a system that is comprehensive in its intake – hence the name - and comprehensive in the choices it offers to all children.
Your question why bother with any exam if you scrap the 11+ is not comparing like with like – we are the only country in the world that selects children for university education (that IS what the 11+ does) at the age of ten – the other exams are all intended to measure the knowledge or the understanding of subjects by young or mature adults.
Studies since the 1960s have shown what we all see around us in our lifetimes – that children from less well-off and less aspirational families are largely passed over by the 11+ which if it ever was a meritocratic exam has long since ceased to be.
By the way you still haven’t answered my question from last Saturday – If it made no difference to you and your son to fail the 11+ then why have this discredited exam in the first place and if your son ‘EARNED’ a place at A level in a grammar school then why didn’t he pass the 11+ in the first place – what happened to him in the time between 11+ failure and A level success?

I am taking people like you at your word – you and other supporters of the 11+ are the people who speak of ‘excellence’ – if YOU ‘proclaim’ – to use your own word - that grammar schools are excellent then ‘logically’ - to use another one of your words - you are proclaiming secondary moderns to be inferior to them

Let's see if we can wade through this scattergun aproach of a post. I don't believe i've "spoken of excellence" at all, I see Selective education as means of categorising those who are more academically suited to the general pace of Grammar schools to that of Secondary, there isn't a class distinction as proponents of scrapping Grammar Schools would have us believe. Incidentally, as I stated earlier, it was you who inferred that Children who failed the 11+ were destined for a second class education which could only mean that in your world, Grammar is first class; All schools are a mixed bag in my opinion but the focus has often been on examination results alone as opposed to .

And they are – grammar schools regularly attain near- perfect percentile scores in major GCSE examination subjects compared with secondary moderns and secondary moderns round here are regularly classed as ‘failing’ and are re-branded and reopened under another name,something that has never happened to a grammar school

So why change a model that is consistent and proven successful rather than resolving the issues of the not so successful, what is wrong in having a model with which one can aspire? The are many excellent Secondary Schools which offer an excellent education but at a slower rate or expectation than of Grammar Schools, this is a much more effective method at nurturing children than chucking them into the deep end. As for people paying large sums to coach their Children, where's your evidence for that and if it is happening, where is the evidence that it is effective in the first place? Remember, Middle Schools often 'coach' their pupils with mock papers, i myself passed mock papers but failed the actual exam, big deal, that's life.

both they and the secondary moderns would be replaced with a system that is comprehensive in its intake – hence the name - and comprehensive in the choices it offers to all children.

Your question why bother with any exam if you scrap the 11+ is not comparing like with like

Sure it is, any examination or qualification is a form of selection, it qualifies one for further education, college, University, employment etc etc, Unfortunately various Governments have determined success to be one of academic ability rather than vocational, the idea that you can lump everybody of all abilities into the same pot is disingenuous to those who have other very important qualities to offer.

we are the only country in the world that selects children for university education (that IS what the 11+ does) at the age of ten

You said earlier that "grammar schools regularly attain near- perfect percentile scores in major GCSE examination subjects", the reason for that is not because Grammar's are anything special educationally speaking, it's because children are deemed more mature or able to cope with the extra workload that Grammar's give to their students.

tudies since the 1960s have shown what we all see around us in our lifetimes – that children from less well-off and less aspirational families are largely passed over by the 11+ which if it ever was a meritocratic exam has long since ceased to be.

Sources please

By the way you still haven’t answered my question from last Saturday – If it made no difference to you and your son to fail the 11+ then why have this discredited exam in the first place and if your son ‘EARNED’ a place at A level in a grammar school then why didn’t he pass the 11+ in the first place – what happened to him in the time between 11+ failure and A level success?

It's not a discredited exam and please provide the evidence that it is? As for my son, he had to work very hard to gain his GCSE results, extra study time etc etc, his Secondary School was quite good but he was held back by idiots who felt more the need to impress girls than of listening in class and a general ethos of, it was square to be be academically successful. He worked much harder by his own volition to pass his exams, but he matured enough to cope with the extra work. Would he have been able to undertake the workload of Grammar when he was younger, I doubt it.

‘Sure it is, any examination or qualification is a form of selection, it qualifies one for further education, college, University, employment etc etc, Unfortunately various Governments have determined success to be one of academic ability rather than vocational, the idea that you can lump everybody of all abilities into the same pot is disingenuous to those who have other very important qualities to offer.’

No it’s NOT – a test of supposed innate ability for ten year olds is not comparable with university entrance, professional, and higher educational qualifications for mature or young adults.
I agree with you that it is belittling to people who are willing and able to use ‘vocational’ talents to insist on them trying to be ‘academic’ but the 11+ was originally conceived as part of a plan to separate children into ‘vocational’ and ‘academic’ sheep and goats in the first place. I notice the well-off in our society don’t send their children for training as plumbers – look up the CV’s of the present cabinet in ‘Who’s Who’. Comprehensive education is far from being the ‘lumping all abilities in together’ – experience in areas where it has been abolished shows it can liberate the talents of ALL children – not just the few who pass the 11+. Your sentence containing the word ‘disingenuous’ makes no sense – disingenuous means lacking in candour or insincere – is the 11+ ‘ingenuous’ to such children?

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

bobby698 wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

bobby698 wrote: May I throw this comment into the mix: Is there a need to objectively look at the bigger UK picture on 11+? As we all know there are only a few counties left in the Uk which operate this system. So, if we look at some heavily urban areas which do not operate this system we find serious juvenile crime, knife possession and increased teenage pregnancies. Now, is this because intelligence pupils are being held back by the system which puts all intellectual standards together in one school, thereby preventing future role models being created which would, hopefully, lead to less of the above criminal strands? Or wil it have absolutely no effect at all? What a question to ask! And should we, as parents, change the Bucks system and thereby potentially damage our children's future potential, not only in a monetary and employment sense, but also for future role models? I for one am not prepared to take this chance. For all our sakes, the Bucks Status Quo should remain. Allow our children the opportunity to excel. Life will be hard enough for them.

This a very silly, solemn-sounding post - you say’ ‘ As we all know there are only a few counties left in the Uk (sic) which operate this system.’ You then say ‘so’ - as if there were some connection between what you have just said and the next statement’ ‘ So, if we look at some heavily urban areas which do not operate this system we find serious juvenile crime, knife possession and increased teenage pregnancies.’ You then ask a very stupid (and carelessly-construct ed) question, ‘ … is this because intelligence (sic) pupils are being held back by the system which puts all intellectual standards together in one school, thereby preventing future role models being created which would, hopefully, lead to less of the above criminal strands? Or wil(sic) it have absolutely no effect at all? You finish by stating the obvious, ‘What a question to ask!’ Comprehensive schools do not ‘put all intellectual standards together in one school’ and if they did then how would this ‘prevent (benevolent) future role models being created’? Yes indeed - a very stupid question to ask and one which you fail to answer – you suggest there may be a connection and fail to show why. There are plenty of comprehensive schools that are not plagued by ‘serious juvenile crime, knife possession and increased teenage pregnancies’ – do you think there could be a connection between the fact that comprehensive schools that DO have these problems are in ‘heavily urban areas’ of poverty and deprivation rather than that the local authority has abolished the 11+? You also ask, ‘And should we, as parents, change the Bucks system and thereby potentially damage our children's future potential, not only in a monetary and employment sense, but also for future role models?’ Why does this ‘potentially damage’ the ‘future potentia l’ of our children – comprehensive education seems to work well enough elsewhere - I have mentioned above the fact that two heads of Oxford colleges have failed the 11+ and achieved success academically after the ‘destruction’ of grammar schools and their replacement by comprehensives. These two men are not isolated examples. The present system CURRENTLY wastes the potential of perhaps 60% or more of local children. You then conclude with a further solemn absurdity, ‘I for one am not prepared to take this chance. For all our sakes, the Bucks Status Quo should remain. Allow our children the opportunity to excel.’ What remotely improbable ‘chance’ are you unwilling to take? Let’s GET RID of the Bucks status quo and allow ALL our children – not the 30% or so who pass the 11+ to ‘excel’.

ImpeturbableLawrence : Thanks for your comments which of course I note. Apologies for my sic, sadly the result of a sink Comprehensive in a West Midlands urban area..... My point is this: in Bucks we have a system that allows ALL pupils to excel at their given level of education. for the brighter pupils the Grammar school exists, and for those who have not achieved this level there exists, in my opinion, an excellent range of Bucks secondary/academy schools which will allow these pupils to thrive. Perhaps I did not make myself clear - again apologies from the West Midlands: I want ALL our children to thrive, not just 'the chosen 30%'. Mixing and matching high-level achievers with lower-level performers does not appear to work. Clearly the rationale is to improve the lower-level, but studies show this simply does not work. Answer? I don't know, I went to school in the West Midlands....

You're generalising very widely on the basis of your own experience and intuition and I would say that you are condemning a further generation of children to second-class education.

By proclaiming Secondary education to be second class, then logically you define Grammar Education to be first class, that being so, what would the class of education be of the comprehensive system that would result from scrapping Grammar schools? It would have to still be second class.
!
If the 11 plus, an examination that qualifies those that pass for a Grammar school place were to be scrapped, why then bother with GCSE, A-levels, BTEC, Degrees, Industry qualifications etc etc? Why bother having any qualification whatsoever unless some form of selection was to result from having those qualifications?

Dear Wayneo

Apologies for taking so long to get back.
I am taking people like you at your word – you and other supporters of the 11+ are the people who speak of ‘excellence’ – if YOU ‘proclaim’ – to use your own word - that grammar schools are excellent then ‘logically’ - to use another one of your words - you are proclaiming secondary moderns to be inferior to them. And they are – grammar schools regularly attain near- perfect percentile scores in major GCSE examination subjects compared with secondary moderns and secondary moderns round here are regularly classed as ‘failing’ and are re-branded and reopened under another name – something that has never happened to a grammar school. I would say that grammars are better than secondary moderns and that they give children a better chance at the satisfying things in life – that is why parents want their chidren to pass the exam and are willing to pay large sums to have their children coached for it.
In answer to your question what would the class of education be if we were to scrap grammar schools then I would say look around you at the rest of the country where comprehensive schools are producing results in every way comparable to grammar schools - you talk as if the grammar schools were going to be replaced with nothing – both they and the secondary moderns would be replaced with a system that is comprehensive in its intake – hence the name - and comprehensive in the choices it offers to all children.
Your question why bother with any exam if you scrap the 11+ is not comparing like with like – we are the only country in the world that selects children for university education (that IS what the 11+ does) at the age of ten – the other exams are all intended to measure the knowledge or the understanding of subjects by young or mature adults.
Studies since the 1960s have shown what we all see around us in our lifetimes – that children from less well-off and less aspirational families are largely passed over by the 11+ which if it ever was a meritocratic exam has long since ceased to be.
By the way you still haven’t answered my question from last Saturday – If it made no difference to you and your son to fail the 11+ then why have this discredited exam in the first place and if your son ‘EARNED’ a place at A level in a grammar school then why didn’t he pass the 11+ in the first place – what happened to him in the time between 11+ failure and A level success?

I am taking people like you at your word – you and other supporters of the 11+ are the people who speak of ‘excellence’ – if YOU ‘proclaim’ – to use your own word - that grammar schools are excellent then ‘logically’ - to use another one of your words - you are proclaiming secondary moderns to be inferior to them

Let's see if we can wade through this scattergun aproach of a post. I don't believe i've "spoken of excellence" at all, I see Selective education as means of categorising those who are more academically suited to the general pace of Grammar schools to that of Secondary, there isn't a class distinction as proponents of scrapping Grammar Schools would have us believe. Incidentally, as I stated earlier, it was you who inferred that Children who failed the 11+ were destined for a second class education which could only mean that in your world, Grammar is first class; All schools are a mixed bag in my opinion but the focus has often been on examination results alone as opposed to .

And they are – grammar schools regularly attain near- perfect percentile scores in major GCSE examination subjects compared with secondary moderns and secondary moderns round here are regularly classed as ‘failing’ and are re-branded and reopened under another name,something that has never happened to a grammar school

So why change a model that is consistent and proven successful rather than resolving the issues of the not so successful, what is wrong in having a model with which one can aspire? The are many excellent Secondary Schools which offer an excellent education but at a slower rate or expectation than of Grammar Schools, this is a much more effective method at nurturing children than chucking them into the deep end. As for people paying large sums to coach their Children, where's your evidence for that and if it is happening, where is the evidence that it is effective in the first place? Remember, Middle Schools often 'coach' their pupils with mock papers, i myself passed mock papers but failed the actual exam, big deal, that's life.

both they and the secondary moderns would be replaced with a system that is comprehensive in its intake – hence the name - and comprehensive in the choices it offers to all children.

Your question why bother with any exam if you scrap the 11+ is not comparing like with like

Sure it is, any examination or qualification is a form of selection, it qualifies one for further education, college, University, employment etc etc, Unfortunately various Governments have determined success to be one of academic ability rather than vocational, the idea that you can lump everybody of all abilities into the same pot is disingenuous to those who have other very important qualities to offer.

we are the only country in the world that selects children for university education (that IS what the 11+ does) at the age of ten

You said earlier that "grammar schools regularly attain near- perfect percentile scores in major GCSE examination subjects", the reason for that is not because Grammar's are anything special educationally speaking, it's because children are deemed more mature or able to cope with the extra workload that Grammar's give to their students.

tudies since the 1960s have shown what we all see around us in our lifetimes – that children from less well-off and less aspirational families are largely passed over by the 11+ which if it ever was a meritocratic exam has long since ceased to be.

Sources please

By the way you still haven’t answered my question from last Saturday – If it made no difference to you and your son to fail the 11+ then why have this discredited exam in the first place and if your son ‘EARNED’ a place at A level in a grammar school then why didn’t he pass the 11+ in the first place – what happened to him in the time between 11+ failure and A level success?

It's not a discredited exam and please provide the evidence that it is? As for my son, he had to work very hard to gain his GCSE results, extra study time etc etc, his Secondary School was quite good but he was held back by idiots who felt more the need to impress girls than of listening in class and a general ethos of, it was square to be be academically successful. He worked much harder by his own volition to pass his exams, but he matured enough to cope with the extra work. Would he have been able to undertake the workload of Grammar when he was younger, I doubt it.

‘You said earlier that "grammar schools regularly attain near- perfect percentile scores in major GCSE examination subjects", the reason for that is not because Grammar's are anything special educationally speaking, it's because children are deemed more mature or able to cope with the extra workload that Grammar's give to their students.’
This proves what I say elsewhere – that grammars and secondary moderns contain self-fulfilling expectations for their students – if a child were to be taken from a secondary modern, put into a grammar and treated as bright enough to succeed then s/he would start to succeed (elsewhere on this page you say your son was not stretched enough until he went to grammar school). If ‘ … Grammar's are (not) anything special educationally speaking’ what is their point – they can’t be doing what you said earlier, ‘…what Grammar schools allow students to do, is for more academically minded children to pursue a more vigorous academic path’ so why are you defending them?

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

bobby698 wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

bobby698 wrote: May I throw this comment into the mix: Is there a need to objectively look at the bigger UK picture on 11+? As we all know there are only a few counties left in the Uk which operate this system. So, if we look at some heavily urban areas which do not operate this system we find serious juvenile crime, knife possession and increased teenage pregnancies. Now, is this because intelligence pupils are being held back by the system which puts all intellectual standards together in one school, thereby preventing future role models being created which would, hopefully, lead to less of the above criminal strands? Or wil it have absolutely no effect at all? What a question to ask! And should we, as parents, change the Bucks system and thereby potentially damage our children's future potential, not only in a monetary and employment sense, but also for future role models? I for one am not prepared to take this chance. For all our sakes, the Bucks Status Quo should remain. Allow our children the opportunity to excel. Life will be hard enough for them.

This a very silly, solemn-sounding post - you say’ ‘ As we all know there are only a few counties left in the Uk (sic) which operate this system.’ You then say ‘so’ - as if there were some connection between what you have just said and the next statement’ ‘ So, if we look at some heavily urban areas which do not operate this system we find serious juvenile crime, knife possession and increased teenage pregnancies.’ You then ask a very stupid (and carelessly-construct ed) question, ‘ … is this because intelligence (sic) pupils are being held back by the system which puts all intellectual standards together in one school, thereby preventing future role models being created which would, hopefully, lead to less of the above criminal strands? Or wil(sic) it have absolutely no effect at all? You finish by stating the obvious, ‘What a question to ask!’ Comprehensive schools do not ‘put all intellectual standards together in one school’ and if they did then how would this ‘prevent (benevolent) future role models being created’? Yes indeed - a very stupid question to ask and one which you fail to answer – you suggest there may be a connection and fail to show why. There are plenty of comprehensive schools that are not plagued by ‘serious juvenile crime, knife possession and increased teenage pregnancies’ – do you think there could be a connection between the fact that comprehensive schools that DO have these problems are in ‘heavily urban areas’ of poverty and deprivation rather than that the local authority has abolished the 11+? You also ask, ‘And should we, as parents, change the Bucks system and thereby potentially damage our children's future potential, not only in a monetary and employment sense, but also for future role models?’ Why does this ‘potentially damage’ the ‘future potentia l’ of our children – comprehensive education seems to work well enough elsewhere - I have mentioned above the fact that two heads of Oxford colleges have failed the 11+ and achieved success academically after the ‘destruction’ of grammar schools and their replacement by comprehensives. These two men are not isolated examples. The present system CURRENTLY wastes the potential of perhaps 60% or more of local children. You then conclude with a further solemn absurdity, ‘I for one am not prepared to take this chance. For all our sakes, the Bucks Status Quo should remain. Allow our children the opportunity to excel.’ What remotely improbable ‘chance’ are you unwilling to take? Let’s GET RID of the Bucks status quo and allow ALL our children – not the 30% or so who pass the 11+ to ‘excel’.

ImpeturbableLawrence : Thanks for your comments which of course I note. Apologies for my sic, sadly the result of a sink Comprehensive in a West Midlands urban area..... My point is this: in Bucks we have a system that allows ALL pupils to excel at their given level of education. for the brighter pupils the Grammar school exists, and for those who have not achieved this level there exists, in my opinion, an excellent range of Bucks secondary/academy schools which will allow these pupils to thrive. Perhaps I did not make myself clear - again apologies from the West Midlands: I want ALL our children to thrive, not just 'the chosen 30%'. Mixing and matching high-level achievers with lower-level performers does not appear to work. Clearly the rationale is to improve the lower-level, but studies show this simply does not work. Answer? I don't know, I went to school in the West Midlands....

You're generalising very widely on the basis of your own experience and intuition and I would say that you are condemning a further generation of children to second-class education.

By proclaiming Secondary education to be second class, then logically you define Grammar Education to be first class, that being so, what would the class of education be of the comprehensive system that would result from scrapping Grammar schools? It would have to still be second class.
!
If the 11 plus, an examination that qualifies those that pass for a Grammar school place were to be scrapped, why then bother with GCSE, A-levels, BTEC, Degrees, Industry qualifications etc etc? Why bother having any qualification whatsoever unless some form of selection was to result from having those qualifications?

Dear Wayneo

Apologies for taking so long to get back.
I am taking people like you at your word – you and other supporters of the 11+ are the people who speak of ‘excellence’ – if YOU ‘proclaim’ – to use your own word - that grammar schools are excellent then ‘logically’ - to use another one of your words - you are proclaiming secondary moderns to be inferior to them. And they are – grammar schools regularly attain near- perfect percentile scores in major GCSE examination subjects compared with secondary moderns and secondary moderns round here are regularly classed as ‘failing’ and are re-branded and reopened under another name – something that has never happened to a grammar school. I would say that grammars are better than secondary moderns and that they give children a better chance at the satisfying things in life – that is why parents want their chidren to pass the exam and are willing to pay large sums to have their children coached for it.
In answer to your question what would the class of education be if we were to scrap grammar schools then I would say look around you at the rest of the country where comprehensive schools are producing results in every way comparable to grammar schools - you talk as if the grammar schools were going to be replaced with nothing – both they and the secondary moderns would be replaced with a system that is comprehensive in its intake – hence the name - and comprehensive in the choices it offers to all children.
Your question why bother with any exam if you scrap the 11+ is not comparing like with like – we are the only country in the world that selects children for university education (that IS what the 11+ does) at the age of ten – the other exams are all intended to measure the knowledge or the understanding of subjects by young or mature adults.
Studies since the 1960s have shown what we all see around us in our lifetimes – that children from less well-off and less aspirational families are largely passed over by the 11+ which if it ever was a meritocratic exam has long since ceased to be.
By the way you still haven’t answered my question from last Saturday – If it made no difference to you and your son to fail the 11+ then why have this discredited exam in the first place and if your son ‘EARNED’ a place at A level in a grammar school then why didn’t he pass the 11+ in the first place – what happened to him in the time between 11+ failure and A level success?

I am taking people like you at your word – you and other supporters of the 11+ are the people who speak of ‘excellence’ – if YOU ‘proclaim’ – to use your own word - that grammar schools are excellent then ‘logically’ - to use another one of your words - you are proclaiming secondary moderns to be inferior to them

Let's see if we can wade through this scattergun aproach of a post. I don't believe i've "spoken of excellence" at all, I see Selective education as means of categorising those who are more academically suited to the general pace of Grammar schools to that of Secondary, there isn't a class distinction as proponents of scrapping Grammar Schools would have us believe. Incidentally, as I stated earlier, it was you who inferred that Children who failed the 11+ were destined for a second class education which could only mean that in your world, Grammar is first class; All schools are a mixed bag in my opinion but the focus has often been on examination results alone as opposed to .

And they are – grammar schools regularly attain near- perfect percentile scores in major GCSE examination subjects compared with secondary moderns and secondary moderns round here are regularly classed as ‘failing’ and are re-branded and reopened under another name,something that has never happened to a grammar school

So why change a model that is consistent and proven successful rather than resolving the issues of the not so successful, what is wrong in having a model with which one can aspire? The are many excellent Secondary Schools which offer an excellent education but at a slower rate or expectation than of Grammar Schools, this is a much more effective method at nurturing children than chucking them into the deep end. As for people paying large sums to coach their Children, where's your evidence for that and if it is happening, where is the evidence that it is effective in the first place? Remember, Middle Schools often 'coach' their pupils with mock papers, i myself passed mock papers but failed the actual exam, big deal, that's life.

both they and the secondary moderns would be replaced with a system that is comprehensive in its intake – hence the name - and comprehensive in the choices it offers to all children.

Your question why bother with any exam if you scrap the 11+ is not comparing like with like

Sure it is, any examination or qualification is a form of selection, it qualifies one for further education, college, University, employment etc etc, Unfortunately various Governments have determined success to be one of academic ability rather than vocational, the idea that you can lump everybody of all abilities into the same pot is disingenuous to those who have other very important qualities to offer.

we are the only country in the world that selects children for university education (that IS what the 11+ does) at the age of ten

You said earlier that "grammar schools regularly attain near- perfect percentile scores in major GCSE examination subjects", the reason for that is not because Grammar's are anything special educationally speaking, it's because children are deemed more mature or able to cope with the extra workload that Grammar's give to their students.

tudies since the 1960s have shown what we all see around us in our lifetimes – that children from less well-off and less aspirational families are largely passed over by the 11+ which if it ever was a meritocratic exam has long since ceased to be.

Sources please

By the way you still haven’t answered my question from last Saturday – If it made no difference to you and your son to fail the 11+ then why have this discredited exam in the first place and if your son ‘EARNED’ a place at A level in a grammar school then why didn’t he pass the 11+ in the first place – what happened to him in the time between 11+ failure and A level success?

It's not a discredited exam and please provide the evidence that it is? As for my son, he had to work very hard to gain his GCSE results, extra study time etc etc, his Secondary School was quite good but he was held back by idiots who felt more the need to impress girls than of listening in class and a general ethos of, it was square to be be academically successful. He worked much harder by his own volition to pass his exams, but he matured enough to cope with the extra work. Would he have been able to undertake the workload of Grammar when he was younger, I doubt it.

‘…
tudies (sic) since the 1960s have shown what we all see around us in our lifetimes – that children from less well-off and less aspirational families are largely passed over by the 11+ which if it ever was a meritocratic exam has long since ceased to be.

Sources please’You’ve asked this before and it is dead easy to ask – one word and it requires some thought and effort to answer – I quoted you earlier an article by Melissa Benn in (I think) the Guardian in the last ten days giving statistics proving that working class children never reached doubl figure percentages in grammar schools in the years after the second world war and I will quote you a report in the BFP (BFP 11-10-2008) of a survey by researchers at Durham University for the (independent educational) the Sutton Trust showed, using scientific methodology and research, what mothers at the school gate intuitively know already – children from junior schools with a middle-class catchment area do better at the exam than children in a working class area as the 11+ discriminates against bright children from working class backgrounds. In the report the BFP reporter Oliver Evans summarised what the survey said with phrases like: ‘Grammar schools are more likely to turn away pupils from poorer backgrounds even though they are bright enough to be accepted, a major report has found’ and ‘…grammars … 13 are in Bucks – are “highly socially exclusive”’. (This is the reason why trains and chartered buses are full of children from the Royal Grammar School going home to expensive areas like Beaconsfield and Gerrards Cross in the evenings – my comment.) A correspondent commented on this at the time and said,
If you look up local schools on the Ofsted website, using the postcode for Wycombe town centre, a list of state secondary schools will appear and over 95% of pupils in the grammar schools achieve 5 grade Cs or better in all subjects and in English and Maths. Some of the so-called ‘community ’ (i.e. Secondary Modern) have figures of less than 40%. This is surely not because their pupils are only one-third as capable as their contemporaries in grammar schools.
Some children do not want or benefit from an academic education but a sizeable minority in the almost 70% of children who fail the 11+ could do so but are denied the opportunity.
This is not the only defect in the system – the Ofsted website shows the difference in subject matter – Sir William Borlase’s Grammar School specialises in the arts and the RGS in High Wycombe specialises in languages – one of the so-called ‘community’ schools specialises in ‘Sport’ – some of our children are being educated to do intellectual and professional work and others to do unskilled work. (This is apart from the fact that 11+ failures are being excluded partly or completely from our intellectual heritage.)
A grammar school education is a fine thing for a child but the way the system is run in Bucks ensures that almost three-quarters of our children are excluded from a fair chance in the field of secondary education.

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

bobby698 wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

bobby698 wrote: May I throw this comment into the mix: Is there a need to objectively look at the bigger UK picture on 11+? As we all know there are only a few counties left in the Uk which operate this system. So, if we look at some heavily urban areas which do not operate this system we find serious juvenile crime, knife possession and increased teenage pregnancies. Now, is this because intelligence pupils are being held back by the system which puts all intellectual standards together in one school, thereby preventing future role models being created which would, hopefully, lead to less of the above criminal strands? Or wil it have absolutely no effect at all? What a question to ask! And should we, as parents, change the Bucks system and thereby potentially damage our children's future potential, not only in a monetary and employment sense, but also for future role models? I for one am not prepared to take this chance. For all our sakes, the Bucks Status Quo should remain. Allow our children the opportunity to excel. Life will be hard enough for them.

This a very silly, solemn-sounding post - you say’ ‘ As we all know there are only a few counties left in the Uk (sic) which operate this system.’ You then say ‘so’ - as if there were some connection between what you have just said and the next statement’ ‘ So, if we look at some heavily urban areas which do not operate this system we find serious juvenile crime, knife possession and increased teenage pregnancies.’ You then ask a very stupid (and carelessly-construct ed) question, ‘ … is this because intelligence (sic) pupils are being held back by the system which puts all intellectual standards together in one school, thereby preventing future role models being created which would, hopefully, lead to less of the above criminal strands? Or wil(sic) it have absolutely no effect at all? You finish by stating the obvious, ‘What a question to ask!’ Comprehensive schools do not ‘put all intellectual standards together in one school’ and if they did then how would this ‘prevent (benevolent) future role models being created’? Yes indeed - a very stupid question to ask and one which you fail to answer – you suggest there may be a connection and fail to show why. There are plenty of comprehensive schools that are not plagued by ‘serious juvenile crime, knife possession and increased teenage pregnancies’ – do you think there could be a connection between the fact that comprehensive schools that DO have these problems are in ‘heavily urban areas’ of poverty and deprivation rather than that the local authority has abolished the 11+? You also ask, ‘And should we, as parents, change the Bucks system and thereby potentially damage our children's future potential, not only in a monetary and employment sense, but also for future role models?’ Why does this ‘potentially damage’ the ‘future potentia l’ of our children – comprehensive education seems to work well enough elsewhere - I have mentioned above the fact that two heads of Oxford colleges have failed the 11+ and achieved success academically after the ‘destruction’ of grammar schools and their replacement by comprehensives. These two men are not isolated examples. The present system CURRENTLY wastes the potential of perhaps 60% or more of local children. You then conclude with a further solemn absurdity, ‘I for one am not prepared to take this chance. For all our sakes, the Bucks Status Quo should remain. Allow our children the opportunity to excel.’ What remotely improbable ‘chance’ are you unwilling to take? Let’s GET RID of the Bucks status quo and allow ALL our children – not the 30% or so who pass the 11+ to ‘excel’.

ImpeturbableLawrence : Thanks for your comments which of course I note. Apologies for my sic, sadly the result of a sink Comprehensive in a West Midlands urban area..... My point is this: in Bucks we have a system that allows ALL pupils to excel at their given level of education. for the brighter pupils the Grammar school exists, and for those who have not achieved this level there exists, in my opinion, an excellent range of Bucks secondary/academy schools which will allow these pupils to thrive. Perhaps I did not make myself clear - again apologies from the West Midlands: I want ALL our children to thrive, not just 'the chosen 30%'. Mixing and matching high-level achievers with lower-level performers does not appear to work. Clearly the rationale is to improve the lower-level, but studies show this simply does not work. Answer? I don't know, I went to school in the West Midlands....

You're generalising very widely on the basis of your own experience and intuition and I would say that you are condemning a further generation of children to second-class education.

By proclaiming Secondary education to be second class, then logically you define Grammar Education to be first class, that being so, what would the class of education be of the comprehensive system that would result from scrapping Grammar schools? It would have to still be second class.
!
If the 11 plus, an examination that qualifies those that pass for a Grammar school place were to be scrapped, why then bother with GCSE, A-levels, BTEC, Degrees, Industry qualifications etc etc? Why bother having any qualification whatsoever unless some form of selection was to result from having those qualifications?

Dear Wayneo

Apologies for taking so long to get back.
I am taking people like you at your word – you and other supporters of the 11+ are the people who speak of ‘excellence’ – if YOU ‘proclaim’ – to use your own word - that grammar schools are excellent then ‘logically’ - to use another one of your words - you are proclaiming secondary moderns to be inferior to them. And they are – grammar schools regularly attain near- perfect percentile scores in major GCSE examination subjects compared with secondary moderns and secondary moderns round here are regularly classed as ‘failing’ and are re-branded and reopened under another name – something that has never happened to a grammar school. I would say that grammars are better than secondary moderns and that they give children a better chance at the satisfying things in life – that is why parents want their chidren to pass the exam and are willing to pay large sums to have their children coached for it.
In answer to your question what would the class of education be if we were to scrap grammar schools then I would say look around you at the rest of the country where comprehensive schools are producing results in every way comparable to grammar schools - you talk as if the grammar schools were going to be replaced with nothing – both they and the secondary moderns would be replaced with a system that is comprehensive in its intake – hence the name - and comprehensive in the choices it offers to all children.
Your question why bother with any exam if you scrap the 11+ is not comparing like with like – we are the only country in the world that selects children for university education (that IS what the 11+ does) at the age of ten – the other exams are all intended to measure the knowledge or the understanding of subjects by young or mature adults.
Studies since the 1960s have shown what we all see around us in our lifetimes – that children from less well-off and less aspirational families are largely passed over by the 11+ which if it ever was a meritocratic exam has long since ceased to be.
By the way you still haven’t answered my question from last Saturday – If it made no difference to you and your son to fail the 11+ then why have this discredited exam in the first place and if your son ‘EARNED’ a place at A level in a grammar school then why didn’t he pass the 11+ in the first place – what happened to him in the time between 11+ failure and A level success?

I am taking people like you at your word – you and other supporters of the 11+ are the people who speak of ‘excellence’ – if YOU ‘proclaim’ – to use your own word - that grammar schools are excellent then ‘logically’ - to use another one of your words - you are proclaiming secondary moderns to be inferior to them

Let's see if we can wade through this scattergun aproach of a post. I don't believe i've "spoken of excellence" at all, I see Selective education as means of categorising those who are more academically suited to the general pace of Grammar schools to that of Secondary, there isn't a class distinction as proponents of scrapping Grammar Schools would have us believe. Incidentally, as I stated earlier, it was you who inferred that Children who failed the 11+ were destined for a second class education which could only mean that in your world, Grammar is first class; All schools are a mixed bag in my opinion but the focus has often been on examination results alone as opposed to .

And they are – grammar schools regularly attain near- perfect percentile scores in major GCSE examination subjects compared with secondary moderns and secondary moderns round here are regularly classed as ‘failing’ and are re-branded and reopened under another name,something that has never happened to a grammar school

So why change a model that is consistent and proven successful rather than resolving the issues of the not so successful, what is wrong in having a model with which one can aspire? The are many excellent Secondary Schools which offer an excellent education but at a slower rate or expectation than of Grammar Schools, this is a much more effective method at nurturing children than chucking them into the deep end. As for people paying large sums to coach their Children, where's your evidence for that and if it is happening, where is the evidence that it is effective in the first place? Remember, Middle Schools often 'coach' their pupils with mock papers, i myself passed mock papers but failed the actual exam, big deal, that's life.

both they and the secondary moderns would be replaced with a system that is comprehensive in its intake – hence the name - and comprehensive in the choices it offers to all children.

Your question why bother with any exam if you scrap the 11+ is not comparing like with like

Sure it is, any examination or qualification is a form of selection, it qualifies one for further education, college, University, employment etc etc, Unfortunately various Governments have determined success to be one of academic ability rather than vocational, the idea that you can lump everybody of all abilities into the same pot is disingenuous to those who have other very important qualities to offer.

we are the only country in the world that selects children for university education (that IS what the 11+ does) at the age of ten

You said earlier that "grammar schools regularly attain near- perfect percentile scores in major GCSE examination subjects", the reason for that is not because Grammar's are anything special educationally speaking, it's because children are deemed more mature or able to cope with the extra workload that Grammar's give to their students.

tudies since the 1960s have shown what we all see around us in our lifetimes – that children from less well-off and less aspirational families are largely passed over by the 11+ which if it ever was a meritocratic exam has long since ceased to be.

Sources please

By the way you still haven’t answered my question from last Saturday – If it made no difference to you and your son to fail the 11+ then why have this discredited exam in the first place and if your son ‘EARNED’ a place at A level in a grammar school then why didn’t he pass the 11+ in the first place – what happened to him in the time between 11+ failure and A level success?

It's not a discredited exam and please provide the evidence that it is? As for my son, he had to work very hard to gain his GCSE results, extra study time etc etc, his Secondary School was quite good but he was held back by idiots who felt more the need to impress girls than of listening in class and a general ethos of, it was square to be be academically successful. He worked much harder by his own volition to pass his exams, but he matured enough to cope with the extra work. Would he have been able to undertake the workload of Grammar when he was younger, I doubt it.

You keep on saying that the exam is not discredited when by all measurable forms of judgement it is – I have answered this question already.
The second part of this paragraph is surely a statement on behalf of comprehensive schools agqinst the 11+ - your son was ‘…he was held back by idiots who felt more the need to impress girls than of listening in class and a general ethos of, it was square to be be academically successful’. Most (male) adolescents want to impress girls and if he had been in a comprehensive school he would not have had the ethos that academic success was uncool.
‘Would he have been able to undertake the workload of Grammar when he was younger, I doubt it’. This is like statements you have made on your own behalf in the past – that you would not have flourished in a grammar school and you would have mysteriously ‘held back’ brighter pupils – common sense would suggest not but we’ll never know as you and your son were not given the chance.

wayneo wrote:

brilliant chance for 30% or so of kids.
Why do so few kids from poor families get the chance of a decent education

Again, instead of generalising, then please provide the source to back your claim that "kids from poor families don't get the chance of a decent education!

then and why do they do equally well or better in comprehensive counties?

Source? I expect however, that the more academically minded Children mask the examination results of those that don't do so well, the real question, is as to whether those that do well in examinations could do better, or that those that aren't academically well positioned, give up because the gap between the top and the bottom is deemed too great. Either way, if you have figures to back up your claim, then provide them.

Have you ever looked at yourself while calling other whining sh!ts?

Of course but I don't see how being pleased for others who do pass the 11+ would put me in the same category as those who blame failing it on everybody else.

‘Academic ability isn't the be all and end all of life, neither is going to University.’ Up to a point this is true but if this is the case then why do so many parents spend money on getting their children through the 11+?

I've not seen any evidence that they do, you are still to provide it but anyway, the enthesis of success has been attributed to academic achievement alone; A number of generations have lost out from gaining good trade or industry qualifications, apprenticeships, because of the drive towards University.
!

It’s not a myth that people trot out money to get their children coached into grammar schools – see some of the other letters here – I know more than one (privately educated) parent who has done this for the obvious reason that it is far less expensive to get your kid through the 11+ than to pay years of school fees

Strewth, I know a mate darn the street who did x & y, so z must be true, yes, that's a logical fallacy known as Argumentum ad populam, it really means very little unless you've the minerals to back up your assertion.
!

– in any case most public schools take their pupils from private preparatory schools and grammar school children have gone to local junior schools.

Really? but earlier you stated " Apart from this statement directly contradicting that of the previous, I'm not sure again, unless being one of your assumptions again, as to how you've come to this conclusion; Public Schools have varying degrees of entry requirements that are determined by the school themselves, that includes bursaries.

'Source? I expect however, that the more academically minded Children mask the examination results of those that don't do so well, the real question, is as to whether those that do well in examinations could do better, or that those that aren't academically well positioned, give up because the gap between the top and the bottom is deemed too great. Either way, if you have figures to back up your claim, then provide them.'

‘I expect’ – you’re a lazy and complacent plucky hero Wayneo. I've provided quite a few sources and figures for you already - why don't you provide some now to prove me wrong - and that comprehensives don't work? I mentioned the two Oxford College heads who failed the 11+ earlier- who would have ‘masked’ them in a secondary modern school?

wayneo wrote:

brilliant chance for 30% or so of kids.
Why do so few kids from poor families get the chance of a decent education

Again, instead of generalising, then please provide the source to back your claim that "kids from poor families don't get the chance of a decent education!

then and why do they do equally well or better in comprehensive counties?

Source? I expect however, that the more academically minded Children mask the examination results of those that don't do so well, the real question, is as to whether those that do well in examinations could do better, or that those that aren't academically well positioned, give up because the gap between the top and the bottom is deemed too great. Either way, if you have figures to back up your claim, then provide them.

Have you ever looked at yourself while calling other whining sh!ts?

Of course but I don't see how being pleased for others who do pass the 11+ would put me in the same category as those who blame failing it on everybody else.

‘Academic ability isn't the be all and end all of life, neither is going to University.’ Up to a point this is true but if this is the case then why do so many parents spend money on getting their children through the 11+?

I've not seen any evidence that they do, you are still to provide it but anyway, the enthesis of success has been attributed to academic achievement alone; A number of generations have lost out from gaining good trade or industry qualifications, apprenticeships, because of the drive towards University.
!

It’s not a myth that people trot out money to get their children coached into grammar schools – see some of the other letters here – I know more than one (privately educated) parent who has done this for the obvious reason that it is far less expensive to get your kid through the 11+ than to pay years of school fees

Strewth, I know a mate darn the street who did x & y, so z must be true, yes, that's a logical fallacy known as Argumentum ad populam, it really means very little unless you've the minerals to back up your assertion.
!

– in any case most public schools take their pupils from private preparatory schools and grammar school children have gone to local junior schools.

Really? but earlier you stated " Apart from this statement directly contradicting that of the previous, I'm not sure again, unless being one of your assumptions again, as to how you've come to this conclusion; Public Schools have varying degrees of entry requirements that are determined by the school themselves, that includes bursaries.

Have you ever looked at yourself while calling other whining sh!ts?

Of course but I don't see how being pleased for others who do pass the 11+ would put me in the same category as those who blame failing it on everybody else.
It doesn't - what I'm getting at is you are calling names and people can call you the same names back again - saying you are not in the same category is not a justification.

wayneo wrote:

brilliant chance for 30% or so of kids.
Why do so few kids from poor families get the chance of a decent education

Again, instead of generalising, then please provide the source to back your claim that "kids from poor families don't get the chance of a decent education!

then and why do they do equally well or better in comprehensive counties?

Source? I expect however, that the more academically minded Children mask the examination results of those that don't do so well, the real question, is as to whether those that do well in examinations could do better, or that those that aren't academically well positioned, give up because the gap between the top and the bottom is deemed too great. Either way, if you have figures to back up your claim, then provide them.

Have you ever looked at yourself while calling other whining sh!ts?

Of course but I don't see how being pleased for others who do pass the 11+ would put me in the same category as those who blame failing it on everybody else.

‘Academic ability isn't the be all and end all of life, neither is going to University.’ Up to a point this is true but if this is the case then why do so many parents spend money on getting their children through the 11+?

I've not seen any evidence that they do, you are still to provide it but anyway, the enthesis of success has been attributed to academic achievement alone; A number of generations have lost out from gaining good trade or industry qualifications, apprenticeships, because of the drive towards University.
!

It’s not a myth that people trot out money to get their children coached into grammar schools – see some of the other letters here – I know more than one (privately educated) parent who has done this for the obvious reason that it is far less expensive to get your kid through the 11+ than to pay years of school fees

Strewth, I know a mate darn the street who did x & y, so z must be true, yes, that's a logical fallacy known as Argumentum ad populam, it really means very little unless you've the minerals to back up your assertion.
!

– in any case most public schools take their pupils from private preparatory schools and grammar school children have gone to local junior schools.

Really? but earlier you stated " Apart from this statement directly contradicting that of the previous, I'm not sure again, unless being one of your assumptions again, as to how you've come to this conclusion; Public Schools have varying degrees of entry requirements that are determined by the school themselves, that includes bursaries.

Have you ever looked at yourself while calling other whining sh!ts?

Of course but I don't see how being pleased for others who do pass the 11+ would put me in the same category as those who blame failing it on everybody else.
It doesn't - what I'm getting at is you are calling names and people can call you the same names back again - saying you are not in the same category is not a justification.

wayneo wrote:

brilliant chance for 30% or so of kids.
Why do so few kids from poor families get the chance of a decent education

Again, instead of generalising, then please provide the source to back your claim that "kids from poor families don't get the chance of a decent education!

then and why do they do equally well or better in comprehensive counties?

Source? I expect however, that the more academically minded Children mask the examination results of those that don't do so well, the real question, is as to whether those that do well in examinations could do better, or that those that aren't academically well positioned, give up because the gap between the top and the bottom is deemed too great. Either way, if you have figures to back up your claim, then provide them.

Have you ever looked at yourself while calling other whining sh!ts?

Of course but I don't see how being pleased for others who do pass the 11+ would put me in the same category as those who blame failing it on everybody else.

‘Academic ability isn't the be all and end all of life, neither is going to University.’ Up to a point this is true but if this is the case then why do so many parents spend money on getting their children through the 11+?

I've not seen any evidence that they do, you are still to provide it but anyway, the enthesis of success has been attributed to academic achievement alone; A number of generations have lost out from gaining good trade or industry qualifications, apprenticeships, because of the drive towards University.
!

It’s not a myth that people trot out money to get their children coached into grammar schools – see some of the other letters here – I know more than one (privately educated) parent who has done this for the obvious reason that it is far less expensive to get your kid through the 11+ than to pay years of school fees

Strewth, I know a mate darn the street who did x & y, so z must be true, yes, that's a logical fallacy known as Argumentum ad populam, it really means very little unless you've the minerals to back up your assertion.
!

– in any case most public schools take their pupils from private preparatory schools and grammar school children have gone to local junior schools.

Really? but earlier you stated " Apart from this statement directly contradicting that of the previous, I'm not sure again, unless being one of your assumptions again, as to how you've come to this conclusion; Public Schools have varying degrees of entry requirements that are determined by the school themselves, that includes bursaries.

Have you ever looked at yourself while calling other whining sh!ts?

Of course but I don't see how being pleased for others who do pass the 11+ would put me in the same category as those who blame failing it on everybody else.
It doesn't - what I'm getting at is you are calling names and people can call you the same names back again - saying you are not in the same category is not a justification.

wayneo wrote:

brilliant chance for 30% or so of kids.
Why do so few kids from poor families get the chance of a decent education

Again, instead of generalising, then please provide the source to back your claim that "kids from poor families don't get the chance of a decent education!

then and why do they do equally well or better in comprehensive counties?

Source? I expect however, that the more academically minded Children mask the examination results of those that don't do so well, the real question, is as to whether those that do well in examinations could do better, or that those that aren't academically well positioned, give up because the gap between the top and the bottom is deemed too great. Either way, if you have figures to back up your claim, then provide them.

Have you ever looked at yourself while calling other whining sh!ts?

Of course but I don't see how being pleased for others who do pass the 11+ would put me in the same category as those who blame failing it on everybody else.

‘Academic ability isn't the be all and end all of life, neither is going to University.’ Up to a point this is true but if this is the case then why do so many parents spend money on getting their children through the 11+?

I've not seen any evidence that they do, you are still to provide it but anyway, the enthesis of success has been attributed to academic achievement alone; A number of generations have lost out from gaining good trade or industry qualifications, apprenticeships, because of the drive towards University.
!

It’s not a myth that people trot out money to get their children coached into grammar schools – see some of the other letters here – I know more than one (privately educated) parent who has done this for the obvious reason that it is far less expensive to get your kid through the 11+ than to pay years of school fees

Strewth, I know a mate darn the street who did x & y, so z must be true, yes, that's a logical fallacy known as Argumentum ad populam, it really means very little unless you've the minerals to back up your assertion.
!

– in any case most public schools take their pupils from private preparatory schools and grammar school children have gone to local junior schools.

Really? but earlier you stated " Apart from this statement directly contradicting that of the previous, I'm not sure again, unless being one of your assumptions again, as to how you've come to this conclusion; Public Schools have varying degrees of entry requirements that are determined by the school themselves, that includes bursaries.

Have you ever looked at yourself while calling other whining sh!ts?

Of course but I don't see how being pleased for others who do pass the 11+ would put me in the same category as those who blame failing it on everybody else.
It doesn't - what I'm getting at is you are calling names and people can call you the same names back again - saying you are not in the same category is not a justification.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
wayneo wrote:
ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
wayneo wrote: demoness the second wrote: Up until very recently I was 100% pro selection. I passed my 12 plus ( as it ws then) as did my siblings, as did my children.No coaching involved. However I am afraid that the days of children being given a fair crack of the whip where grammar schools are concerned are long gone. The principle is sound - why shouldn't we develop the superior brains of the future? Why shouldn't the working class kid be given the same chance as anyone else? But it isn't like that anymore. Sadly the more affluent schools do tend to coach, and sadly it is those with the most money who coach their children. My children both caught the bus to school every day and we paid - it was not a problem. To be fair the school was in our catchment area. But they both tell tales of the appalling behaviour of these so called well brought up children who were not used to public transport. They also said that it was pretty obvious who had been coached because these kids struggled very quickly. Which makes it a travesty because those spaces could have been used by children with brains. The 11 plus exam IMO is not a test of intellectual superiority. If they really wanted to cream off the top 25% they should be doing straight forward tests in the three Rs. You can coach children to take this exam because it is a matter of knowing how to answer the questions - there is a knack involved. Once you have solved the riddle - it is easy. So ( as others have said)I because of the target culture much of the curriculum is concerned with coaching as opposed to academic acheivement. Rather than worrying about Grammar education, I am more concerned of the focus of Government of the scrapping of Techs, Polytechnics, colleges to Universities etc. ! The seed that has been sown is that one is worthless without a University education and there are a considerable number of degrees that aren't worth sh!te. Pretyy ironic seeing as it is manufacturing and engineering that we as a nation used to excel at but are now lagging well behind.If I understand your first sentence aright you seem to be mounting a dogged defence of grammar schools for not ‘worrying about Grammar education, I am more concerned of the focus of Government of the scrapping of Techs, Polytechnics, colleges to Universities etc.’ Broadly speaking a university education is the essential prerequisite for a career that is rewarding financially and personally and you don’t get the sort of degree you need by failing the 11+. That is one reason people support the 11+ - the fact that if their child can get through it a majority of other people's children will be at a disadvantage in comparison. The reason I am opposed to the 11+ is that WASTES so much talent – you get clever men and women who never get the chance to achieve their potential and are fascinated by things they never heard of at school and who defer to people no better than them who are better-educated. For every ordinary kid like Alistair Cooke, Edward Heath, Alan Bennet or Dudley Moore there thousands put on the scrapheap and hundreds of well-off ones given an unecessary help.No, the defence of the 11+ and Grammar education does not rely on polytechnics or higher education, my point concerned the focus on degrees being the be-all and end-all to a successful future. Your insinuation that a university degree is a prerequisite for a for a career that is rewarding both financially and personally is quite simply not true, we well know with the amount of graduates becoming gas engineers and plumbers etc; as for financial rewards, I think the chap who owns castle cafe probably earns more in a year than many teachers, college lecturers, engineers etc etc.
!
The idea that a degree is all that is required to be successful or for somebody to reach their full potential is complete cr@p, what Grammar schools allow students to do, is for more academically minded children to pursue a more vigorous academic path than those whowould likely struggle under the workload, that you would hold back those people (or suppress their potential) makes you every bit as guilty as the system you claim is somehow elitist.
!
Lastly, clever men and women as you put it, will find their own potential, they don't need degrees, they don't need examinations, they find their own way in life, being clever, is not always determined by academic ability alone.I didn’t say your defence of the 11+ relied on polytechnics or higher education – I said that you seemed to be paying a great deal of attention to the 11+ for a man who was ‘… more concerned of (sic) the focus of Government of the scrapping of Techs, Polytechnics, colleges to Universities etc.’

Your stories about ‘graduates becoming gas engineers and plumbers etc; as for financial rewards’ and ‘… the chap who owns castle cafe probably earns more in a year than many teachers, college lecturers, engineers etc etc’ are urban myths like so much stuff in defence of the 11+. I have never met a graduate heating engineer (and training as a gas engineer is as time-consuming as becoming a graduate). Your statement that my ‘insinuation that a university degree is a prerequisite for a for a career that is rewarding both financially and personally is quite simply not true,’ is mistaken in its emphasis – I said that ‘Broadly speaking a university education is the essential prerequisite for a career that is rewarding financially and personally and you don’t get the sort of degree you need by failing the 11+.’ Broadly speaking most learned professions require a degree before you can enter training or require O and A levels at grades that are not commonly earned at secondary modern schools – look at medicine and the law. ( By the way I don’t know why you keep saying I am ‘insinuating’ stuff – I would have said I am quite open and direct in my hostility to so-called ‘selection’.)
I agree with you that being a graduate is not the be-all and end-all of life – I have post graduate degrees and my brother remarked some years ago (with a sly look at me) that he had not read a book for twenty years – my father was the same and they have had happy and successful lives, however that is not a justification for denying an overwhelming majority of children admission to academia and then doggedly thinking up rationalisations for this. What do kids at grammar schools learn? A lot of it is the sort of stuff that enables them to become graduates and earn better than average salaries – in the case of many of them much better than average and in much more interesting jobs. If they don’t learn this then what do they learn? Why else do grammar schools pride themselves on the high rate of successful entries to examinations that are university entrance requirements? How do you know the proprietor of the Castle Café didn’t want to become an English teacher? Elsewhere on this page you say, ‘Lastly, clever men and women as you put it, will find their own potential, they don't need degrees, they don't need examinations, they find their own way in life, being clever, is not always determined by academic ability alone.’ Then what is the purpose of grammar schools and the 11+?
You say ‘what Grammar schools allow students to do, is for more academically minded children to pursue a more vigorous academic path than those who would likely struggle under the workload’. What do you mean by ‘academically minded’? The Oxford Dictionary, among other definitions, says academic means, ‘6. Of a person, esp. a child: interested in or excelling at scholarly pursuits and activities; bookish, studious; clever’. Do you really believe parents sit down and think ‘ooh he’s interested in or excelling at scholarly pursuits and activities; bookish, and studious’ so we’ll get him through the 11+ so he can study literature, history or nature in books – if this is true what is the reason for ‘allowing’ the more academically-able to do this – from what you say it would appear to be a form of intellectual self-indulgence, and why do parents pay for their children to be coached to pass the 11+ - is it because all their children are bookish and intellectual or because entrance to grammar school gives them a much better chance in life when they leave school?
Also why do secondary moderns fall so far behind grammars? Is it because the 11+ pass mark (which varies from year to year depending on the size of the school population that year) indicates a point below which children in secondary moderns really become only a fraction as talented as the kids who get through the 11+ or is it, as a friend’s son said to me, he was already being coached for O level at age 11 whereas his best friend at school – who had failed the 11+ - was carrying on undemandingly with what they had been doing at junior school so that his potential lay undeveloped?
What do you think secondary modern schools do for their students (cue for some faux respectful stuff about why am I calling them failures) – what is the purpose of secondary modern schools? The disadvantage in ‘selection’ and the 11+ is often said to be summed up in the three words ‘secondary modern schools’ – the unspoken assumption behind ‘selection’ is that some people’s children are not worth wasting too much time educating.I didn’t say your defence of the 11+ relied on polytechnics or higher education – I said that you seemed to be paying a great deal of attention to the 11+ for a man who was ‘… more concerned of (sic) the focus of Government of the scrapping of Techs, Polytechnics, colleges to Universities etc.’

I'm not sure that is my main focus, despite having failed it the 11+, I happen to still be in favour of selective education, it's an alternative position to your own.

Your stories about ‘graduates becoming gas engineers and plumbers etc; as for financial rewards’ and ‘… the chap who owns castle cafe probably earns more in a year than many teachers, college lecturers, engineers etc etc’ are urban myths like so much stuff in defence of the 11+.
http://www.guardian.
co.uk/lifeandstyle/2
004/jun/05/shopping.
homes1
!
http://www.guardian.
co.uk/money/2010/sep
/22/call-centres-ris
e-graduate-applicant
s
!
I have never met a graduate heating engineer (and training as a gas engineer is as time-consuming as becoming a graduate).

Your having never met one is hardly a measure that they're not, the following is a small selection:
!
http://www.hvnplus.c
o.uk/news/report-uk-
engineering-graduate
s-fail-to-secure-job
s/8619672.article


Your statement that my ‘insinuation that a university degree is a prerequisite for a for a career that is rewarding both financially and personally is quite simply not true,’ is mistaken in its emphasis – I said that ‘Broadly speaking a university education is the essential prerequisite for a career that is rewarding financially and personally
Is that not the same thing?

and you don’t get the sort of degree you need by failing the 11+.

I'm sorry but again, what is your source for this assertion?

’ Broadly speaking most learned professions require a degree before you can enter training
Yes, agreed
or require O and A levels at grades that are not commonly earned at secondary modern schools LOL, i'm sorry, I don't where you're getting this from but I'm comfortable in stating much of what you write is based on a heap of generalisations rather than borne from any factual information.Were you to combine the Grammar and Secondary Schools examination results, how do the percentage of students gaining the grades you speak of, differ compared to say a secondary Modern?
!

– look at medicine and the law. ( By the way I don’t know why you keep saying I am ‘insinuating’ stuff – I would have said I am quite open and direct in my hostility to so-called ‘selection’.)
I agree with you that being a graduate is not the be-all and end-all of life – I have post graduate degrees and my brother remarked some years ago (with a sly look at me) that he had not read a book for twenty years – my father was the same and they have had happy and successful lives, however that is not a justification for denying an overwhelming majority of children admission to academia
Not having a Grammar School Education does not preclude or deny any young person from persuing admission to academia, there are a number of factors that could do so, not being good enough is one and I count myself as being one of those
.
and then doggedly thinking up rationalisations for this.

It's simple logic, we don't always get what we want and we don't always get to do what we would like, that doesn't stop us from trying.
What do kids at grammar schools learn?

Unless on a vocational course, the same curriculum as any other student but with more pressure and at a faster pace.
A lot of it is the sort of stuff that enables them to become graduates and earn better than average salaries Ah Right, so it's only the Grammar School kids who do "the sort of stuff that enables them to become Graduates"? What a crock of cr@p.
– in the case of many of them much better than average and in much more interesting jobs. If they don’t learn this then what do they learn? Why else do grammar schools pride themselves on the high rate of successful entries to examinations that are university entrance requirements?
I don't quite follow why being successful is such a bad thing or indeed why Grammar Schools prevent others from having a good education. Are the resources different to other Schools? How much time is spent of teaching staff dealing with unruly youngsters rather than actually teaching, how do you think disruptive children affect those who want to get on? Even those that obtain law Degrees aren't guaranteed a place in Chambers, neither do Qualifications bring with them the personal skills needed to acquire a certain position; in short, as individuals, none of us are guaranteed a place in life.


Schools select their students on How do you know the proprietor of the Castle Café didn’t want to become an English teacher?
I don't, what I was referring to, is that academic ability doesn't always bring with it reward, personally or monetarily, if one is content with their lot then there's little point in pushing them hard, in the reverse, if there are those that wish to be pushed harder, then it doesn't seem right holding them back.
Elsewhere on this page you say, ‘Lastly, clever men and women as you put it, will find their own potential, they don't need degrees, they don't need examinations, they find their own way in life, being clever, is not always determined by academic ability alone.’ Then what is the purpose of grammar schools and the 11+?
What is the point of any examination, it is to ultimately determine whether one achieves the required grade and subsequently qualify one for a particular path or career? Not wanting to undertake further Education or engaging in an academic path does not mean one is not clever or that they can't determine their own success in life.

You say ‘what Grammar schools allow students to do, is for more academically minded children to pursue a more vigorous academic path than those who would likely struggle under the workload’. What do you mean by ‘academically minded’? The Oxford Dictionary, among other definitions, says academic means, ‘6. Of a person, esp. a child: interested in or excelling at scholarly pursuits and activities; bookish, studious; clever’. Do you really believe parents sit down and think ‘ooh he’s interested in or excelling at scholarly pursuits and activities; bookish, and studious’ so we’ll get him through the 11+ so he can study literature, history or nature in books – if this is true what is the reason for ‘allowing’ the more academically-able to do this – from what you say it would appear to be a form of intellectual self-indulgence, and why do parents pay for their children to be coached to pass the 11+ - is it because all their children are bookish and intellectual or because entrance to grammar school gives them a much better chance in life when they leave school?

Yes, perhaps Academically gifted would be more appropriate then but then that depends on the child doesn't it; you really cannot lump all children, young people or anybody for that matter into the same category, some children have an idea as to what they wish to do, some don't,Again, i'm not sure of your evidence base to supports your assertion that youngsters are being groomed through having thousands of pounds spent on them, I'm not convinced that it would necessarily do a great deal of good. You have to accept that people are different and have different capabilities.
!
Also why do secondary moderns fall so far behind grammars?

Because having been in one, some of the kids are little sh!tes who (not limited to) want to spend more time trying to impress little girls than learning, it really is as simple and as brutal as that.

Is it because the 11+ pass mark (which varies from year to year depending on the size of the school population that year) indicates a point below which children in secondary moderns really become only a fraction as talented as the kids who get through the 11+
No
or is it, as a friend’s son said to me, he was already being coached for O level at age 11 whereas his best friend at school – who had failed the 11+ - was carrying on undemandingly with what they had been doing at junior school so that his potential lay undeveloped?
So what? other than hearsay I don't see the relevance to the 11+ or you providing any evidence that extra tuition actually helps, I certainly don't see why it is of any of your business or mine whether people do have extra tuition or not.

What do you think secondary modern schools do for their students (cue for some faux respectful stuff about why am I calling them failures) – I would be asking what they can do for me,
what is the purpose of secondary modern schools?
The same as any School other than a Secondary Modern would likely offer more vocational training in the curriculum than that of a Grammar School.
The disadvantage in ‘selection’ and the 11+ is often said to be summed up in the three words ‘secondary modern schools’ – the unspoken assumption behind ‘selection’ is that some people’s children are not worth wasting too much time educating.
I disagree and having been to one I don't have to assume anything. I wouldn't say that I was academically gifted but for the first year or so I tried hard, I failed my 11+ but was invited to retake a year later, I didn't, I stated that I was happy at the School, but ironically, primarily I didn't think my parents would be able to afford the transport; nevertheless the School I was at, many people who wanted to learn, were held back by a small number of idiots who wanted to prove what big I ams they were, these morons used to scoff at those who wanted to get on, they always had the excuse, of how they were going to work with their Dads" do didn't need to learn so not only did they ruin their own education, they ruined it for everybody else. They didn't want to be there but the School had the duty to teach them, the teaching staff were despondent, didn't give a **** or just gave up. That is the reality I'm afraid, not everything is down to little Johnny not receiving tuition,

I’ve decided to quote the post time and date rather than reproduce the whole thing - wayneo says... 7:51pm Sun 29 Jan 12

‘It is whining and moaning, some didn't pass so they bleat about how unfair life is then accuse those that do pass of spending thousands of pounds on extra tuition, it's a totally unfounded and irrational assumption to make as well as spiteful.’
I have said elsewhere that people who oppose the 11+ are NOT ‘bleating’ or ‘whining’ about ‘how unfair life is’ - some of us have passed this silly exam and we don’t have to justify our opposition to it by constant reference to our own experience and our pluck in picking ourselves up and carrying on.
……….
‘‘Academic ability isn't the be all and end all of life, neither is going to University.’ Up to a point this is true but if this is the case then why do so many parents spend money on getting their children through the 11+?
I've not seen any evidence that they do, you are still to provide it but anyway, the enthesis of success has been attributed to academic achievement alone; A number of generations have lost out from gaining good trade or industry qualifications, apprenticeships, because of the drive towards University.’
I’ve answered this elsewhere and what has the 11+ got to do with the drive away from ‘trade or industry qualifications, apprenticeships’? (‘Enthesis’ is not in the Oxford Dictionary.)
……….
It’s not a myth that people trot out money to get their children coached into grammar schools – see some of the other letters here – I know more than one (privately educated) parent who has done this for the obvious reason that it is far less expensive to get your kid through the 11+ than to pay years of school fees

Strewth, I know a mate darn the street who did x & y, so z must be true, yes, that's a logical fallacy known as Argumentum ad populam, it really means very little unless you've the minerals to back up your assertion.
impossible to prove or disprove but as I said a lot of people on her have had experience of it. I know of it and there are people advertising on this web page their services for Common Entrance and the 11+. (It’s not really an ‘Argumentum ad populam’ as not everybody believes it – though I would plead guilty to generalising on the basis of my own experience – bit like you but with more sense. And why ‘minerals’?)
……….
– in any case most public schools take their pupils from private preparatory schools and grammar school children have gone to local junior schools.
Really? but earlier you stated " Apart from this statement directly contradicting that of the previous, I'm not sure again, unless being one of your assumptions again, as to how you've come to this conclusion; Public Schools have varying degrees of entry requirements that are determined by the school themselves, that includes bursaries.
It’s a bit difficult to answer this wayneo as you have neglected to paste in my quote –I WOULD point out that bursaries and scholarships usually go to children from private schools – the private system starts at the very beginning usually (I can’t prove that either and am generalising on my own experience but do you genuinely know of anyone who has transferred from a state junior school to a paid-for Headmaster’s conference school?)

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
I’ve decided to quote the post time and date rather than reproduce the whole thing - wayneo says... 7:51pm Sun 29 Jan 12

‘It is whining and moaning, some didn't pass so they bleat about how unfair life is then accuse those that do pass of spending thousands of pounds on extra tuition, it's a totally unfounded and irrational assumption to make as well as spiteful.’
I have said elsewhere that people who oppose the 11+ are NOT ‘bleating’ or ‘whining’ about ‘how unfair life is’ - some of us have passed this silly exam and we don’t have to justify our opposition to it by constant reference to our own experience and our pluck in picking ourselves up and carrying on.
……….
‘‘Academic ability isn't the be all and end all of life, neither is going to University.’ Up to a point this is true but if this is the case then why do so many parents spend money on getting their children through the 11+?
I've not seen any evidence that they do, you are still to provide it but anyway, the enthesis of success has been attributed to academic achievement alone; A number of generations have lost out from gaining good trade or industry qualifications, apprenticeships, because of the drive towards University.’
I’ve answered this elsewhere and what has the 11+ got to do with the drive away from ‘trade or industry qualifications, apprenticeships’? (‘Enthesis’ is not in the Oxford Dictionary.)
……….
It’s not a myth that people trot out money to get their children coached into grammar schools – see some of the other letters here – I know more than one (privately educated) parent who has done this for the obvious reason that it is far less expensive to get your kid through the 11+ than to pay years of school fees

Strewth, I know a mate darn the street who did x & y, so z must be true, yes, that's a logical fallacy known as Argumentum ad populam, it really means very little unless you've the minerals to back up your assertion.
impossible to prove or disprove but as I said a lot of people on her have had experience of it. I know of it and there are people advertising on this web page their services for Common Entrance and the 11+. (It’s not really an ‘Argumentum ad populam’ as not everybody believes it – though I would plead guilty to generalising on the basis of my own experience – bit like you but with more sense. And why ‘minerals’?)
……….
– in any case most public schools take their pupils from private preparatory schools and grammar school children have gone to local junior schools.
Really? but earlier you stated " Apart from this statement directly contradicting that of the previous, I'm not sure again, unless being one of your assumptions again, as to how you've come to this conclusion; Public Schools have varying degrees of entry requirements that are determined by the school themselves, that includes bursaries.
It’s a bit difficult to answer this wayneo as you have neglected to paste in my quote –I WOULD point out that bursaries and scholarships usually go to children from private schools – the private system starts at the very beginning usually (I can’t prove that either and am generalising on my own experience but do you genuinely know of anyone who has transferred from a state junior school to a paid-for Headmaster’s conference school?)

Please re-paste this in an intelleigibel form and I will look at it tomorrow. (And please don't repeat any questions I've already answered.)

(intelligible)

wayneo wrote:
ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
wayneo wrote:
ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
wayneo wrote: demoness the second wrote: Up until very recently I was 100% pro selection. I passed my 12 plus ( as it ws then) as did my siblings, as did my children.No coaching involved. However I am afraid that the days of children being given a fair crack of the whip where grammar schools are concerned are long gone. The principle is sound - why shouldn't we develop the superior brains of the future? Why shouldn't the working class kid be given the same chance as anyone else? But it isn't like that anymore. Sadly the more affluent schools do tend to coach, and sadly it is those with the most money who coach their children. My children both caught the bus to school every day and we paid - it was not a problem. To be fair the school was in our catchment area. But they both tell tales of the appalling behaviour of these so called well brought up children who were not used to public transport. They also said that it was pretty obvious who had been coached because these kids struggled very quickly. Which makes it a travesty because those spaces could have been used by children with brains. The 11 plus exam IMO is not a test of intellectual superiority. If they really wanted to cream off the top 25% they should be doing straight forward tests in the three Rs. You can coach children to take this exam because it is a matter of knowing how to answer the questions - there is a knack involved. Once you have solved the riddle - it is easy. So ( as others have said)I because of the target culture much of the curriculum is concerned with coaching as opposed to academic acheivement. Rather than worrying about Grammar education, I am more concerned of the focus of Government of the scrapping of Techs, Polytechnics, colleges to Universities etc. ! The seed that has been sown is that one is worthless without a University education and there are a considerable number of degrees that aren't worth sh!te. Pretyy ironic seeing as it is manufacturing and engineering that we as a nation used to excel at but are now lagging well behind.If I understand your first sentence aright you seem to be mounting a dogged defence of grammar schools for not ‘worrying about Grammar education, I am more concerned of the focus of Government of the scrapping of Techs, Polytechnics, colleges to Universities etc.’ Broadly speaking a university education is the essential prerequisite for a career that is rewarding financially and personally and you don’t get the sort of degree you need by failing the 11+. That is one reason people support the 11+ - the fact that if their child can get through it a majority of other people's children will be at a disadvantage in comparison. The reason I am opposed to the 11+ is that WASTES so much talent – you get clever men and women who never get the chance to achieve their potential and are fascinated by things they never heard of at school and who defer to people no better than them who are better-educated. For every ordinary kid like Alistair Cooke, Edward Heath, Alan Bennet or Dudley Moore there thousands put on the scrapheap and hundreds of well-off ones given an unecessary help.No, the defence of the 11+ and Grammar education does not rely on polytechnics or higher education, my point concerned the focus on degrees being the be-all and end-all to a successful future. Your insinuation that a university degree is a prerequisite for a for a career that is rewarding both financially and personally is quite simply not true, we well know with the amount of graduates becoming gas engineers and plumbers etc; as for financial rewards, I think the chap who owns castle cafe probably earns more in a year than many teachers, college lecturers, engineers etc etc.
!
The idea that a degree is all that is required to be successful or for somebody to reach their full potential is complete cr@p, what Grammar schools allow students to do, is for more academically minded children to pursue a more vigorous academic path than those whowould likely struggle under the workload, that you would hold back those people (or suppress their potential) makes you every bit as guilty as the system you claim is somehow elitist.
!
Lastly, clever men and women as you put it, will find their own potential, they don't need degrees, they don't need examinations, they find their own way in life, being clever, is not always determined by academic ability alone.I didn’t say your defence of the 11+ relied on polytechnics or higher education – I said that you seemed to be paying a great deal of attention to the 11+ for a man who was ‘… more concerned of (sic) the focus of Government of the scrapping of Techs, Polytechnics, colleges to Universities etc.’

Your stories about ‘graduates becoming gas engineers and plumbers etc; as for financial rewards’ and ‘… the chap who owns castle cafe probably earns more in a year than many teachers, college lecturers, engineers etc etc’ are urban myths like so much stuff in defence of the 11+. I have never met a graduate heating engineer (and training as a gas engineer is as time-consuming as becoming a graduate). Your statement that my ‘insinuation that a university degree is a prerequisite for a for a career that is rewarding both financially and personally is quite simply not true,’ is mistaken in its emphasis – I said that ‘Broadly speaking a university education is the essential prerequisite for a career that is rewarding financially and personally and you don’t get the sort of degree you need by failing the 11+.’ Broadly speaking most learned professions require a degree before you can enter training or require O and A levels at grades that are not commonly earned at secondary modern schools – look at medicine and the law. ( By the way I don’t know why you keep saying I am ‘insinuating’ stuff – I would have said I am quite open and direct in my hostility to so-called ‘selection’.)
I agree with you that being a graduate is not the be-all and end-all of life – I have post graduate degrees and my brother remarked some years ago (with a sly look at me) that he had not read a book for twenty years – my father was the same and they have had happy and successful lives, however that is not a justification for denying an overwhelming majority of children admission to academia and then doggedly thinking up rationalisations for this. What do kids at grammar schools learn? A lot of it is the sort of stuff that enables them to become graduates and earn better than average salaries – in the case of many of them much better than average and in much more interesting jobs. If they don’t learn this then what do they learn? Why else do grammar schools pride themselves on the high rate of successful entries to examinations that are university entrance requirements? How do you know the proprietor of the Castle Café didn’t want to become an English teacher? Elsewhere on this page you say, ‘Lastly, clever men and women as you put it, will find their own potential, they don't need degrees, they don't need examinations, they find their own way in life, being clever, is not always determined by academic ability alone.’ Then what is the purpose of grammar schools and the 11+?
You say ‘what Grammar schools allow students to do, is for more academically minded children to pursue a more vigorous academic path than those who would likely struggle under the workload’. What do you mean by ‘academically minded’? The Oxford Dictionary, among other definitions, says academic means, ‘6. Of a person, esp. a child: interested in or excelling at scholarly pursuits and activities; bookish, studious; clever’. Do you really believe parents sit down and think ‘ooh he’s interested in or excelling at scholarly pursuits and activities; bookish, and studious’ so we’ll get him through the 11+ so he can study literature, history or nature in books – if this is true what is the reason for ‘allowing’ the more academically-able to do this – from what you say it would appear to be a form of intellectual self-indulgence, and why do parents pay for their children to be coached to pass the 11+ - is it because all their children are bookish and intellectual or because entrance to grammar school gives them a much better chance in life when they leave school?
Also why do secondary moderns fall so far behind grammars? Is it because the 11+ pass mark (which varies from year to year depending on the size of the school population that year) indicates a point below which children in secondary moderns really become only a fraction as talented as the kids who get through the 11+ or is it, as a friend’s son said to me, he was already being coached for O level at age 11 whereas his best friend at school – who had failed the 11+ - was carrying on undemandingly with what they had been doing at junior school so that his potential lay undeveloped?
What do you think secondary modern schools do for their students (cue for some faux respectful stuff about why am I calling them failures) – what is the purpose of secondary modern schools? The disadvantage in ‘selection’ and the 11+ is often said to be summed up in the three words ‘secondary modern schools’ – the unspoken assumption behind ‘selection’ is that some people’s children are not worth wasting too much time educating.I didn’t say your defence of the 11+ relied on polytechnics or higher education – I said that you seemed to be paying a great deal of attention to the 11+ for a man who was ‘… more concerned of (sic) the focus of Government of the scrapping of Techs, Polytechnics, colleges to Universities etc.’

I'm not sure that is my main focus, despite having failed it the 11+, I happen to still be in favour of selective education, it's an alternative position to your own.

Your stories about ‘graduates becoming gas engineers and plumbers etc; as for financial rewards’ and ‘… the chap who owns castle cafe probably earns more in a year than many teachers, college lecturers, engineers etc etc’ are urban myths like so much stuff in defence of the 11+.
http://www.guardian.

co.uk/lifeandstyle/2

004/jun/05/shopping.

homes1
!
http://www.guardian.

co.uk/money/2010/sep

/22/call-centres-ris

e-graduate-applicant

s
!
I have never met a graduate heating engineer (and training as a gas engineer is as time-consuming as becoming a graduate).

Your having never met one is hardly a measure that they're not, the following is a small selection:
!
http://www.hvnplus.c

o.uk/news/report-uk-

engineering-graduate

s-fail-to-secure-job

s/8619672.article


Your statement that my ‘insinuation that a university degree is a prerequisite for a for a career that is rewarding both financially and personally is quite simply not true,’ is mistaken in its emphasis – I said that ‘Broadly speaking a university education is the essential prerequisite for a career that is rewarding financially and personally
Is that not the same thing?

and you don’t get the sort of degree you need by failing the 11+.

I'm sorry but again, what is your source for this assertion?

’ Broadly speaking most learned professions require a degree before you can enter training
Yes, agreed
or require O and A levels at grades that are not commonly earned at secondary modern schools LOL, i'm sorry, I don't where you're getting this from but I'm comfortable in stating much of what you write is based on a heap of generalisations rather than borne from any factual information.Were you to combine the Grammar and Secondary Schools examination results, how do the percentage of students gaining the grades you speak of, differ compared to say a secondary Modern?
!

– look at medicine and the law. ( By the way I don’t know why you keep saying I am ‘insinuating’ stuff – I would have said I am quite open and direct in my hostility to so-called ‘selection’.)
I agree with you that being a graduate is not the be-all and end-all of life – I have post graduate degrees and my brother remarked some years ago (with a sly look at me) that he had not read a book for twenty years – my father was the same and they have had happy and successful lives, however that is not a justification for denying an overwhelming majority of children admission to academia
Not having a Grammar School Education does not preclude or deny any young person from persuing admission to academia, there are a number of factors that could do so, not being good enough is one and I count myself as being one of those
.
and then doggedly thinking up rationalisations for this.

It's simple logic, we don't always get what we want and we don't always get to do what we would like, that doesn't stop us from trying.
What do kids at grammar schools learn?

Unless on a vocational course, the same curriculum as any other student but with more pressure and at a faster pace.
A lot of it is the sort of stuff that enables them to become graduates and earn better than average salaries Ah Right, so it's only the Grammar School kids who do "the sort of stuff that enables them to become Graduates"? What a crock of cr@p.
– in the case of many of them much better than average and in much more interesting jobs. If they don’t learn this then what do they learn? Why else do grammar schools pride themselves on the high rate of successful entries to examinations that are university entrance requirements?
I don't quite follow why being successful is such a bad thing or indeed why Grammar Schools prevent others from having a good education. Are the resources different to other Schools? How much time is spent of teaching staff dealing with unruly youngsters rather than actually teaching, how do you think disruptive children affect those who want to get on? Even those that obtain law Degrees aren't guaranteed a place in Chambers, neither do Qualifications bring with them the personal skills needed to acquire a certain position; in short, as individuals, none of us are guaranteed a place in life.


Schools select their students on How do you know the proprietor of the Castle Café didn’t want to become an English teacher?
I don't, what I was referring to, is that academic ability doesn't always bring with it reward, personally or monetarily, if one is content with their lot then there's little point in pushing them hard, in the reverse, if there are those that wish to be pushed harder, then it doesn't seem right holding them back.
Elsewhere on this page you say, ‘Lastly, clever men and women as you put it, will find their own potential, they don't need degrees, they don't need examinations, they find their own way in life, being clever, is not always determined by academic ability alone.’ Then what is the purpose of grammar schools and the 11+?
What is the point of any examination, it is to ultimately determine whether one achieves the required grade and subsequently qualify one for a particular path or career? Not wanting to undertake further Education or engaging in an academic path does not mean one is not clever or that they can't determine their own success in life.

You say ‘what Grammar schools allow students to do, is for more academically minded children to pursue a more vigorous academic path than those who would likely struggle under the workload’. What do you mean by ‘academically minded’? The Oxford Dictionary, among other definitions, says academic means, ‘6. Of a person, esp. a child: interested in or excelling at scholarly pursuits and activities; bookish, studious; clever’. Do you really believe parents sit down and think ‘ooh he’s interested in or excelling at scholarly pursuits and activities; bookish, and studious’ so we’ll get him through the 11+ so he can study literature, history or nature in books – if this is true what is the reason for ‘allowing’ the more academically-able to do this – from what you say it would appear to be a form of intellectual self-indulgence, and why do parents pay for their children to be coached to pass the 11+ - is it because all their children are bookish and intellectual or because entrance to grammar school gives them a much better chance in life when they leave school?

Yes, perhaps Academically gifted would be more appropriate then but then that depends on the child doesn't it; you really cannot lump all children, young people or anybody for that matter into the same category, some children have an idea as to what they wish to do, some don't,Again, i'm not sure of your evidence base to supports your assertion that youngsters are being groomed through having thousands of pounds spent on them, I'm not convinced that it would necessarily do a great deal of good. You have to accept that people are different and have different capabilities.
!
Also why do secondary moderns fall so far behind grammars?

Because having been in one, some of the kids are little sh!tes who (not limited to) want to spend more time trying to impress little girls than learning, it really is as simple and as brutal as that.

Is it because the 11+ pass mark (which varies from year to year depending on the size of the school population that year) indicates a point below which children in secondary moderns really become only a fraction as talented as the kids who get through the 11+
No
or is it, as a friend’s son said to me, he was already being coached for O level at age 11 whereas his best friend at school – who had failed the 11+ - was carrying on undemandingly with what they had been doing at junior school so that his potential lay undeveloped?
So what? other than hearsay I don't see the relevance to the 11+ or you providing any evidence that extra tuition actually helps, I certainly don't see why it is of any of your business or mine whether people do have extra tuition or not.

What do you think secondary modern schools do for their students (cue for some faux respectful stuff about why am I calling them failures) – I would be asking what they can do for me,
what is the purpose of secondary modern schools?
The same as any School other than a Secondary Modern would likely offer more vocational training in the curriculum than that of a Grammar School.
The disadvantage in ‘selection’ and the 11+ is often said to be summed up in the three words ‘secondary modern schools’ – the unspoken assumption behind ‘selection’ is that some people’s children are not worth wasting too much time educating.
I disagree and having been to one I don't have to assume anything. I wouldn't say that I was academically gifted but for the first year or so I tried hard, I failed my 11+ but was invited to retake a year later, I didn't, I stated that I was happy at the School, but ironically, primarily I didn't think my parents would be able to afford the transport; nevertheless the School I was at, many people who wanted to learn, were held back by a small number of idiots who wanted to prove what big I ams they were, these morons used to scoff at those who wanted to get on, they always had the excuse, of how they were going to work with their Dads" do didn't need to learn so not only did they ruin their own education, they ruined it for everybody else. They didn't want to be there but the School had the duty to teach them, the teaching staff were despondent, didn't give a **** or just gave up. That is the reality I'm afraid, not everything is down to little Johnny not receiving tuition,I meant this in an intelligible form.

wayneo wrote:
ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
wayneo wrote:
ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
wayneo wrote: demoness the second wrote: Up until very recently I was 100% pro selection. I passed my 12 plus ( as it ws then) as did my siblings, as did my children.No coaching involved. However I am afraid that the days of children being given a fair crack of the whip where grammar schools are concerned are long gone. The principle is sound - why shouldn't we develop the superior brains of the future? Why shouldn't the working class kid be given the same chance as anyone else? But it isn't like that anymore. Sadly the more affluent schools do tend to coach, and sadly it is those with the most money who coach their children. My children both caught the bus to school every day and we paid - it was not a problem. To be fair the school was in our catchment area. But they both tell tales of the appalling behaviour of these so called well brought up children who were not used to public transport. They also said that it was pretty obvious who had been coached because these kids struggled very quickly. Which makes it a travesty because those spaces could have been used by children with brains. The 11 plus exam IMO is not a test of intellectual superiority. If they really wanted to cream off the top 25% they should be doing straight forward tests in the three Rs. You can coach children to take this exam because it is a matter of knowing how to answer the questions - there is a knack involved. Once you have solved the riddle - it is easy. So ( as others have said)I because of the target culture much of the curriculum is concerned with coaching as opposed to academic acheivement. Rather than worrying about Grammar education, I am more concerned of the focus of Government of the scrapping of Techs, Polytechnics, colleges to Universities etc. ! The seed that has been sown is that one is worthless without a University education and there are a considerable number of degrees that aren't worth sh!te. Pretyy ironic seeing as it is manufacturing and engineering that we as a nation used to excel at but are now lagging well behind.If I understand your first sentence aright you seem to be mounting a dogged defence of grammar schools for not ‘worrying about Grammar education, I am more concerned of the focus of Government of the scrapping of Techs, Polytechnics, colleges to Universities etc.’ Broadly speaking a university education is the essential prerequisite for a career that is rewarding financially and personally and you don’t get the sort of degree you need by failing the 11+. That is one reason people support the 11+ - the fact that if their child can get through it a majority of other people's children will be at a disadvantage in comparison. The reason I am opposed to the 11+ is that WASTES so much talent – you get clever men and women who never get the chance to achieve their potential and are fascinated by things they never heard of at school and who defer to people no better than them who are better-educated. For every ordinary kid like Alistair Cooke, Edward Heath, Alan Bennet or Dudley Moore there thousands put on the scrapheap and hundreds of well-off ones given an unecessary help.No, the defence of the 11+ and Grammar education does not rely on polytechnics or higher education, my point concerned the focus on degrees being the be-all and end-all to a successful future. Your insinuation that a university degree is a prerequisite for a for a career that is rewarding both financially and personally is quite simply not true, we well know with the amount of graduates becoming gas engineers and plumbers etc; as for financial rewards, I think the chap who owns castle cafe probably earns more in a year than many teachers, college lecturers, engineers etc etc.
!
The idea that a degree is all that is required to be successful or for somebody to reach their full potential is complete cr@p, what Grammar schools allow students to do, is for more academically minded children to pursue a more vigorous academic path than those whowould likely struggle under the workload, that you would hold back those people (or suppress their potential) makes you every bit as guilty as the system you claim is somehow elitist.
!
Lastly, clever men and women as you put it, will find their own potential, they don't need degrees, they don't need examinations, they find their own way in life, being clever, is not always determined by academic ability alone.I didn’t say your defence of the 11+ relied on polytechnics or higher education – I said that you seemed to be paying a great deal of attention to the 11+ for a man who was ‘… more concerned of (sic) the focus of Government of the scrapping of Techs, Polytechnics, colleges to Universities etc.’

Your stories about ‘graduates becoming gas engineers and plumbers etc; as for financial rewards’ and ‘… the chap who owns castle cafe probably earns more in a year than many teachers, college lecturers, engineers etc etc’ are urban myths like so much stuff in defence of the 11+. I have never met a graduate heating engineer (and training as a gas engineer is as time-consuming as becoming a graduate). Your statement that my ‘insinuation that a university degree is a prerequisite for a for a career that is rewarding both financially and personally is quite simply not true,’ is mistaken in its emphasis – I said that ‘Broadly speaking a university education is the essential prerequisite for a career that is rewarding financially and personally and you don’t get the sort of degree you need by failing the 11+.’ Broadly speaking most learned professions require a degree before you can enter training or require O and A levels at grades that are not commonly earned at secondary modern schools – look at medicine and the law. ( By the way I don’t know why you keep saying I am ‘insinuating’ stuff – I would have said I am quite open and direct in my hostility to so-called ‘selection’.)
I agree with you that being a graduate is not the be-all and end-all of life – I have post graduate degrees and my brother remarked some years ago (with a sly look at me) that he had not read a book for twenty years – my father was the same and they have had happy and successful lives, however that is not a justification for denying an overwhelming majority of children admission to academia and then doggedly thinking up rationalisations for this. What do kids at grammar schools learn? A lot of it is the sort of stuff that enables them to become graduates and earn better than average salaries – in the case of many of them much better than average and in much more interesting jobs. If they don’t learn this then what do they learn? Why else do grammar schools pride themselves on the high rate of successful entries to examinations that are university entrance requirements? How do you know the proprietor of the Castle Café didn’t want to become an English teacher? Elsewhere on this page you say, ‘Lastly, clever men and women as you put it, will find their own potential, they don't need degrees, they don't need examinations, they find their own way in life, being clever, is not always determined by academic ability alone.’ Then what is the purpose of grammar schools and the 11+?
You say ‘what Grammar schools allow students to do, is for more academically minded children to pursue a more vigorous academic path than those who would likely struggle under the workload’. What do you mean by ‘academically minded’? The Oxford Dictionary, among other definitions, says academic means, ‘6. Of a person, esp. a child: interested in or excelling at scholarly pursuits and activities; bookish, studious; clever’. Do you really believe parents sit down and think ‘ooh he’s interested in or excelling at scholarly pursuits and activities; bookish, and studious’ so we’ll get him through the 11+ so he can study literature, history or nature in books – if this is true what is the reason for ‘allowing’ the more academically-able to do this – from what you say it would appear to be a form of intellectual self-indulgence, and why do parents pay for their children to be coached to pass the 11+ - is it because all their children are bookish and intellectual or because entrance to grammar school gives them a much better chance in life when they leave school?
Also why do secondary moderns fall so far behind grammars? Is it because the 11+ pass mark (which varies from year to year depending on the size of the school population that year) indicates a point below which children in secondary moderns really become only a fraction as talented as the kids who get through the 11+ or is it, as a friend’s son said to me, he was already being coached for O level at age 11 whereas his best friend at school – who had failed the 11+ - was carrying on undemandingly with what they had been doing at junior school so that his potential lay undeveloped?
What do you think secondary modern schools do for their students (cue for some faux respectful stuff about why am I calling them failures) – what is the purpose of secondary modern schools? The disadvantage in ‘selection’ and the 11+ is often said to be summed up in the three words ‘secondary modern schools’ – the unspoken assumption behind ‘selection’ is that some people’s children are not worth wasting too much time educating.I didn’t say your defence of the 11+ relied on polytechnics or higher education – I said that you seemed to be paying a great deal of attention to the 11+ for a man who was ‘… more concerned of (sic) the focus of Government of the scrapping of Techs, Polytechnics, colleges to Universities etc.’

I'm not sure that is my main focus, despite having failed it the 11+, I happen to still be in favour of selective education, it's an alternative position to your own.

Your stories about ‘graduates becoming gas engineers and plumbers etc; as for financial rewards’ and ‘… the chap who owns castle cafe probably earns more in a year than many teachers, college lecturers, engineers etc etc’ are urban myths like so much stuff in defence of the 11+.
http://www.guardian.

co.uk/lifeandstyle/2

004/jun/05/shopping.

homes1
!
http://www.guardian.

co.uk/money/2010/sep

/22/call-centres-ris

e-graduate-applicant

s
!
I have never met a graduate heating engineer (and training as a gas engineer is as time-consuming as becoming a graduate).

Your having never met one is hardly a measure that they're not, the following is a small selection:
!
http://www.hvnplus.c

o.uk/news/report-uk-

engineering-graduate

s-fail-to-secure-job

s/8619672.article


Your statement that my ‘insinuation that a university degree is a prerequisite for a for a career that is rewarding both financially and personally is quite simply not true,’ is mistaken in its emphasis – I said that ‘Broadly speaking a university education is the essential prerequisite for a career that is rewarding financially and personally
Is that not the same thing?

and you don’t get the sort of degree you need by failing the 11+.

I'm sorry but again, what is your source for this assertion?

’ Broadly speaking most learned professions require a degree before you can enter training
Yes, agreed
or require O and A levels at grades that are not commonly earned at secondary modern schools LOL, i'm sorry, I don't where you're getting this from but I'm comfortable in stating much of what you write is based on a heap of generalisations rather than borne from any factual information.Were you to combine the Grammar and Secondary Schools examination results, how do the percentage of students gaining the grades you speak of, differ compared to say a secondary Modern?
!

– look at medicine and the law. ( By the way I don’t know why you keep saying I am ‘insinuating’ stuff – I would have said I am quite open and direct in my hostility to so-called ‘selection’.)
I agree with you that being a graduate is not the be-all and end-all of life – I have post graduate degrees and my brother remarked some years ago (with a sly look at me) that he had not read a book for twenty years – my father was the same and they have had happy and successful lives, however that is not a justification for denying an overwhelming majority of children admission to academia
Not having a Grammar School Education does not preclude or deny any young person from persuing admission to academia, there are a number of factors that could do so, not being good enough is one and I count myself as being one of those
.
and then doggedly thinking up rationalisations for this.

It's simple logic, we don't always get what we want and we don't always get to do what we would like, that doesn't stop us from trying.
What do kids at grammar schools learn?

Unless on a vocational course, the same curriculum as any other student but with more pressure and at a faster pace.
A lot of it is the sort of stuff that enables them to become graduates and earn better than average salaries Ah Right, so it's only the Grammar School kids who do "the sort of stuff that enables them to become Graduates"? What a crock of cr@p.
– in the case of many of them much better than average and in much more interesting jobs. If they don’t learn this then what do they learn? Why else do grammar schools pride themselves on the high rate of successful entries to examinations that are university entrance requirements?
I don't quite follow why being successful is such a bad thing or indeed why Grammar Schools prevent others from having a good education. Are the resources different to other Schools? How much time is spent of teaching staff dealing with unruly youngsters rather than actually teaching, how do you think disruptive children affect those who want to get on? Even those that obtain law Degrees aren't guaranteed a place in Chambers, neither do Qualifications bring with them the personal skills needed to acquire a certain position; in short, as individuals, none of us are guaranteed a place in life.


Schools select their students on How do you know the proprietor of the Castle Café didn’t want to become an English teacher?
I don't, what I was referring to, is that academic ability doesn't always bring with it reward, personally or monetarily, if one is content with their lot then there's little point in pushing them hard, in the reverse, if there are those that wish to be pushed harder, then it doesn't seem right holding them back.
Elsewhere on this page you say, ‘Lastly, clever men and women as you put it, will find their own potential, they don't need degrees, they don't need examinations, they find their own way in life, being clever, is not always determined by academic ability alone.’ Then what is the purpose of grammar schools and the 11+?
What is the point of any examination, it is to ultimately determine whether one achieves the required grade and subsequently qualify one for a particular path or career? Not wanting to undertake further Education or engaging in an academic path does not mean one is not clever or that they can't determine their own success in life.

You say ‘what Grammar schools allow students to do, is for more academically minded children to pursue a more vigorous academic path than those who would likely struggle under the workload’. What do you mean by ‘academically minded’? The Oxford Dictionary, among other definitions, says academic means, ‘6. Of a person, esp. a child: interested in or excelling at scholarly pursuits and activities; bookish, studious; clever’. Do you really believe parents sit down and think ‘ooh he’s interested in or excelling at scholarly pursuits and activities; bookish, and studious’ so we’ll get him through the 11+ so he can study literature, history or nature in books – if this is true what is the reason for ‘allowing’ the more academically-able to do this – from what you say it would appear to be a form of intellectual self-indulgence, and why do parents pay for their children to be coached to pass the 11+ - is it because all their children are bookish and intellectual or because entrance to grammar school gives them a much better chance in life when they leave school?

Yes, perhaps Academically gifted would be more appropriate then but then that depends on the child doesn't it; you really cannot lump all children, young people or anybody for that matter into the same category, some children have an idea as to what they wish to do, some don't,Again, i'm not sure of your evidence base to supports your assertion that youngsters are being groomed through having thousands of pounds spent on them, I'm not convinced that it would necessarily do a great deal of good. You have to accept that people are different and have different capabilities.
!
Also why do secondary moderns fall so far behind grammars?

Because having been in one, some of the kids are little sh!tes who (not limited to) want to spend more time trying to impress little girls than learning, it really is as simple and as brutal as that.

Is it because the 11+ pass mark (which varies from year to year depending on the size of the school population that year) indicates a point below which children in secondary moderns really become only a fraction as talented as the kids who get through the 11+
No
or is it, as a friend’s son said to me, he was already being coached for O level at age 11 whereas his best friend at school – who had failed the 11+ - was carrying on undemandingly with what they had been doing at junior school so that his potential lay undeveloped?
So what? other than hearsay I don't see the relevance to the 11+ or you providing any evidence that extra tuition actually helps, I certainly don't see why it is of any of your business or mine whether people do have extra tuition or not.

What do you think secondary modern schools do for their students (cue for some faux respectful stuff about why am I calling them failures) – I would be asking what they can do for me,
what is the purpose of secondary modern schools?
The same as any School other than a Secondary Modern would likely offer more vocational training in the curriculum than that of a Grammar School.
The disadvantage in ‘selection’ and the 11+ is often said to be summed up in the three words ‘secondary modern schools’ – the unspoken assumption behind ‘selection’ is that some people’s children are not worth wasting too much time educating.
I disagree and having been to one I don't have to assume anything. I wouldn't say that I was academically gifted but for the first year or so I tried hard, I failed my 11+ but was invited to retake a year later, I didn't, I stated that I was happy at the School, but ironically, primarily I didn't think my parents would be able to afford the transport; nevertheless the School I was at, many people who wanted to learn, were held back by a small number of idiots who wanted to prove what big I ams they were, these morons used to scoff at those who wanted to get on, they always had the excuse, of how they were going to work with their Dads" do didn't need to learn so not only did they ruin their own education, they ruined it for everybody else. They didn't want to be there but the School had the duty to teach them, the teaching staff were despondent, didn't give a **** or just gave up. That is the reality I'm afraid, not everything is down to little Johnny not receiving tuition,There is something wrong with the BFP IT technology as well as wayneo's reasoning. I mean wayneo’s 3,388 word post of 11:12pm Sun 29 Jan 12 with quotes within quotes all in the same typeface.

Yes, generally quoting makes a post more intelligible albiet in this case, it hasn't worked. I won't be reposting it all again, you should be able to extract it and reform the quotes easily enough.

You're very lazy - I will see what I can do.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
You're very lazy - I will see what I can do.

Ad Hominem

Your response IS lazy and indicative of a lazy complacemcy of mind.

(Though I graciously accept your refusal to continue with the debate.)

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
(Though I graciously accept your refusal to continue with the debate.)

On the contrary sunshine, I'm just getting started.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
Your response IS lazy and indicative of a lazy complacemcy of mind.

On the contrary, unfortunately I have some exams for work next week, they take priority to corresponding with you.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
I’ve decided to quote the post time and date rather than reproduce the whole thing - wayneo says... 7:51pm Sun 29 Jan 12

‘It is whining and moaning, some didn't pass so they bleat about how unfair life is then accuse those that do pass of spending thousands of pounds on extra tuition, it's a totally unfounded and irrational assumption to make as well as spiteful.’
I have said elsewhere that people who oppose the 11+ are NOT ‘bleating’ or ‘whining’ about ‘how unfair life is’ - some of us have passed this silly exam and we don’t have to justify our opposition to it by constant reference to our own experience and our pluck in picking ourselves up and carrying on.
……….
‘‘Academic ability isn't the be all and end all of life, neither is going to University.’ Up to a point this is true but if this is the case then why do so many parents spend money on getting their children through the 11+?
I've not seen any evidence that they do, you are still to provide it but anyway, the enthesis of success has been attributed to academic achievement alone; A number of generations have lost out from gaining good trade or industry qualifications, apprenticeships, because of the drive towards University.’
I’ve answered this elsewhere and what has the 11+ got to do with the drive away from ‘trade or industry qualifications, apprenticeships’? (‘Enthesis’ is not in the Oxford Dictionary.)
……….
It’s not a myth that people trot out money to get their children coached into grammar schools – see some of the other letters here – I know more than one (privately educated) parent who has done this for the obvious reason that it is far less expensive to get your kid through the 11+ than to pay years of school fees

Strewth, I know a mate darn the street who did x & y, so z must be true, yes, that's a logical fallacy known as Argumentum ad populam, it really means very little unless you've the minerals to back up your assertion.
impossible to prove or disprove but as I said a lot of people on her have had experience of it. I know of it and there are people advertising on this web page their services for Common Entrance and the 11+. (It’s not really an ‘Argumentum ad populam’ as not everybody believes it – though I would plead guilty to generalising on the basis of my own experience – bit like you but with more sense. And why ‘minerals’?)
……….
– in any case most public schools take their pupils from private preparatory schools and grammar school children have gone to local junior schools.
Really? but earlier you stated " Apart from this statement directly contradicting that of the previous, I'm not sure again, unless being one of your assumptions again, as to how you've come to this conclusion; Public Schools have varying degrees of entry requirements that are determined by the school themselves, that includes bursaries.
It’s a bit difficult to answer this wayneo as you have neglected to paste in my quote –I WOULD point out that bursaries and scholarships usually go to children from private schools – the private system starts at the very beginning usually (I can’t prove that either and am generalising on my own experience but do you genuinely know of anyone who has transferred from a state junior school to a paid-for Headmaster’s conference school?)Please re-paste this in an intelleigibel form and I will look at it tomorrow. (And please don't repeat any questions I've already answered.)Please re-paste this in an intelleigibel form and I will look at it tomorrow. (And please don't repeat any questions I've already answered.)
The unintelligible post you quoted above is actually one of your responses to me, need I say much more?

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
Your response IS lazy and indicative of a lazy complacemcy of mind.

On the contrary, unfortunately I have some exams for work next week, they take priority to corresponding with you.

You'll probably fail them if you're as complacent in the exam room as in life.

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
Your response IS lazy and indicative of a lazy complacemcy of mind.

On the contrary, unfortunately I have some exams for work next week, they take priority to corresponding with you.

You'll probably fail them if you're as complacent in the exam room as in life.

wayneo wrote:
ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
I’ve decided to quote the post time and date rather than reproduce the whole thing - wayneo says... 7:51pm Sun 29 Jan 12

‘It is whining and moaning, some didn't pass so they bleat about how unfair life is then accuse those that do pass of spending thousands of pounds on extra tuition, it's a totally unfounded and irrational assumption to make as well as spiteful.’
I have said elsewhere that people who oppose the 11+ are NOT ‘bleating’ or ‘whining’ about ‘how unfair life is’ - some of us have passed this silly exam and we don’t have to justify our opposition to it by constant reference to our own experience and our pluck in picking ourselves up and carrying on.
……….
‘‘Academic ability isn't the be all and end all of life, neither is going to University.’ Up to a point this is true but if this is the case then why do so many parents spend money on getting their children through the 11+?
I've not seen any evidence that they do, you are still to provide it but anyway, the enthesis of success has been attributed to academic achievement alone; A number of generations have lost out from gaining good trade or industry qualifications, apprenticeships, because of the drive towards University.’
I’ve answered this elsewhere and what has the 11+ got to do with the drive away from ‘trade or industry qualifications, apprenticeships’? (‘Enthesis’ is not in the Oxford Dictionary.)
……….
It’s not a myth that people trot out money to get their children coached into grammar schools – see some of the other letters here – I know more than one (privately educated) parent who has done this for the obvious reason that it is far less expensive to get your kid through the 11+ than to pay years of school fees

Strewth, I know a mate darn the street who did x & y, so z must be true, yes, that's a logical fallacy known as Argumentum ad populam, it really means very little unless you've the minerals to back up your assertion.
impossible to prove or disprove but as I said a lot of people on her have had experience of it. I know of it and there are people advertising on this web page their services for Common Entrance and the 11+. (It’s not really an ‘Argumentum ad populam’ as not everybody believes it – though I would plead guilty to generalising on the basis of my own experience – bit like you but with more sense. And why ‘minerals’?)
……….
– in any case most public schools take their pupils from private preparatory schools and grammar school children have gone to local junior schools.
Really? but earlier you stated " Apart from this statement directly contradicting that of the previous, I'm not sure again, unless being one of your assumptions again, as to how you've come to this conclusion; Public Schools have varying degrees of entry requirements that are determined by the school themselves, that includes bursaries.
It’s a bit difficult to answer this wayneo as you have neglected to paste in my quote –I WOULD point out that bursaries and scholarships usually go to children from private schools – the private system starts at the very beginning usually (I can’t prove that either and am generalising on my own experience but do you genuinely know of anyone who has transferred from a state junior school to a paid-for Headmaster’s conference school?)Please re-paste this in an intelleigibel form and I will look at it tomorrow. (And please don't repeat any questions I've already answered.)Please re-paste this in an intelleigibel form and I will look at it tomorrow. (And please don't repeat any questions I've already answered.)
The unintelligible post you quoted above is actually one of your responses to me, need I say much more?And as I explained ealier that was the result of a snafu by the BFP IT Department.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
wayneo wrote:
ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
I’ve decided to quote the post time and date rather than reproduce the whole thing - wayneo says... 7:51pm Sun 29 Jan 12

‘It is whining and moaning, some didn't pass so they bleat about how unfair life is then accuse those that do pass of spending thousands of pounds on extra tuition, it's a totally unfounded and irrational assumption to make as well as spiteful.’
I have said elsewhere that people who oppose the 11+ are NOT ‘bleating’ or ‘whining’ about ‘how unfair life is’ - some of us have passed this silly exam and we don’t have to justify our opposition to it by constant reference to our own experience and our pluck in picking ourselves up and carrying on.
……….
‘‘Academic ability isn't the be all and end all of life, neither is going to University.’ Up to a point this is true but if this is the case then why do so many parents spend money on getting their children through the 11+?
I've not seen any evidence that they do, you are still to provide it but anyway, the enthesis of success has been attributed to academic achievement alone; A number of generations have lost out from gaining good trade or industry qualifications, apprenticeships, because of the drive towards University.’
I’ve answered this elsewhere and what has the 11+ got to do with the drive away from ‘trade or industry qualifications, apprenticeships’? (‘Enthesis’ is not in the Oxford Dictionary.)
……….
It’s not a myth that people trot out money to get their children coached into grammar schools – see some of the other letters here – I know more than one (privately educated) parent who has done this for the obvious reason that it is far less expensive to get your kid through the 11+ than to pay years of school fees

Strewth, I know a mate darn the street who did x & y, so z must be true, yes, that's a logical fallacy known as Argumentum ad populam, it really means very little unless you've the minerals to back up your assertion.
impossible to prove or disprove but as I said a lot of people on her have had experience of it. I know of it and there are people advertising on this web page their services for Common Entrance and the 11+. (It’s not really an ‘Argumentum ad populam’ as not everybody believes it – though I would plead guilty to generalising on the basis of my own experience – bit like you but with more sense. And why ‘minerals’?)
……….
– in any case most public schools take their pupils from private preparatory schools and grammar school children have gone to local junior schools.
Really? but earlier you stated " Apart from this statement directly contradicting that of the previous, I'm not sure again, unless being one of your assumptions again, as to how you've come to this conclusion; Public Schools have varying degrees of entry requirements that are determined by the school themselves, that includes bursaries.
It’s a bit difficult to answer this wayneo as you have neglected to paste in my quote –I WOULD point out that bursaries and scholarships usually go to children from private schools – the private system starts at the very beginning usually (I can’t prove that either and am generalising on my own experience but do you genuinely know of anyone who has transferred from a state junior school to a paid-for Headmaster’s conference school?)Please re-paste this in an intelleigibel form and I will look at it tomorrow. (And please don't repeat any questions I've already answered.)Please re-paste this in an intelleigibel form and I will look at it tomorrow. (And please don't repeat any questions I've already answered.)
The unintelligible post you quoted above is actually one of your responses to me, need I say much more?And as I explained ealier that was the result of a snafu by the BFP IT Department.And as I explained ealier that was the result of a snafu by the BFP IT Department.

And as I explained ealier that was the result of a snafu by the BFP IT Department.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
Your response IS lazy and indicative of a lazy complacemcy of mind.

On the contrary, unfortunately I have some exams for work next week, they take priority to corresponding with you.

You'll probably fail them if you're as complacent in the exam room as in life.

Haven't yet but then again, I'm rarely complacent and besides, if I do fail, I'll keep on taking until I pass; I certainly won't be blaming it on anybody else or squealing how unfair life is if I don't.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
And as I explained ealier that was the result of a snafu by the BFP IT Department.

Using quotes seems to have been disabled from this thread, it's probably why you posted your own lengthy post back as being unintelligible and didn't acknowledge my unquoted reply in return. Entirely up-to-you whether you plough through it but unfortunately, without the quote function, I won't be reposting it. Happy to continue discussing Grammar Schools though I think in the circumstances, brevity would be more appropriate.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
Your response IS lazy and indicative of a lazy complacemcy of mind.

On the contrary, unfortunately I have some exams for work next week, they take priority to corresponding with you.

You'll probably fail them if you're as complacent in the exam room as in life.

We have forty million reasons for failure, but not a single excuse.
Rudyard Kipling
!
!
Very wise words from Mr Kipling, of which, equally apply to the 11+.

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
Your response IS lazy and indicative of a lazy complacemcy of mind.

On the contrary, unfortunately I have some exams for work next week, they take priority to corresponding with you.

You'll probably fail them if you're as complacent in the exam room as in life.

Haven't yet but then again, I'm rarely complacent and besides, if I do fail, I'll keep on taking until I pass; I certainly won't be blaming it on anybody else or squealing how unfair life is if I don't.

Careful you don't go to the opposite extreme of posing as a macho hero who doesn't complain and doesn't explain though.

(Children who fail the 11+ can’t ‘keep on taking until (they) pass’ – only one or so attempts and that’s it.)
Why do you still insist that people who disagree with you over this discredited exam (I have explained elsewhere why it is discredited) are failures blaming it on other people and ‘squealing how unfair life is’?
Some of us DID pass it and are protesting reasonably on behalf of future generations of children. Seems to me YOU’RE squealing about how brave you are.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
Your response IS lazy and indicative of a lazy complacemcy of mind.

On the contrary, unfortunately I have some exams for work next week, they take priority to corresponding with you.

You'll probably fail them if you're as complacent in the exam room as in life.

Haven't yet but then again, I'm rarely complacent and besides, if I do fail, I'll keep on taking until I pass; I certainly won't be blaming it on anybody else or squealing how unfair life is if I don't.

Careful you don't go to the opposite extreme of posing as a macho hero who doesn't complain and doesn't explain though.

There you go again, is the argument for opposing the 11+ so weak that have little to add other than attacking the person rather than the argument?

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
(Children who fail the 11+ can’t ‘keep on taking until (they) pass’ – only one or so attempts and that’s it.)
Why do you still insist that people who disagree with you over this discredited exam (I have explained elsewhere why it is discredited) are failures blaming it on other people and ‘squealing how unfair life is’?
Some of us DID pass it and are protesting reasonably on behalf of future generations of children. Seems to me YOU’RE squealing about how brave you are.

Not quite sure where brave comes into it or is that your attempt at yet another unprovoked dig rather than tackling the argument?
!
Actually, some children do sit the exam again,Buckinghamshir
e has retained the 12+ and 13+, not only that, good GCSE grades will generally allow one to enter 6th Form at a Grammar School without selection, so you argument of "being consigned to a second class Education" doesn't really hold water. Also, for one who admits he never went to a Secondary Modern, how you can claim that all students are consigned to a second class education, surely for any School, there are good and Bad, the Education from any School would be befitting the level of many of its Students upon entry, as they progress and their maturity grows, there are further opportunities that determine whether a particular child is suitable for Grammar School or not.
!
You passed the 11+, good for you, did you attend a Grammar, a Secondary Modern or a Comprehensive?
!
With respect to your claim of being a self-styled Champion of the "future generations of Children", that by scrapping selective Education, you would effectively (by your own words), consign a good percentage of Children to a second class Education. You make various claims, most of which are evidently constructed from hearsay, yet fail to present any facts, figures or sources to back your assertion that Selective Education is somehow discredited, or indeed, that all children who don't go to Grammar Schools, are somehow somehow consigned to a second rate Education. Aside from the fact that Children and people in general have differing abilities, skills, behaviour and attainment, why do you effectively propose to annul what has become an internationally acclaimed measure of excellence and replace it with what amounts to an institution based on the Marxist principle of equality? Surely, where there is an established and respected model of excellence, Children would be best served by the 'second class' system you speak of, by attaining the level of the 'first-class' model.

Dear 'wayneo' you are wasting your time defending the indefensible.
/
‘Not quite sure where brave comes into it or is that your attempt at yet another unprovoked dig rather than tackling the argument?’
/
It’s a well-provoked dig as you have said several times that you and your son picked yourselves up and got on with things – the implication is that you showed determination and courage(you said above that ‘I don't see that pluck or being indomitable are qualities to be ashamed of …’.)
……….
‘Actually, some children do sit the exam again, Buckinghamshire has retained the 12+ and 13+, not only that, good GCSE grades will generally allow one to enter 6th Form at a Grammar School without selection, so you argument of "being consigned to a second class Education" doesn't really hold water.’
/
I’m afraid it is pretty near 100% watertight – the percentage of children who fail the 11+ and then get to grammar school at 13 or whenever is tiny.
……….
‘Also, for one who admits he never went to a Secondary Modern, how you can claim that all students are consigned to a second class education,’
/
I don’t recall admitting this but I would say how can you as someone admitting he never passed the 11+ say that grammar schools are not providing a better education? ‘Logically’ (as you would say) if the grammar schools are providing a better education then the secondary moderns must be providing an inferior one.
……….
‘ … surely for any School, there are good and Bad,’
/
then why have the ludicrously-misnamed ‘selection’ if they are all much of a muchness in any case?
……….
‘…the Education from any School would be befitting the level of many of its Students upon entry …’
/
Why so – this statement follows on immediately from the statement ‘ … surely for any School, there are good and Bad,’ so why then would ‘…the Education from any School… be befitting the level of many of its Students upon entry …’ ?
……….
‘With respect to your claim of being a self-styled Champion of the "future generations of Children", that by scrapping selective Education, you would effectively (by your own words), consign a good percentage of Children to a second class Education.’
/
This is slightly incoherent – I don’t recall ever styling myself or claiming to be a ‘champion’ of anyone but you seem to be attributing this name to me. You say that ‘With respect to …that by scrapping selective Education, you would effectively (by your own words), consign a good percentage of Children to a second class Education.’ I don’t use the word ‘effective’ or ‘effectively’ anywhere in this correspondence (‘Hercule Poirot’ does while quoting research that shows the idiocy of the kind of testing you advocate and so do you) so I take it that you are referring to my statement ‘There is a vast body of evidence going back to the so-called ‘Golden Age’ of grammar schools to show that the number of talented working-class children who passed the 11+ was a tiny percentage.’ I stick by this and would say scrapping selective education would hardly ‘consign a good percentage of Children to a second class Education’ – as you claim - that’s what the present system does.
……….
‘You make various claims, most of which are evidently constructed from hearsay, yet fail to present any facts, figures or sources to back your assertion that Selective Education is somehow discredited,’
/
I have presented facts and figures from the independent educational trust the Sutton Trust, and from the pages of the Guardian and the BFP above. ‘Marlow1]’ has given the pass percentage for the 11+ - ‘The pass percentage at the 11 plus is around 85-90 per cent’ and asked, ‘ What other exam do you need to score so highly to be seen to achieve an acceptable standard?’ ‘Hercule Poirot’ quotes BCC itself and published research into 11+ testing by Bunting and Mooney and says’, Modern interpretations view reasoning tests as reflecting the pupil’s experiences up to the time of testing rather than providing an indication of fixed potential …’. I would say EVERYBODY knows aspirational parents have their children coached for the 11+ (I don’t care if you think that is just an intuition on my part wayneo – there are adverts for such tuition (and for success at Common Entrance – the Holy Grail of British education) in the online pages of this paper and if you search the internet there are dozens of agencies advertising coaching) and the researchers ‘Hercule Poirot’ quotes say, ‘The current research evidence would suggest that unless you can ensure equal effectiveness or access to coaching, then you cannot make assumptions about ability based on the verbal reasoning tests."

Where are the facts that prove what YOU say ‘wayneo’ and why have so many education authorities abolished the 11+ and not one restored it?
……….
‘or indeed, that all children who don't go to Grammar Schools, are somehow somehow consigned to a second rate Education.’
/
You yourself have said that your son was not stretched until he went to grammar school and if there is not a lower standard of expectation for 11+ failures then what is the explanation of the great difference between public examination results and why are so many secondary moderns classed as ‘failing’ by the school inspectorate? (And what is the point of the 11+ if the education in both types of school is no different?)
……….
‘why do you effectively propose to annul what has become an internationally acclaimed measure of excellence and replace it with what amounts to an institution based on the Marxist principle of equality?’
/
1. If ‘selective’ education ‘has become an internationally acclaimed measure of excellence’ why are we the only country in the world to have county education authorities that select all children in this way at the age of ten or eleven and why have so many counties abolished the 11+? (By the way I have studied at universities abroad and never heard the 11+ mentioned – possibly it WAS being mentioned in hushed and reverential terms in junior and secondary schools though.)

2. You claim elsewhere that opponents of the 11+ are 'furthering some form of class war’. I think the reference to Marx shows where you are coming from wayneo - I am not a Marxist and I don’t know where Marx advocates ‘equality’ – please tell us. I and others like me are advocating a reasonable playing field for children after the age of eleven.

……….
‘Surely, where there is an established and respected model of excellence, Children would be best served by the 'second class' system you speak of, by attaining the level of the 'first-class' model.’
/
Generally they don’t and if they did then what would be the point in separating them in the first place?

Dear 'wayneo' you are wasting your time defending the indefensible.

'... good GCSE grades will generally allow one to enter 6th Form at a Grammar School without selection'. Then why weren't the gainers of good GCSE grades select in the first place?

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
Your response IS lazy and indicative of a lazy complacemcy of mind.

On the contrary, unfortunately I have some exams for work next week, they take priority to corresponding with you.

You'll probably fail them if you're as complacent in the exam room as in life.

Haven't yet but then again, I'm rarely complacent and besides, if I do fail, I'll keep on taking until I pass; I certainly won't be blaming it on anybody else or squealing how unfair life is if I don't.

Careful you don't go to the opposite extreme of posing as a macho hero who doesn't complain and doesn't explain though.

There you go again, is the argument for opposing the 11+ so weak that have little to add other than attacking the person rather than the argument?

YOU'RE the one 'wayneo' who talks of 'whining' and 'whinging' and says your opponents talk 'cr@p' and calls people 'sunshine' - badaren't they these personal attacks? (Bit like class warfare.)

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
'... good GCSE grades will generally allow one to enter 6th Form at a Grammar School without selection'. Then why weren't the gainers of good GCSE grades select in the first place?

Because they didn't pass the 11+ and there could be a number of reasons for that, maturity being one.

Dear 'wayneo' you are wasting your time defending the indefensible.

If i'm wasting my time then why bother replying?

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
'... good GCSE grades will generally allow one to enter 6th Form at a Grammar School without selection'. Then why weren't the gainers of good GCSE grades select in the first place?

Because they didn't pass the 11+ and there could be a number of reasons for that, maturity being one.

‘There could be a number of reasons’ LOL. I know they didn't pass because they failed the 11+.
The 11+ has been defended in the past as it identified working class children of high ability and gave them the opportunity of a good education and career – apparently though there are a number of reasons why kids fail it – including maturity.
Earlier you said the 11+ was to do with academic ability,
‘I went to Secondary School, I did so because my academic level wasn't suited to Grammar, why should my ability at that time hold somebody else back? Academic ability isn't the be all and end all of life, neither is going to University.’
Also to do with ‘pace’
‘I see Selective education as means of categorising those who are more academically suited to the general pace of Grammar schools’.
Now it’s to do with maturity.
Most people who defend the 11+ implicitly defend it because some children are brighter than others and I and people like me believe the 11+ doesn’t identify such children and actually disadvantages significant numbers of them.

wayneo wrote:

Dear 'wayneo' you are wasting your time defending the indefensible.

If i'm wasting my time then why bother replying?

I don't feel I'm wasting my own time - I just think you're wasting yours. I'm attacking the indefensible and you're defending it - I'm like the bloke in the bible I'm answering you according to your folly lest be wise in your own estimation (Proverbs 26:5). Also you may learn from me and come over to our side and even a not very well-informed man who is as dogged as you might be useful.

(Bible)

1. ‘Where are the facts that prove what YOU say ‘wayneo’ and why have so many education authorities abolished the 11+ and not one restored it?’
2. ‘If ‘selective’ education ‘has become an internationally acclaimed measure of excellence’ why are we the only country in the world to have county education authorities that select all children in this way at the age of ten or eleven and why have so many counties abolished the 11+?’
3. ‘I don’t know where Marx advocates ‘equality’ – please tell us.’
Are you going to ANS WER any of these questions wayneo – these are just from almost my last posting on here? Try and quote some independent source rather than your own intuition.

good, it's working again, so much for brevity, oh well, i'll try and plough through it as best I can.

It’s a well-provoked dig as you have said several times that you and your son picked yourselves up and got on with things – the implication is that you showed determination and courage(you said above that ‘I don't see that pluck or being indomitable are qualities to be ashamed of

Not sure why sarcastically label it brave or that we picked ourselves up as you infer; not passing the 11+ didn't concern me in the first place, subsequently it didn't bother me that those who did pass, went to Grammar, as for my son, I have no reason to suspect that he was upset about it or that we had to pick ourselves up, so i'm afraid your 'dig', is rather unfounded and pointless. As for "pluck or being indomitable", If you are assuming that by my commenting on those qualities, that somehow I was attributing them to my failing the 11+ then moving on, then you are mistaken.

I’m afraid it is pretty near 100% watertight – the percentage of children who fail the 11+ and then get to grammar school at 13 or whenever is tiny.

Pretty near 100% watertight? So now your position has shifted from having no chance, of being consigned to a second class education, to the percentage of those that do have second and third chances being tiny! Make your mind up!!! Please provide figures to back up your claim of the figures being tiny.

so I take it that you are referring to my statement ‘There is a vast body of evidence going back to the so-called ‘Golden Age’ of grammar schools to show that the number of talented working-class children who passed the 11+ was a tiny percentage.

No, I was referring to the your response to Bobbywhich follows:
!
!
" You're generalising very widely on the basis of your own experience and intuition and I would say that you are condemning a further generation of children to second-class education."
!
!
!
As for

There is a vast body of evidence going back to the so-called ‘Golden Age’ of grammar schools to show that the number of talented working-class children who passed the 11+ was a tiny percentage

What's your definition of working-class and provide a source for this evidence, wikipedia does it, the Guardian does it, why don't you?

I don’t recall admitting this but I would say how can you as someone admitting he never passed the 11+ say that grammar schools are not providing a better education? ‘Logically’ (as you would say) if the grammar schools are providing a better education then the secondary moderns must be providing an inferior one.

Wasn't my logic at all, it was in response you a post of yours earlier; Grammar Schools have consistently achieved higher grades than their Secondary counterparts, they are a means where academically gifted children can reach their full potential. As we have seen earlier, there are means where children can try again for selection should they so choose.
!
As for a second class Education, I don't see that people being classed according to ability is a bad thing, the problem we have in this country is that all Children are forced to adopt a certain curriculum and that success is somehow measured on GCSE and A-level results alone, were there some other method or measure of attainment then all abilities could be catered for. Such examinations do not take into consideration those who are more suited to more vocational qualifications or trade related qualifications. As for my School, I can testify that in general our grades were poor because quite simply lack of interest in learning, were too many so-called hard men who thought it wise spending more time trying to impress the girls than they did wanting to learn, everybody was subsequently held back from learning.

I have presented facts and figures from the independent educational trust the Sutton Trust, and from the pages of the Guardian and the BFP above.

Give me a break, the Guardian? This is the same Guardian that while they preach about against selective education, they themselves employ a considerable amount Journalists borne from Grammar and privately educated stock, 34 on last count. More dogooders, championing the cause of the poor unwashed, they haven't a ruddy clue as to what Secondary Modern is like yet they claim to represent what is fair and what is not.
!
As for the Sutton trust, this is the same Sutton trust that found that only 9.2% pupils going to the top 164 Comprehensives are from benefits claimants, Professor Smithers from the Sutton Trust further states:
!
" I grew up in the East End of London. My mum was a sweet packer and my father a fish porter. But I went to Barkey Abbey Grammar school, and was fired up by enthusiastic and dedicated teachers, who saw some potential in me"
!
I don't see any evidence that the Sutton Trust is against Grammar Schools, I think it acknowledges that Grammar Schools have their part to play but that it is the Education system of this Country in general is failing a considerable amount of young people and Children, not having free School transport being one of them.

I'll do the rest tomorrow.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
'... good GCSE grades will generally allow one to enter 6th Form at a Grammar School without selection'. Then why weren't the gainers of good GCSE grades select in the first place?

Because they didn't pass the 11+ and there could be a number of reasons for that, maturity being one.

‘There could be a number of reasons’ LOL. I know they didn't pass because they failed the 11+.
The 11+ has been defended in the past as it identified working class children of high ability and gave them the opportunity of a good education and career – apparently though there are a number of reasons why kids fail it – including maturity.
Earlier you said the 11+ was to do with academic ability,
‘I went to Secondary School, I did so because my academic level wasn't suited to Grammar, why should my ability at that time hold somebody else back? Academic ability isn't the be all and end all of life, neither is going to University.’
Also to do with ‘pace’
‘I see Selective education as means of categorising those who are more academically suited to the general pace of Grammar schools’.
Now it’s to do with maturity.
Most people who defend the 11+ implicitly defend it because some children are brighter than others and I and people like me believe the 11+ doesn’t identify such children and actually disadvantages significant numbers of them.

Where I speak for myself I can attribute the reason as to why I failed, where I speak for others, I can only assume as to why they failed and therefore only assume that are many reasons as to why they did fail.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

wayneo wrote:

Dear 'wayneo' you are wasting your time defending the indefensible.

If i'm wasting my time then why bother replying?

I don't feel I'm wasting my own time - I just think you're wasting yours. I'm attacking the indefensible and you're defending it - I'm like the bloke in the bible I'm answering you according to your folly lest be wise in your own estimation (Proverbs 26:5). Also you may learn from me and come over to our side and even a not very well-informed man who is as dogged as you might be useful.

If it were so indefensible then why do you fell the need to defend it? As for learning, I learn from learned people and from various sources, dogged I may be, usually because I base my opinions from my own experiences and research rather than from that written in the Guardian. I have enjoyed reading the Sutton Trust material though which I feel on balance, has a good overall picture of the state of Education of this Country.

1. ‘Where are the facts that prove what YOU say ‘wayneo’ and why have so many education authorities abolished the 11+ and not one restored it?’

What facts do you require? I'm not sure that i've presented any statistics that require sources other than from my own experience.
I don't know why so many have scrapped it and haven't restored it, perhaps through pressure from various lobbyists,certainly under previous Labour administrations the numbers of Comprehensives have increased considerably, from 292 in 1965 to 1,150 in 1970. Labour also introduced legislation in 1997 that prevented further Grammar Schools from opening though I do understand that there is an imminent Parliamentary debate towards expanding the Grammar School system which Labour is again trying to wreck.
!
!

2. ‘If ‘selective’ education ‘has become an internationally acclaimed measure of excellence’ why are we the only country in the world to have county education authorities that select all children in this way at the age of ten or eleven and why have so many counties abolished the 11+?’

Austria, Germany, Japan, Korea and the Netherlands have selective education albeit many of them at 14 and a report ironically by the Sutton Trust, found that while selective education at 11 was "too sensitive", 14 was more realistic.
!
!

3. ‘I don’t know where Marx advocates ‘equality’ – please tell us.’

http://www.marxists.
org/archive/marx/wor
ks/1867-c1/ch01.htm#
S1
!
without citing his works in full, his ideology was based on Social inequality through a state where resources with a means of equally shared resources. Marx himself believed much of the conflict or inequality was borne from a false need of material possessions that drove an ever increasing divide between the haves, (employers if you like), and the have nots, (employees).
!

Are you going to ANS WER any of these questions wayneo – these are just from almost my last posting on here? Try and quote some independent source rather than your own intuition.

!
!
see above, now cite your sources.

wayneo wrote:
good, it's working again, so much for brevity, oh well, i'll try and plough through it as best I can.

It’s a well-provoked dig as you have said several times that you and your son picked yourselves up and got on with things – the implication is that you showed determination and courage(you said above that ‘I don't see that pluck or being indomitable are qualities to be ashamed of

Not sure why sarcastically label it brave or that we picked ourselves up as you infer; not passing the 11+ didn't concern me in the first place, subsequently it didn't bother me that those who did pass, went to Grammar, as for my son, I have no reason to suspect that he was upset about it or that we had to pick ourselves up, so i'm afraid your 'dig', is rather unfounded and pointless. As for "pluck or being indomitable", If you are assuming that by my commenting on those qualities, that somehow I was attributing them to my failing the 11+ then moving on, then you are mistaken.

I’m afraid it is pretty near 100% watertight – the percentage of children who fail the 11+ and then get to grammar school at 13 or whenever is tiny.

Pretty near 100% watertight? So now your position has shifted from having no chance, of being consigned to a second class education, to the percentage of those that do have second and third chances being tiny! Make your mind up!!! Please provide figures to back up your claim of the figures being tiny.

so I take it that you are referring to my statement ‘There is a vast body of evidence going back to the so-called ‘Golden Age’ of grammar schools to show that the number of talented working-class children who passed the 11+ was a tiny percentage.

No, I was referring to the your response to Bobbywhich follows:
!
!
" You're generalising very widely on the basis of your own experience and intuition and I would say that you are condemning a further generation of children to second-class education."
!
!
!
As for

There is a vast body of evidence going back to the so-called ‘Golden Age’ of grammar schools to show that the number of talented working-class children who passed the 11+ was a tiny percentage

What's your definition of working-class and provide a source for this evidence, wikipedia does it, the Guardian does it, why don't you?

I don’t recall admitting this but I would say how can you as someone admitting he never passed the 11+ say that grammar schools are not providing a better education? ‘Logically’ (as you would say) if the grammar schools are providing a better education then the secondary moderns must be providing an inferior one.

Wasn't my logic at all, it was in response you a post of yours earlier; Grammar Schools have consistently achieved higher grades than their Secondary counterparts, they are a means where academically gifted children can reach their full potential. As we have seen earlier, there are means where children can try again for selection should they so choose.
!
As for a second class Education, I don't see that people being classed according to ability is a bad thing, the problem we have in this country is that all Children are forced to adopt a certain curriculum and that success is somehow measured on GCSE and A-level results alone, were there some other method or measure of attainment then all abilities could be catered for. Such examinations do not take into consideration those who are more suited to more vocational qualifications or trade related qualifications. As for my School, I can testify that in general our grades were poor because quite simply lack of interest in learning, were too many so-called hard men who thought it wise spending more time trying to impress the girls than they did wanting to learn, everybody was subsequently held back from learning.

I have presented facts and figures from the independent educational trust the Sutton Trust, and from the pages of the Guardian and the BFP above.

Give me a break, the Guardian? This is the same Guardian that while they preach about against selective education, they themselves employ a considerable amount Journalists borne from Grammar and privately educated stock, 34 on last count. More dogooders, championing the cause of the poor unwashed, they haven't a ruddy clue as to what Secondary Modern is like yet they claim to represent what is fair and what is not.
!
As for the Sutton trust, this is the same Sutton trust that found that only 9.2% pupils going to the top 164 Comprehensives are from benefits claimants, Professor Smithers from the Sutton Trust further states:
!
" I grew up in the East End of London. My mum was a sweet packer and my father a fish porter. But I went to Barkey Abbey Grammar school, and was fired up by enthusiastic and dedicated teachers, who saw some potential in me"
!
I don't see any evidence that the Sutton Trust is against Grammar Schools, I think it acknowledges that Grammar Schools have their part to play but that it is the Education system of this Country in general is failing a considerable amount of young people and Children, not having free School transport being one of them.

I'll do the rest tomorrow.

‘Not sure why sarcastically label it brave or that we picked ourselves up as you infer; not passing the 11+ didn't concern me in the first place, subsequently it didn't bother me that those who did pass, went to Grammar, as for my son, I have no reason to suspect that he was upset about it or that we had to pick ourselves up, so i'm afraid your 'dig', is rather unfounded and pointless. As for "pluck or being indomitable", If you are assuming that by my commenting on those qualities, that somehow I was attributing them to my failing the 11+ then moving on, then you are mistaken.’
Glad we’ve got that sorted - hold on that’s a bit dishonest - the tone of your posts strongly suggests that you HAVE been strong and opponents of the 11+ are weak ‘My son failed his 11 plus (as did I), he didn't whine, he didn't moan he got on with it … he still didn't pass the exam, that's life and no amount of whining or whinging will change it..’. ‘I accepted my lot, I failed the exam and I accepted it’ ‘It is whining and moaning, some didn't pass so they bleat about how unfair life is’. I could carry on quoting like this but – you quote Kipling and his words about reasons and excuses – do you think this is a sensible way to talk to eleven-year olds who have failed the 11+ and do you still think that opponents of the 11+ are ‘’’whingers’ or ‘whiners’?

‘I’m afraid it is pretty near 100% watertight – the percentage of children who fail the 11+ and then get to grammar school at 13 or whenever is tiny.
Pretty near 100% watertight? So now your position has shifted from having no chance, of being consigned to a second class education, to the percentage of those that do have second and third chances being tiny! Make your mind up!!! Please provide figures to back up your claim of the figures being tiny’.
YOU produce figures to show they’re NOT tiny wayneo!
………………�
�…
‘so I take it that you are referring to my statement ‘There is a vast body of evidence going back to the so-called ‘Golden Age’ of grammar schools to show that the number of talented working-class children who passed the 11+ was a tiny percentage.

No, I was referring to the your response to Bobbywhich follows:
" You're generalising very widely on the basis of your own experience and intuition and I would say that you are condemning a further generation of children to second-class education."
Okay then and I would stick by what I said to ‘bobby; ‘he was ‘… generalising very widely on the basis of (his) own experience and intuition and I would say that … condemning a further generation of children to second-class education.’
‘What's your definition of working-class and provide a source for this evidence, Wikipedia does it, the Guardian does it, why don't you?’
I would say that broadly speaking working class families tend to have parents who did not go to university and the family members tend to do less well-paid and have less prestigious jobs. If Wikipedia and the Guardian provide such a definition then use theirs.
‘Wasn't my logic at all, it was in response you a post of yours earlier; Grammar Schools have consistently achieved higher grades than their Secondary counterparts, they are a means where academically gifted children can reach their full potential. As we have seen earlier, there are means where children can try again for selection should they so choose.’
Your replies are scattered with debatable statements or statements where you contradict yourself – you used the word ‘logically’ in this way earlier in your post of 10:35pm Sat 21 Jan 12. Grammar schools are NOT ‘a means where academically gifted children can reach their full potential’ – there is a vast body of evidence that I and others have quoted here to disprove this and you have said that it is to do with ‘pace’ and ’maturity’. The teaching talent that is directed at grammar schools and the expectations of children in them ensure children in them do well. The figures for children who take the 13+ and pass it are in single digits.
‘As for a second class Education, I don't see that people being classed according to ability is a bad thing, the problem we have in this country is that all Children are forced to adopt a certain curriculum …’
This whole correspondence is about the fact that they are NOT forced to do this – grammar schools tend to get children into the better universities and on to a better life as adults the inferior education to 11+ failures does not do this.
‘and that success is somehow measured on GCSE and A-level results alone, …’
Why are GCSE results published in the local press then – what do examinations SIGNIFY then?
‘were there some other method or measure of attainment then all abilities could be catered for. Such examinations do not take into consideration those who are more suited to more vocational qualifications or trade related qualifications ...’
The 11+ doesn’t take these people into consideration either – it just assumes that 30% of children aren’t suited to this kind of vocational education and the rest are and lets them get on with it.
‘As for my School, I can testify that in general our grades were poor because quite simply lack of interest in learning, were too many so-called hard men who thought it wise spending more time trying to impress the girls than they did wanting to learn, everybody was subsequently held back from learning’. Why do supporters of the 11+ have so much to say about their lifestyle – maybe if your mates had been in a grammar school where it was considered cool to be good academically things would have been different.
………………�
�…
‘Give me a break, the Guardian? This is the same Guardian that while they preach about against selective education, they themselves employ a considerable amount Journalists borne from Grammar and privately educated stock, 34 on last count. More dogooders, championing the cause of the poor unwashed, they haven't a ruddy clue as to what Secondary Modern is like yet they claim to represent what is fair and what is not.’

Now now wayneo – this sounds like class warfare and ad hominem arguments and I thought you didn’t like them! ‘Ask not who says a thing but what he says.’
………………�
�…
‘As for the Sutton trust, this is the same Sutton trust that found that only 9.2% pupils going to the top 164 Comprehensives are from benefits claimants’
I’m afraid it is and the report also said, ‘Grammars were slightly more inclusive with 13.5% of poor pupils, as opposed to 20% in their catchment areas.’ However it also said ‘The report focused on the extreme end of the spectrum - … most socially selective comprehensive schools in England…. In these schools it found 8.6% of the school's intake were from poor homes, despite being situated in areas where 20% of children were income deprived. (not ‘on social security benefits’)’ There are 164 grammar schools in the UK so the extreme end of the spectrum for comprehensive schools here is being compared with the whole spectrum for grammar schools.
‘Professor Smithers from the Sutton Trust further states: " I grew up in the East End of London. My mum was a sweet packer and my father a fish porter. But I went to Barkey Abbey Grammar school, and was fired up by enthusiastic and dedicated teachers, who saw some potential in me"
That’s not an argument for selective education. There have been at least two heads of Oxford Colleges who have failed the 11+ and then went to comprehensive schools after the ending of the 11+ in their areas also Steven Hester – in the news this week went to a comprehensive school and got a first at Oxford before becoming a leading banker. The head of the Welsh Assembly – a barrister by profession – went to a comprehensive school also.
Where do you get the figure of 34 for posh Guardian journalists and where does Professor Smithers say this about ‘Barkey Abbey’ Grammar school?
………………�
�…
‘I don't see any evidence that the Sutton Trust is against Grammar Schools, I think it acknowledges that Grammar Schools have their part to play but that it is the Education system of this Country in general is failing a considerable amount of young people and Children, not having free School transport being one of them’.
I don’t think the Sutton Trust is ‘against grammar schools’ either – it is an independent research trust that enquires into the way our education system works. The Sutton Trust also says, ‘Another common view is that grammar schools raise achievement, but secondary moderns depress it. We tried lots of different ways to test the first part and many of the models did suggest that those who get in to grammar schools achieve better GCSEs than similar pupils in other schools, though other models showed no difference – it just depends what assumptions you make. Also, grammar school pupils appear to be already making better progress between KS1 and KS2, before they even set foot in a grammar school … Grammar schools as a whole do not seem to take their fair share of economically disadvantaged pupils,’
………………�
�…
If you believe that there should be a different system of secondary education - that allows for vocationally-gifted pupils - then that is not an unreasonable belief but the present system of selection in Buckinghamshire works against that and maintaining the system will not help children who would benefit from a vocationally dedicated education and I can’t understand why you continue to support it.
………………�
�…
Must go to bed now.

wayneo wrote:

1. ‘Where are the facts that prove what YOU say ‘wayneo’ and why have so many education authorities abolished the 11+ and not one restored it?’

What facts do you require? I'm not sure that i've presented any statistics that require sources other than from my own experience.
I don't know why so many have scrapped it and haven't restored it, perhaps through pressure from various lobbyists,certainly under previous Labour administrations the numbers of Comprehensives have increased considerably, from 292 in 1965 to 1,150 in 1970. Labour also introduced legislation in 1997 that prevented further Grammar Schools from opening though I do understand that there is an imminent Parliamentary debate towards expanding the Grammar School system which Labour is again trying to wreck.
!
!

2. ‘If ‘selective’ education ‘has become an internationally acclaimed measure of excellence’ why are we the only country in the world to have county education authorities that select all children in this way at the age of ten or eleven and why have so many counties abolished the 11+?’

Austria, Germany, Japan, Korea and the Netherlands have selective education albeit many of them at 14 and a report ironically by the Sutton Trust, found that while selective education at 11 was "too sensitive", 14 was more realistic.
!
!

3. ‘I don’t know where Marx advocates ‘equality’ – please tell us.’

http://www.marxists.

org/archive/marx/wor

ks/1867-c1/ch01.htm#

S1
!
without citing his works in full, his ideology was based on Social inequality through a state where resources with a means of equally shared resources. Marx himself believed much of the conflict or inequality was borne from a false need of material possessions that drove an ever increasing divide between the haves, (employers if you like), and the have nots, (employees).
!

Are you going to ANS WER any of these questions wayneo – these are just from almost my last posting on here? Try and quote some independent source rather than your own intuition.

!
!
see above, now cite your sources.

Your post of 11:32pm Thu 2 Feb 12
Your remarks in quotes – including when you are quoting me.

‘ What facts do you require? I'm not sure that i've presented any statistics that require sources other than from my own experience. ’
I haven’t asked you for ‘statistics’ I asked you for facts, and, as you say most of what you say in this post is not based on evidence – it’s based on your own intuitions. (‘my own experience’). Statistics, though they can be argued about, are a fairly straightforward form of knowledge and are a useful tool for viewing trends – that’s why they are used by economic and social historians and by geographers so much, and the statistics I (and others here) have quoted do not support your case – you have produced none and the ‘facts’ you have produced tend to be statements of what seem like common sense to you.
………………�
�…

‘I don't know why so many have scrapped it and haven't restored it, perhaps through pressure from various lobbyists,certainly under previous Labour administrations the numbers of Comprehensives have increased considerably, from 292 in 1965 to 1,150 in 1970. Labour also introduced legislation in 1997 that prevented further Grammar Schools from opening though I do understand that there is an imminent Parliamentary debate towards expanding the Grammar School system which Labour is again trying to wreck.’
I don’t know either but common sense would suggest that they have got rid of them at the behest of parents as much as ‘lobbyists’ - who don’t wish to see 60-70% of their children have their choices and potential wasted when they are consigned insultingly to ‘a more suitably paced/less academic/more practical/more vocational et cetera’ education. A lot of the education authorities that scrapped selection were Conservative ones and I have been told (I haven’t got the statistics to prove this) that apparently none other than Maggie Thatcher got rid of more than any other Education minister. Obviously the number of comprehensives created under Labour governments is going to increase if they are abolishing grammar schools. At the moment both Conservative and Labour are opposed to the fresh creation of grammar schools but there IS a move in parliament to increase the numbers of pupils in existing grammar schools. (This is discussed by Melissa Benn in the article I referred you to earlier.) I hope the Labour party DO wreck this idea.
………………�
�…
‘Austria, Germany, Japan, Korea and the Netherlands have selective education albeit many of them at 14 and a report ironically by the Sutton Trust, found that while selective education at 11 was "too sensitive", 14 was more realistic. ‘
Most countries have a certain amount of selection in the field of education – it would be against common sense to do otherwise. None of them to my knowledge have it for more than two thirds of children at the age of ten or eleven with such dire effects on their futures or selection that requires such a high threshold to pass through. Do Austria, Germany, Japan, Korea and the Netherlands intend to introduce a system similar to the 11+?
………………�
�…
I take it the Sutton Trust research to which you refer is the research by academics at Buckingham University – summarised on http://www.suttontru
st.com/news/news/ada
pt-gcse-to-be-nation
al-exam-at-14/
This has virtually nothing to do with the 11+ and refers to ‘A proposal that the GCSE should be adapted to become a national examination for 14-year-olds … made by Professor Alan Smithers and Dr Pamela Robinson of the University of Buckingham in a report published today by the Sutton Trust, which commissioned their research comparing education systems in the 30 countries of the OECD’.
Professor Smithers and Dr Robinson at the Centre for Education and Employment Research conclude that there are lessons for the new Coalition Government from international comparisons of admissions to, and the structure of, the ‘lower’ and ‘upper’ stages of secondary education.
Your carelessness is indicated by the fact that the authors don’t say ‘while selective education at 11 was "too sensitive", 14 was more realistic. ’ They say ‘selection at 11 on educational merit carries a lot of emotional baggage’ and they make no recommendations as to selection at 14 – they say. ‘…clearer educational options from age 14 onwards are needed to ensure that children from non-privileged backgrounds pursue the choices that genuinely reflect their interests and abilities.’ This is not the same as saying ’14 was more realistic’.
………………�
�…
‘3. ‘I don’t know where Marx advocates ‘equality’ – please tell us.’
http://www.marxists.

org/archive/marx/wor

ks/1867-c1/ch01.htm#

S1
!
without citing his works in full, his ideology was based on Social inequality through a state where resources with a means of equally shared resources. Marx himself believed much of the conflict or inequality was borne from a false need of material possessions that drove an ever increasing divide between the haves, (employers if you like), and the have nots, (employees).
…
see above, now cite your sources’
I’ve already cited my sources (and those of other contributors here) several times and your response was in part to say ‘give me a break’. One of them, the Sutton Trust you quote yourself. It’s considerate of you not to ‘citing his (Marx’s) works in full’ – it would be like citing the Bible in full.
As for Marx - you’re being a bit misleading (to put it no more unpleasantly) here. The fact that – in your view – Marx advocates what you vaguely refere to as ‘ … the Marxist principle of equality’ does not mean that supporters of comprehensive education are Marxists or motivated by Marxism or that comprehensive education is unsound.
In any case the web reference you give IS for s site with Marxian exegesis on it but it does not supportwhat you seem to mean by ‘ … the Marxist principle of equality’. In fact it mentions that ‘Greek society was founded upon slavery, and had, therefore, for its NATURAL basis, the inequality of men’(my capitals). The only reference to ‘equality’ is the equality of commodities or the labour in producing them – did you read this or know it already or did you just google ‘Marx’ and ’equality’ on the assumption that you ‘knew’ Marx was a fan of ‘equality’?
If your interpretation of Marxism is correct and it is to do with ‘the haves, (employers if you like), and the have nots, (employees)’ then how do you make the crossover from employment to education and the 11+ in Buckinghamshire – there is obviously no connection between support for comprehensive education and ‘the Marxist principle of equality’ (as per ‘wayneo’).
Also what does the phrase ‘… a state where resources with a means of equally shared resources’ mean? There seems to be a word or two missing there.
………………�
�…
Must go to bed now.

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
'... good GCSE grades will generally allow one to enter 6th Form at a Grammar School without selection'. Then why weren't the gainers of good GCSE grades select in the first place?

Because they didn't pass the 11+ and there could be a number of reasons for that, maturity being one.

‘There could be a number of reasons’ LOL. I know they didn't pass because they failed the 11+.
The 11+ has been defended in the past as it identified working class children of high ability and gave them the opportunity of a good education and career – apparently though there are a number of reasons why kids fail it – including maturity.
Earlier you said the 11+ was to do with academic ability,
‘I went to Secondary School, I did so because my academic level wasn't suited to Grammar, why should my ability at that time hold somebody else back? Academic ability isn't the be all and end all of life, neither is going to University.’
Also to do with ‘pace’
‘I see Selective education as means of categorising those who are more academically suited to the general pace of Grammar schools’.
Now it’s to do with maturity.
Most people who defend the 11+ implicitly defend it because some children are brighter than others and I and people like me believe the 11+ doesn’t identify such children and actually disadvantages significant numbers of them.

Where I speak for myself I can attribute the reason as to why I failed, where I speak for others, I can only assume as to why they failed and therefore only assume that are many reasons as to why they did fail.

That's a very vague answer and does not explain why talented people fail the 11+.

Finally, if I've read your post correctly, I think we're actually getting somewhere. I think it would help were you to add quotes. If you could repost the above but in quotes, that would reduce the amount of time to disambiguate such posts. {quote} my text {/p}{/quote}
Replace the curly brackets with square brackets then post you response underneath. Thanks

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
'... good GCSE grades will generally allow one to enter 6th Form at a Grammar School without selection'. Then why weren't the gainers of good GCSE grades select in the first place?

Because they didn't pass the 11+ and there could be a number of reasons for that, maturity being one.

‘There could be a number of reasons’ LOL. I know they didn't pass because they failed the 11+.
The 11+ has been defended in the past as it identified working class children of high ability and gave them the opportunity of a good education and career – apparently though there are a number of reasons why kids fail it – including maturity.
Earlier you said the 11+ was to do with academic ability,
‘I went to Secondary School, I did so because my academic level wasn't suited to Grammar, why should my ability at that time hold somebody else back? Academic ability isn't the be all and end all of life, neither is going to University.’
Also to do with ‘pace’
‘I see Selective education as means of categorising those who are more academically suited to the general pace of Grammar schools’.
Now it’s to do with maturity.
Most people who defend the 11+ implicitly defend it because some children are brighter than others and I and people like me believe the 11+ doesn’t identify such children and actually disadvantages significant numbers of them.

Where I speak for myself I can attribute the reason as to why I failed, where I speak for others, I can only assume as to why they failed and therefore only assume that are many reasons as to why they did fail.

That's a very vague answer and does not explain why talented people fail the 11+.

Perhaps because the question is worthy of a vague response. How on earth could I answer why anybody else fails the 11+ unless they have been measured or indeed can answer themselves? Perhaps you can divulge all seeing as you asked the question,
!
As for being vague,talent, unless defined by a particular measurement or having been determined such a peer, will be determined or graded by opinion alone; I might think the artist of a painting as being "talented" while another might decree it a pile of junk. Talent can be attributed to a number of disciplines, one could be gifted in woodcraft yet have a measured IQ that could be considered lower than average and subsequently would not be suited to the rigour of Grammar School, similarly, having a high IQ does not mean one would be gifted in Woodcraft etc etc.
!

I haven’t asked you for ‘statistics’ I asked you for facts, and, as you say most of what you say in this post is not based on evidence – it’s based on your own intuitions. (‘my own experience’). Statistics, though they can be argued about, are a fairly straightforward form of knowledge and are a useful tool for viewing trends – that’s why they are used by economic and social historians and by geographers so much, and the statistics I (and others here) have quoted do not support your case – you have produced none and the ‘facts’ you have produced tend to be statements of what seem like common sense to you.

Statistics on their own can be thrown around and used by either side of a debate, you use statistics to support your case, I could use them to support mine, we often extract those parts that are more applicable to the arguments we present. My experiences aren't based on CommonSense, they are facts from myself having experienced a Secondary Modern Education and from having failed the 11+, (you, unless I missed it, are still to declare whether you went to a Grammar School having passed selection). A statistic, is a collection of data from a variety of sources that to a painting, will provide an undercoat yet rarely the detail, as you rightly state, they can provide certain trends and help in trying to develop an understanding but they will never provide a full picture. All too often, we, who had been consigned to a second-rate class based education, are lectured at and patronised by people whose only experience of a Secondary Modern, is through what they read in books or reports.

I don’t know either but common sense would suggest that they have got rid of them at the behest of parents as much as ‘lobbyists’ - who don’t wish to see 60-70% of their children have their choices and potential wasted when they are consigned insultingly to ‘a more suitably paced/less academic/more practical/more vocational etc et’ education.

With Common sense being open to the interpretation and measurement of the individual, it's pointless in trying to assume either way isn't it? You speak of "insultingly to a more suited place" yet a "a more suited place" is a fact is it not? not all, are suited to a more vigorous pace and not all, are suited to Academic studies, why is it insulting to suggest otherwise?

Most countries have a certain amount of selection in the field of education – it would be against common sense to do otherwise

Again, you refer to Common Sense; like ability, I would love to see everybody holding the same sound, prudent judgement but they don't. what's the difference to having selection at 11 than at 7, 13, 14, 18, 25, 40 even?

None of them to my knowledge have it for more than two thirds of children at the age of ten or eleven with such dire effects on their futures or selection that requires such a high threshold to pass through.?

Sorry, where is the evidence that failing the 11+ has "a dire effect on the future of these Children"? Are you assuming that ALL of these Children are wanting the same things in life, have the same aspirations or abilities?

Do Austria, Germany, Japan, Korea and the Netherlands intend to introduce a system similar to the 11+?

They already do albeit at different ages, In fact, having looked at this further, Australia is opening more Grammar Schools and have selective education at year 6 and of which introduced selection after 2010 in order to "compete with fee paying schools". Queensland and Victoria too, both have selective Schools, many Schools in the US select using IQ testing, as does Germany with the Gymnasium which,have varying forms of selection from academic ability through to manners, background and social class.

This has virtually nothing to do with the 11+ and refers to ‘A proposal that the GCSE should be adapted to become a national examination for 14-year-olds …

Here we go again, "virtually nothing to do with", there's a good proportion, read the full report rather than the summary.

Your carelessness is indicated by the fact that the authors don’t say ‘while selective education at 11 was "too sensitive", 14 was more realistic. ’ They say ‘selection at 11 on educational merit carries a lot of emotional baggage’

"How school places are offered has become a very sensitive issue", by this I interpreted that they were referring primarily to the 11+.

clearer educational options from age 14 onwards are needed to ensure that children from non-privileged backgrounds pursue the choices

Professor Smithers and Dr Robinson propose a radical solution to bring England into line with international practice: undertake GCSE examinations at age 14 instead of age 16", in my opinion, they believe 14 to be the more realistic age of taking the GCSE in order to: "offer a set of distinct and credible educational routes thereafter.

If your interpretation of Marxism is correct and it is to do with ‘the haves, (employers if you like), and the have nots, (employees)’ then how do you make the crossover from employment to education and the 11+ in Buckinghamshire – there is obviously no connection between support for comprehensive education and ‘the Marxist principle of equality

As you yourself stated in another thread,

Blueberry articulates the irresistibly beguiling attraction of the 11+ - the idea that it is a fine tuned device for detecting and measuring intellectual ability (in TEN year olds!) and not merely an early part of the British class system in education. ”

You yourself infer that the 11+ "reinforces class distinction", the opposite would be classless, which is analogous with Marx's classless society?

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
'... good GCSE grades will generally allow one to enter 6th Form at a Grammar School without selection'. Then why weren't the gainers of good GCSE grades select in the first place?

Because they didn't pass the 11+ and there could be a number of reasons for that, maturity being one.

‘There could be a number of reasons’ LOL. I know they didn't pass because they failed the 11+.
The 11+ has been defended in the past as it identified working class children of high ability and gave them the opportunity of a good education and career – apparently though there are a number of reasons why kids fail it – including maturity.
Earlier you said the 11+ was to do with academic ability,
‘I went to Secondary School, I did so because my academic level wasn't suited to Grammar, why should my ability at that time hold somebody else back? Academic ability isn't the be all and end all of life, neither is going to University.’
Also to do with ‘pace’
‘I see Selective education as means of categorising those who are more academically suited to the general pace of Grammar schools’.
Now it’s to do with maturity.
Most people who defend the 11+ implicitly defend it because some children are brighter than others and I and people like me believe the 11+ doesn’t identify such children and actually disadvantages significant numbers of them.

Where I speak for myself I can attribute the reason as to why I failed, where I speak for others, I can only assume as to why they failed and therefore only assume that are many reasons as to why they did fail.

That's a very vague answer and does not explain why talented people fail the 11+.

Perhaps because the question is worthy of a vague response. How on earth could I answer why anybody else fails the 11+ unless they have been measured or indeed can answer themselves? Perhaps you can divulge all seeing as you asked the question,
!
As for being vague,talent, unless defined by a particular measurement or having been determined such a peer, will be determined or graded by opinion alone; I might think the artist of a painting as being "talented" while another might decree it a pile of junk. Talent can be attributed to a number of disciplines, one could be gifted in woodcraft yet have a measured IQ that could be considered lower than average and subsequently would not be suited to the rigour of Grammar School, similarly, having a high IQ does not mean one would be gifted in Woodcraft etc etc.
!

‘Perhaps because the question is worthy of a vague response. How on earth could I answer why anybody else fails the 11+ unless they have been measured or indeed can answer themselves? Perhaps you can divulge all seeing as you asked the question,’
LOL - the laconic ‘wayneo’ style - ‘perhaps’. Perhaps there wasn’t actually a question – I summarised the mishmash of reasons you have given as to what the 11+ does and why children fail it. I didn’t ask you about ‘anybody else’ – I don’t expect you to answer on behalf of individuals – I asked you about ‘talented people’ generally and why so many fail it. I will ‘divulge’ the reason – I think it’s because the exam does not do what it says on the label – it does not identify talented people – that’s one reason you and other people try to manipulate it with coaching. (‘I purchased practise papers for my son,’) Perhaps you can ‘divulge’ the reason that talented people do well under the comprehensive system and just hazard a guess as to why highly – talented people fail the 11+ – nothing specific to individuals just some more speculation.
‘As for being vague,talent, unless defined by a particular measurement or having been determined such a peer, will be determined or graded by opinion alone; I might think the artist of a painting as being "talented" while another might decree it a pile of junk. Talent can be attributed to a number of disciplines, one could be gifted in woodcraft yet have a measured IQ that could be considered lower than average and subsequently would not be suited to the rigour of Grammar School, similarly, having a high IQ does not mean one would be gifted in Woodcraft etc etc.!’
This too is portentous BS - what do you mean by ‘a particular measurement’. You seem to be saying that all definitions of talent are relative (and what does ‘having been determined such a peer,’ actually mean?). If all judgements of what ‘talent’ is, are relative then why bother with the 11+ which is supposed to identify intellectual potential? Why not teach woodwork and art in the same school without deciding at the age of ten that someone is ‘naturally’ gifted at art OR woodwork?

I think it’s because the exam does not do what it says on the label – it does not identify talented people – that’s one reason

What YOU think, is merely your opinion, It is evident, with the consistency with examination grades, that selection based on what is an IQ is working and is widely acknowledged as such. Your argument NOW, seems to be based on talent rather than of class, what is YOUR measure of talent? I haven't yet seen a report that indicates Grammar Schooling or any Schooling for that matter is devoted to 'talent' anyway, the purpose of Grammar Schools is to allow those who can manage it, a more rigorous pace of learning or to "adopt academic specialisms" (smithers); if one is 'talented' as you put it, then they will remain so won't they?
!

that’s one reason you and other people try to manipulate it with coaching. (‘I purchased practise papers for my son,’)

Indeed, as with any exam,why is that such a bad thing then? As it happens, it didn't make any difference to the end result did it?

Perhaps you can ‘divulge’ the reason that talented people do well under the comprehensive system and just hazard a guess as to why highly – talented people fail the 11+ – nothing specific to individuals just some more speculation.

Again, define talent and how it is measured for the wider consumption as opposed to your perception of what is talent? Better still, again, provide your sources rather than merely quoting "The Guardian" or "The Sutton Trust"? The gap between private School A level results and State School results doubled under Labour

Perhaps you can ‘divulge’ the reason that talented people do well under the comprehensive system

Again, talented how? academically? practically? I don't doubt that many children do well, but I should imagine that many could better were they allow to develop their full potential; I haven't found any statistics here yet, but again, In Australia, Grammars are being restored because the gap between Comp and Private Education results is growing ever the wider (Smithers 2007)
!

This too is portentous BS - what do you mean by ‘a particular measurement’. You seem to be saying that all definitions of talent are relative (and what does ‘having been determined such a peer,will be determined or graded by opinion alone’

Are you on a sodding windup? Talent IS a measurement. What YOU define as being talented is unlikely to be synonymous with what another defines as being talented, unless there is a widely agreed upon UNIT of measurement for determining talent (generally amongst the peers who are widely considered experts in a particular field) it is otherwise merely an individual's opinion as to what is talented or not. The 11+ is not a measurement of talent but is a determination of IQ who are generally considered more suited to a more rigorous pace at an Academic level or specialist Academic subjects.

Why not teach woodwork and art in the same school without deciding at the age of ten that someone is ‘naturally’ gifted at art OR woodwork?

As I stated earlier, if YOU had every been to a Secondary or even a Comp School, you would know that the speed one at one works or indeed learns, is paced towards that of the slowest pupil; our School tried to resolve this by separating the slower or 'special needs' pupils (as they are now known), and putting them into vocational classes which taught at a pace more suited to them; While I expect that helped both them and those who followed the national curriculum, it didn't resolve the issue of time-wasters and disruption caused by those who didn't want to learn.

wayneo wrote:

I haven’t asked you for ‘statistics’ I asked you for facts, and, as you say most of what you say in this post is not based on evidence – it’s based on your own intuitions. (‘my own experience’). Statistics, though they can be argued about, are a fairly straightforward form of knowledge and are a useful tool for viewing trends – that’s why they are used by economic and social historians and by geographers so much, and the statistics I (and others here) have quoted do not support your case – you have produced none and the ‘facts’ you have produced tend to be statements of what seem like common sense to you.

Statistics on their own can be thrown around and used by either side of a debate, you use statistics to support your case, I could use them to support mine, we often extract those parts that are more applicable to the arguments we present. My experiences aren't based on CommonSense, they are facts from myself having experienced a Secondary Modern Education and from having failed the 11+, (you, unless I missed it, are still to declare whether you went to a Grammar School having passed selection). A statistic, is a collection of data from a variety of sources that to a painting, will provide an undercoat yet rarely the detail, as you rightly state, they can provide certain trends and help in trying to develop an understanding but they will never provide a full picture. All too often, we, who had been consigned to a second-rate class based education, are lectured at and patronised by people whose only experience of a Secondary Modern, is through what they read in books or reports.

I don’t know either but common sense would suggest that they have got rid of them at the behest of parents as much as ‘lobbyists’ - who don’t wish to see 60-70% of their children have their choices and potential wasted when they are consigned insultingly to ‘a more suitably paced/less academic/more practical/more vocational etc et’ education.

With Common sense being open to the interpretation and measurement of the individual, it's pointless in trying to assume either way isn't it? You speak of "insultingly to a more suited place" yet a "a more suited place" is a fact is it not? not all, are suited to a more vigorous pace and not all, are suited to Academic studies, why is it insulting to suggest otherwise?

Most countries have a certain amount of selection in the field of education – it would be against common sense to do otherwise

Again, you refer to Common Sense; like ability, I would love to see everybody holding the same sound, prudent judgement but they don't. what's the difference to having selection at 11 than at 7, 13, 14, 18, 25, 40 even?

None of them to my knowledge have it for more than two thirds of children at the age of ten or eleven with such dire effects on their futures or selection that requires such a high threshold to pass through.?

Sorry, where is the evidence that failing the 11+ has "a dire effect on the future of these Children"? Are you assuming that ALL of these Children are wanting the same things in life, have the same aspirations or abilities?

Do Austria, Germany, Japan, Korea and the Netherlands intend to introduce a system similar to the 11+?

They already do albeit at different ages, In fact, having looked at this further, Australia is opening more Grammar Schools and have selective education at year 6 and of which introduced selection after 2010 in order to "compete with fee paying schools". Queensland and Victoria too, both have selective Schools, many Schools in the US select using IQ testing, as does Germany with the Gymnasium which,have varying forms of selection from academic ability through to manners, background and social class.

This has virtually nothing to do with the 11+ and refers to ‘A proposal that the GCSE should be adapted to become a national examination for 14-year-olds …

Here we go again, "virtually nothing to do with", there's a good proportion, read the full report rather than the summary.

Your carelessness is indicated by the fact that the authors don’t say ‘while selective education at 11 was "too sensitive", 14 was more realistic. ’ They say ‘selection at 11 on educational merit carries a lot of emotional baggage’

"How school places are offered has become a very sensitive issue", by this I interpreted that they were referring primarily to the 11+.

clearer educational options from age 14 onwards are needed to ensure that children from non-privileged backgrounds pursue the choices

Professor Smithers and Dr Robinson propose a radical solution to bring England into line with international practice: undertake GCSE examinations at age 14 instead of age 16", in my opinion, they believe 14 to be the more realistic age of taking the GCSE in order to: "offer a set of distinct and credible educational routes thereafter.

If your interpretation of Marxism is correct and it is to do with ‘the haves, (employers if you like), and the have nots, (employees)’ then how do you make the crossover from employment to education and the 11+ in Buckinghamshire – there is obviously no connection between support for comprehensive education and ‘the Marxist principle of equality

As you yourself stated in another thread,

Blueberry articulates the irresistibly beguiling attraction of the 11+ - the idea that it is a fine tuned device for detecting and measuring intellectual ability (in TEN year olds!) and not merely an early part of the British class system in education. ”

You yourself infer that the 11+ "reinforces class distinction", the opposite would be classless, which is analogous with Marx's classless society?

‘Statistics on their own can be thrown around and used by either side of a debate, you use statistics to support your case, I could use them to support mine, we often extract those parts that are more applicable to the arguments we present.
That’s what I said (‘Statistics, though they can be argued about, are a fairly straightforward form of knowledge and are a useful tool for viewing trends – that’s why they are used by economic and social historians and by geographers so much’)
/
‘My experiences aren't based on CommonSense, they are facts from myself having experienced a Secondary Modern Education and from having failed the 11+, (you, unless I missed it, are still to declare whether you went to a Grammar School having passed selection).’
It sounds as though you are saying your understanding of your experiences is not based on common sense. I would say the unsound, subjective, nature of your case, is indicated by constant references to yourself – some of them as I have said borderline self- flattering in content. I am not going to tell you where I was educated as it is not relevant - we are talking about unsound ‘selection’ procedures for all modern children in the state sector in Buckinghamshire not about our biographies.
/
‘A statistic, is a collection of data from a variety of sources that to a painting, will provide an undercoat yet rarely the detail, as you rightly state, they can provide certain trends and help in trying to develop an understanding but they will never provide a full picture.’
This is in danger of degenerating into a narrative along the lines; ‘ you said such and such - so I said another in reply - and you then replied - et cetera’, but my original point was that you make statements like many people who support the 11+ with little anecdotes about your own experience rather than a larger body of objective fact. Statistics DO provide a broader picture and you HAVE (quite correctly and effectively) used them to underpin the case you are trying to make. As you are drawing an analogy between painted pictures and word pictures of a case to be made I would say that you are wrong – statistics provide a better overall full picture than little anecdotes which are like details in a broad picture.
(BTW the OED neglects to compare statistics to undercoat and says they are, ‘A quantitative fact or statement’.)
/
‘All too often, we, who had been consigned to a second-rate class based education, are lectured at and patronised by people whose only experience of a Secondary Modern, is through what they read in books or reports.’

‘A second-rate class based education’ - elsewhere you ask me to justify the claim that secondary moderns tend to give a second-rate education. I believe they do but this is a reflection on the politicians of the present and the educational theorists of the past and is in no way a reflection on those people who fail the monstrously-unfair 11+. I hope I have not lectured at or patronised anyone one here – some people who have spoken in agreement with my view here have failed the 11+. If I HAVE lectured or patronised anyone then whoever they are I apologise to them. I don’t see why inexperience of secondary modern schools disqualifies someone from pronouncing on their merits or demerits – I have never been in jail or a war but I would not like to participate in them.
/
‘With Common sense being open to the interpretation and measurement of the individual, it's pointless in trying to assume either way isn't it? You speak of "insultingly to a more suited place" yet a "a more suited place" is a fact is it not? not all, are suited to a more vigorous pace and not all, are suited to Academic studies, why is it insulting to suggest otherwise?’
We seem to agree that everybody has a different idea of common sense. I didn’t say ‘insultingly to a more suited place’ I said ‘they are consigned insultingly to ‘a more suitably paced/less academic/more practical/more vocational etc et’ education. I don’t agree that it is a ‘fact’ that secondary moderns are more suited and I think it is insulting that people who support the 11+ use this condescending and patronising to use this language to justify such pointless injustice to the large majority of children who fail the 11+.
/
‘Again, you refer to Common Sense; like ability, I would love to see everybody holding the same sound, prudent judgement but they don't. what's the difference to having selection at 11 than at 7, 13, 14, 18, 25, 40 even?’
First of all what is the POINT of selection when it is so inaccurate and so wasteful of talent and comprehensives do a perfectly good job? (Also after age about 25 selection for your life chance does not take place and selection at 7 to 14 is not comparable for some other - less crucial - form of selection at an adult stage in life.)
/
‘Sorry, where is the evidence that failing the 11+ has "a dire effect on the future of these Children"?’
It does have a dire effect on the very bright academic ones that fail the 11+ as they don’t get the chances that grammar school children do – perhaps ‘crucial’ would have been a better word – although I would say it IS dire for some.
/
‘Are you assuming that ALL of these Children are wanting the same things in life, have the same aspirations or abilities?’
No wayne - I am assuming they should all have equal access and opportunities to develop – the 11+ makes unjustifiable assumptions about their abilities. (Or are you talking about academically-bright children who pass the 11+ but want - or whose parents want them - to do technical drawing, carpentry and metalwork, or at any rate less-demanding stuff intellectually - at secondary modern school?)
/
‘They already do albeit at different ages, In fact, having looked at this further, Australia is opening more Grammar Schools and have selective education at year 6 and of which introduced selection after 2010 in order to "compete with fee paying schools". Queensland and Victoria too, both have selective Schools, many Schools in the US select using IQ testing, as does Germany with the Gymnasium which,have varying forms of selection from academic ability through to manners, background and social class.’

‘At different ages’ – so they’re NOT the same. You mentioned Australia – Wikipedia (I’m not an expert on Australian education – where did you get your facts?) lists five grammar schools there – some of them non-selective and says they are all private schools. ‘Throughout the country, "grammar schools" are generally high-cost private schools’. As I’ve said before to have NO selection would be idiotic – my objection is to selection in the form of the 11+ which is the only thing worse.
/
‘Here we go again, "virtually nothing to do with", there's a good proportion, read the full report rather than the summary.’
I read what I take it was the full report and I would stick by what I say – where did you get the full report and what did it say to you?
/
‘"How school places are offered has become a very sensitive issue",’
I have searched for this on the Sutton Trust website and here and with the best will in the world cannot find it or make sense of it.
/
‘Professor Smithers and Dr Robinson propose a radical solution to bring England into line with international practice: undertake GCSE examinations at age 14 instead of age 16", in my opinion, they believe 14 to be the more realistic age of taking the GCSE in order to: "offer a set of distinct and credible educational routes thereafter.’
I’m not sure what point you’re answering here but Smithers and Robinson are STILL not advocationg 11+ selection – that’s why the article is entitled ‘Adapt GCSE to be national exam at 14’ and why it is converned with education in the later years at school - the report also says’ ‘26 of the 30 OECD countries have a clear array of pathways in the later years of schooling, spanning pre-university, technical training and preparation for employment. In the USA, Canada and New Zealand the pathways open up post school. England with its untidy mix is a conspicuous exception. The authors say that the Government could make ‘education 14-19’ a reality by moving and adapting the GCSE to become the national examination for 14-year-olds.’
/

/
If your interpretation of Marxism is correct and it is to do with ‘the haves, (employers if you like), and the have nots, (employees)’ then how do you make the crossover from employment to education and the 11+ in Buckinghamshire – there is obviously no connection between support for comprehensive education and ‘the Marxist principle of equality

As you yourself stated in another thread,
Blueberry articulates the irresistibly beguiling attraction of the 11+ - the idea that it is a fine tuned device for detecting and measuring intellectual ability (in TEN year olds!) and not merely an early part of the British class system in education. ”
You yourself infer that the 11+ "reinforces class distinction", the opposite would be classless, which is analogous with Marx's classless society

There I go ‘inferring’ things again. I’m not sure why you put the quotation marks around the phrase ‘reinforces class distinction’ – I didn’t use that phrase two years ago to ‘Blueberry’ (whose reasoning processes and vocabulary have sometimes reminded me of your good self – are you acquainted with each other?). I don’t suppose we will ever get a classless society but I would like to aspire to one and if that’s what Marx is advocating then I am in agreement with Marx on this, although as I said above, ‘I am not a Marxist and I don’t know where Marx advocates ‘equality’ – please tell us’. (And I’m not sure you understand what he is saying properly either – your interpretation of him seemed strained at the least.) I think your introduction of Marx just shows as I said above where you are coming from and what to make of your claims to be non-political. Can you tell us if you agree with the idea of ‘class’ and are you advocating a ‘meritocratic’ society or education system – you DO appear to be advocating the latter? Is a meritocratic system of whatever sort ‘classless’?
I do wish you wouldn’t throw in pretentious vocabulary – how can my ‘inference’ be ‘analogous’ to Marx’s (in your estimation) classless society?

wayneo wrote:

I think it’s because the exam does not do what it says on the label – it does not identify talented people – that’s one reason

What YOU think, is merely your opinion, It is evident, with the consistency with examination grades, that selection based on what is an IQ is working and is widely acknowledged as such. Your argument NOW, seems to be based on talent rather than of class, what is YOUR measure of talent? I haven't yet seen a report that indicates Grammar Schooling or any Schooling for that matter is devoted to 'talent' anyway, the purpose of Grammar Schools is to allow those who can manage it, a more rigorous pace of learning or to "adopt academic specialisms" (smithers); if one is 'talented' as you put it, then they will remain so won't they?
!

that’s one reason you and other people try to manipulate it with coaching. (‘I purchased practise papers for my son,’)

Indeed, as with any exam,why is that such a bad thing then? As it happens, it didn't make any difference to the end result did it?

Perhaps you can ‘divulge’ the reason that talented people do well under the comprehensive system and just hazard a guess as to why highly – talented people fail the 11+ – nothing specific to individuals just some more speculation.

Again, define talent and how it is measured for the wider consumption as opposed to your perception of what is talent? Better still, again, provide your sources rather than merely quoting "The Guardian" or "The Sutton Trust"? The gap between private School A level results and State School results doubled under Labour

Perhaps you can ‘divulge’ the reason that talented people do well under the comprehensive system

Again, talented how? academically? practically? I don't doubt that many children do well, but I should imagine that many could better were they allow to develop their full potential; I haven't found any statistics here yet, but again, In Australia, Grammars are being restored because the gap between Comp and Private Education results is growing ever the wider (Smithers 2007)
!

This too is portentous BS - what do you mean by ‘a particular measurement’. You seem to be saying that all definitions of talent are relative (and what does ‘having been determined such a peer,will be determined or graded by opinion alone’

Are you on a sodding windup? Talent IS a measurement. What YOU define as being talented is unlikely to be synonymous with what another defines as being talented, unless there is a widely agreed upon UNIT of measurement for determining talent (generally amongst the peers who are widely considered experts in a particular field) it is otherwise merely an individual's opinion as to what is talented or not. The 11+ is not a measurement of talent but is a determination of IQ who are generally considered more suited to a more rigorous pace at an Academic level or specialist Academic subjects.

Why not teach woodwork and art in the same school without deciding at the age of ten that someone is ‘naturally’ gifted at art OR woodwork?

As I stated earlier, if YOU had every been to a Secondary or even a Comp School, you would know that the speed one at one works or indeed learns, is paced towards that of the slowest pupil; our School tried to resolve this by separating the slower or 'special needs' pupils (as they are now known), and putting them into vocational classes which taught at a pace more suited to them; While I expect that helped both them and those who followed the national curriculum, it didn't resolve the issue of time-wasters and disruption caused by those who didn't want to learn.

‘What YOU think, is merely your opinion,’
That’s right – you asked so I replied - it IS my opinion and a very reasonable one – look at the talented 11+ failures one sees and the untalented ones who succeed.
/
‘It is evident, with the consistency with examination grades, that selection based on what is an IQ is working and is widely acknowledged as such.’
‘Fraid not wayneo – it’s NOT based on ‘an IQ’ and if it appears to be backed up by O and A level results later (I take it that’s what you mean) then that can be explained by the better training and higher aspirations grammar school children are the beneficiaries of.
/
‘Your argument NOW, seems to be based on talent rather than of class, what is YOUR measure of talent?’
My arguments are based on both – the 11+ does not identify talent consistently or accurately and the exam has been taken over by better-off and more middle-class parents so it is an aspect of class warfare. (Haven’t you been reading my posts?)
/
‘I haven't yet seen a report that indicates Grammar Schooling or any Schooling for that matter is devoted to 'talent' anyway, the purpose of Grammar Schools is to allow those who can manage it, a more rigorous pace of learning or to "adopt academic specialisms" (smithers);
The ‘pace’ argument has become more popular in recent years but I’m relying on ‘wayneo’ who says elsewhere on this page that it is to do with ‘ability’ – ‘I went to Secondary School, I did so because my academic level wasn't suited to Grammar, why should my ability at that time hold somebody else back?’
/
… if one is 'talented' as you put it, then they will remain so won't they?’
Yes they will but what I am saying is they are ‘talented’ in the first place but are never properly developed – you’ve never given a convincing explanation of why your son was talented enough to do A levels at 18 but failed the 11+ except with statements about not being stretched at secondary modern school which tend to advance my cause.
/
‘Indeed, as with any exam,why is that such a bad thing then? As it happens, it didn't make any difference to the end result did it?’
You’re missing the point – I’m not saying you shouldn’t do it with an exam – I’m saying the exam is foolish in the first place – otherwise why would you and parents like you – quite rightly – try and manipulate its outcome for your children?
/
‘Again, define talent and how it is measured for the wider consumption as opposed to your perception of what is talent? ‘
Define ability and academic pace – you’ve used both expressions – what is the 11+ about if not a futile quest to identify ‘talent’?
/
‘Better still, again, provide your sources rather than merely quoting "The Guardian" or "The Sutton Trust"? The gap between private School A level results and State School results doubled under Labour’
The Guardian and the Sutton Trust are two valid sources – identify your sources (they include the Sutton Trust when it suits you).
/
Again, talented how? academically? practically? I don't doubt that many children do well, but I should imagine that many could better were they allow to develop their full potential; I haven't found any statistics here yet, but again, In Australia, Grammars are being restored because the gap between Comp and Private Education results is growing ever the wider (Smithers 2007)
This is hardly an unequivocal endorsement of the 11+ in Buckinghamshire – one Australian state (in Australia and the world) is expanding selection in response to circumstances we don’t have. Smithers says, ‘The state of Victoria in Australia is opening new grammar schools to enable the government run system to compete with the independent sector.’
This is a 60 page academic report comparing education in 30 countries – have you read the whole report in detail or have you just cherry-picked that one fact?
/
Are you on a sodding windup?
Language language!
/
Talent IS a measurement.
Then why are you so doubtful about what it consists of and why have you asked me to give my definitions of it?
/
‘What YOU define as being talented is unlikely to be synonymous with what another defines as being talented, unless there is a widely agreed upon UNIT of measurement for determining talent (generally amongst the peers who are widely considered experts in a particular field) it is otherwise merely an individual's opinion as to what is talented or not.
The 11+ is not a measurement of talent but is a determination of IQ who are generally considered more suited to a more rigorous pace at an Academic level or specialist Academic subjects.
This sentence is a bit dodgily-constructed (like some of your reasoning) but surely IQ IS supposed to be a measure of ‘talent’ (NOT ‘pace’)
/
‘As I stated earlier, if YOU had every been to a Secondary or even a Comp School, you would know that the speed one at one works or indeed learns, is paced towards that of the slowest pupil; our School tried to resolve this by separating the slower or 'special needs' pupils (as they are now known), and putting them into vocational classes which taught at a pace more suited to them; While I expect that helped both them and those who followed the national curriculum, it didn't resolve the issue of time-wasters and disruption caused by those who didn't want to learn.’
And this highly-imperfect system was the result of ‘selection’ – you get all the less talented (whatever that means) pupils put them together and make sure the teaching is ‘paced towards that of the slowest pupil’. Not to worry though because down the road a rather randomly-selected group of brighter kids have the opposite system working for them.

There is no reason why a comprehensive system should not deliver good results in Bucks the same way they do elsewhere in the UK and in the same way that a grammar school does – what you have been saying is in opposition to reason.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

wayneo wrote:

I think it’s because the exam does not do what it says on the label – it does not identify talented people – that’s one reason

What YOU think, is merely your opinion, It is evident, with the consistency with examination grades, that selection based on what is an IQ is working and is widely acknowledged as such. Your argument NOW, seems to be based on talent rather than of class, what is YOUR measure of talent? I haven't yet seen a report that indicates Grammar Schooling or any Schooling for that matter is devoted to 'talent' anyway, the purpose of Grammar Schools is to allow those who can manage it, a more rigorous pace of learning or to "adopt academic specialisms" (smithers); if one is 'talented' as you put it, then they will remain so won't they?
!

that’s one reason you and other people try to manipulate it with coaching. (‘I purchased practise papers for my son,’)

Indeed, as with any exam,why is that such a bad thing then? As it happens, it didn't make any difference to the end result did it?

Perhaps you can ‘divulge’ the reason that talented people do well under the comprehensive system and just hazard a guess as to why highly – talented people fail the 11+ – nothing specific to individuals just some more speculation.

Again, define talent and how it is measured for the wider consumption as opposed to your perception of what is talent? Better still, again, provide your sources rather than merely quoting "The Guardian" or "The Sutton Trust"? The gap between private School A level results and State School results doubled under Labour

Perhaps you can ‘divulge’ the reason that talented people do well under the comprehensive system

Again, talented how? academically? practically? I don't doubt that many children do well, but I should imagine that many could better were they allow to develop their full potential; I haven't found any statistics here yet, but again, In Australia, Grammars are being restored because the gap between Comp and Private Education results is growing ever the wider (Smithers 2007)
!

This too is portentous BS - what do you mean by ‘a particular measurement’. You seem to be saying that all definitions of talent are relative (and what does ‘having been determined such a peer,will be determined or graded by opinion alone’

Are you on a sodding windup? Talent IS a measurement. What YOU define as being talented is unlikely to be synonymous with what another defines as being talented, unless there is a widely agreed upon UNIT of measurement for determining talent (generally amongst the peers who are widely considered experts in a particular field) it is otherwise merely an individual's opinion as to what is talented or not. The 11+ is not a measurement of talent but is a determination of IQ who are generally considered more suited to a more rigorous pace at an Academic level or specialist Academic subjects.

Why not teach woodwork and art in the same school without deciding at the age of ten that someone is ‘naturally’ gifted at art OR woodwork?

As I stated earlier, if YOU had every been to a Secondary or even a Comp School, you would know that the speed one at one works or indeed learns, is paced towards that of the slowest pupil; our School tried to resolve this by separating the slower or 'special needs' pupils (as they are now known), and putting them into vocational classes which taught at a pace more suited to them; While I expect that helped both them and those who followed the national curriculum, it didn't resolve the issue of time-wasters and disruption caused by those who didn't want to learn.

‘What YOU think, is merely your opinion,’
That’s right – you asked so I replied - it IS my opinion and a very reasonable one – look at the talented 11+ failures one sees and the untalented ones who succeed.
/
‘It is evident, with the consistency with examination grades, that selection based on what is an IQ is working and is widely acknowledged as such.’
‘Fraid not wayneo – it’s NOT based on ‘an IQ’ and if it appears to be backed up by O and A level results later (I take it that’s what you mean) then that can be explained by the better training and higher aspirations grammar school children are the beneficiaries of.
/
‘Your argument NOW, seems to be based on talent rather than of class, what is YOUR measure of talent?’
My arguments are based on both – the 11+ does not identify talent consistently or accurately and the exam has been taken over by better-off and more middle-class parents so it is an aspect of class warfare. (Haven’t you been reading my posts?)
/
‘I haven't yet seen a report that indicates Grammar Schooling or any Schooling for that matter is devoted to 'talent' anyway, the purpose of Grammar Schools is to allow those who can manage it, a more rigorous pace of learning or to "adopt academic specialisms" (smithers);
The ‘pace’ argument has become more popular in recent years but I’m relying on ‘wayneo’ who says elsewhere on this page that it is to do with ‘ability’ – ‘I went to Secondary School, I did so because my academic level wasn't suited to Grammar, why should my ability at that time hold somebody else back?’
/
… if one is 'talented' as you put it, then they will remain so won't they?’
Yes they will but what I am saying is they are ‘talented’ in the first place but are never properly developed – you’ve never given a convincing explanation of why your son was talented enough to do A levels at 18 but failed the 11+ except with statements about not being stretched at secondary modern school which tend to advance my cause.
/
‘Indeed, as with any exam,why is that such a bad thing then? As it happens, it didn't make any difference to the end result did it?’
You’re missing the point – I’m not saying you shouldn’t do it with an exam – I’m saying the exam is foolish in the first place – otherwise why would you and parents like you – quite rightly – try and manipulate its outcome for your children?
/
‘Again, define talent and how it is measured for the wider consumption as opposed to your perception of what is talent? ‘
Define ability and academic pace – you’ve used both expressions – what is the 11+ about if not a futile quest to identify ‘talent’?
/
‘Better still, again, provide your sources rather than merely quoting "The Guardian" or "The Sutton Trust"? The gap between private School A level results and State School results doubled under Labour’
The Guardian and the Sutton Trust are two valid sources – identify your sources (they include the Sutton Trust when it suits you).
/
Again, talented how? academically? practically? I don't doubt that many children do well, but I should imagine that many could better were they allow to develop their full potential; I haven't found any statistics here yet, but again, In Australia, Grammars are being restored because the gap between Comp and Private Education results is growing ever the wider (Smithers 2007)
This is hardly an unequivocal endorsement of the 11+ in Buckinghamshire – one Australian state (in Australia and the world) is expanding selection in response to circumstances we don’t have. Smithers says, ‘The state of Victoria in Australia is opening new grammar schools to enable the government run system to compete with the independent sector.’
This is a 60 page academic report comparing education in 30 countries – have you read the whole report in detail or have you just cherry-picked that one fact?
/
Are you on a sodding windup?
Language language!
/
Talent IS a measurement.
Then why are you so doubtful about what it consists of and why have you asked me to give my definitions of it?
/
‘What YOU define as being talented is unlikely to be synonymous with what another defines as being talented, unless there is a widely agreed upon UNIT of measurement for determining talent (generally amongst the peers who are widely considered experts in a particular field) it is otherwise merely an individual's opinion as to what is talented or not.
The 11+ is not a measurement of talent but is a determination of IQ who are generally considered more suited to a more rigorous pace at an Academic level or specialist Academic subjects.
This sentence is a bit dodgily-constructed (like some of your reasoning) but surely IQ IS supposed to be a measure of ‘talent’ (NOT ‘pace’)
/
‘As I stated earlier, if YOU had every been to a Secondary or even a Comp School, you would know that the speed one at one works or indeed learns, is paced towards that of the slowest pupil; our School tried to resolve this by separating the slower or 'special needs' pupils (as they are now known), and putting them into vocational classes which taught at a pace more suited to them; While I expect that helped both them and those who followed the national curriculum, it didn't resolve the issue of time-wasters and disruption caused by those who didn't want to learn.’
And this highly-imperfect system was the result of ‘selection’ – you get all the less talented (whatever that means) pupils put them together and make sure the teaching is ‘paced towards that of the slowest pupil’. Not to worry though because down the road a rather randomly-selected group of brighter kids have the opposite system working for them.

There is no reason why a comprehensive system should not deliver good results in Bucks the same way they do elsewhere in the UK and in the same way that a grammar school does – what you have been saying is in opposition to reason.

That’s right – you asked so I replied - it IS my opinion and a very reasonable one – look at the talented 11+ failures one sees and the untalented ones who succeed.

It is pointless trying to maintain an argument relating to 'lost talent' when the measure of 'talent' you apply is based on your opinion or imagination. As for the woolly "look at the talented 11+ failures one sees", well who are they? what are these talents you speak of and that we are supposedly able to see? You throw around accusations of being vague then subject the reader to the same.

Fraid not wayneo – it’s NOT based on ‘an IQ’ .

No, Verbal reasoning skills aren't an establish method of measuring aptitude or IQ, many Employers don't use such tests in selecting candidates, don't of course even mention the Universities that use such tests.

and if it appears to be backed up by O and A level results later (I take it that’s what you mean) then that can be explained by the better training and higher aspirations grammar school children are the beneficiaries of

Right, so it has nothing whatsoever to do with having first selected children with a higher IQ at all, it's all down to Grammar School children receiving special treatment? What 'better' training do Grammar Schools provide then? Aspirations are personal attributes,they don't come from having a brand new text book so why do you assume that aspirations are borne, even attributed to a Grammar School education?

Yes they will but what I am saying is they are ‘talented’ in the first place but are never properly developed – you’ve never given a convincing explanation of why your son was talented enough to do A levels at 18 but failed the 11+ except with statements about not being stretched at secondary modern school which tend to advance my cause.

I don't see how lumping all 'talents' as you put it, into one melting pot, will ever allow a 'talent' to develop; as I said earlier, it will only serve to suppress any 'talent' for the more 'talented' (as you put it), will be held back to that of the slowest in the class; you infer that talent in non Grammar Schools is somehow suppressed yet by scrapping selective education and effectively Grammar Schools, you would would hold back those you acknowledge as obtaining better results. Rather than scrapping selection, it should be embraced further so that excellence is not merely defined by a national curriculum. As for my son, he took and passed 7 GCSEs at his Secondary School,his results were considered well above average for that particular School but he struggled with the workload, his contemporaries at the Grammar School he now attends took 11 GCSE examinations; contrast that workload with the 3 A-levels (which he adds is much greater at Grammar than at sixth form with his older School), even he admits he would have struggled to achieve 11 GCSEs which is nothing to be ashamed of.

‘The state of Victoria in Australia is opening new grammar schools to enable the government run system to compete with the independent sector.’
This is a 60 page academic report comparing education in 30 countries – have you read the whole report in detail or have you just cherry-picked that one fact?

That FACT, is applicable to the specific argument being presented.

Then why are you so doubtful about what it consists of and why have you asked me to give my definitions of it?

Because 'talent' as defined by you is of little significance to others, a sweeping generalisation of "we are wasting talent" without providing a definition or an example with which to compare is pointless. So again, what are the talents you speak of and provide examples of how they lose out to Grammar Schools?

This sentence is a bit dodgily-constructed (like some of your reasoning) but surely IQ IS supposed to be a measure of ‘talent’ (NOT ‘pace’)

Well, i'm afraid the sentence is constructed such from having to stop then trawl through your unstructured replies. IQ, is designed to assess intelligence not talent, talent can be attributed to many disciplines, practical as well as academic which is why I am puzzled you that you would consider a single melting-pot for all, to be the better method of developing 'talent'.

And this highly-imperfect system was the result of ‘selection’ – you get all the less talented (whatever that means) pupils put them together and make sure the teaching is ‘paced towards that of the slowest pupil’. Not to worry though because down the road a rather randomly-selected group of brighter kids have the opposite system working for them.

No, the system is not resultant from selection, this system exists because people are different and because the 'system' does not cater for those at the 'lower-end' of the pile. Even in Grammar Schools you will have students at the top of their game and those at the bottom, in Secondary Schools it is easier to identify because with selection the gap between academic ability is narrower than if all children were chucked into the same pot.

There is no reason why a comprehensive system should not deliver good results in Bucks the same way they do elsewhere in the UK and in the same way that a grammar school does – what you have been saying is in opposition to reason.

One Size Fits ALL, yes, that's going to allow 'talented' children (vocational or academic) to develop and excel isn't it? Also, if Comprehensive Schools were working, why is the gap between Comp and fee paying University admissions greater than for Grammar School? Why did labour feel the need to introduce the now defunct 'gifted and talented' programme if lumping everybody in the same melting pot was such a good idea?

DirectGOV
What 'gifted and talented' means
'Gifted and talented' describes children and young people with an ability to develop to a level significantly ahead of their year group (or with the potential to develop those abilities):

•'gifted' learners are those who have abilities in one or more academic subjects, like maths and English
•'talented' learners are those who have practical skills in areas like sport, music, design or creative and performing arts
Skills like leadership, decision-making and organisation are also taken into account when identifying and providing for gifted and talented children.

the above should have said "No, Verbal reasoning skills are an establish method of measuring aptitude or IQ"

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

wayneo wrote:

I think it’s because the exam does not do what it says on the label – it does not identify talented people – that’s one reason

What YOU think, is merely your opinion, It is evident, with the consistency with examination grades, that selection based on what is an IQ is working and is widely acknowledged as such. Your argument NOW, seems to be based on talent rather than of class, what is YOUR measure of talent? I haven't yet seen a report that indicates Grammar Schooling or any Schooling for that matter is devoted to 'talent' anyway, the purpose of Grammar Schools is to allow those who can manage it, a more rigorous pace of learning or to "adopt academic specialisms" (smithers); if one is 'talented' as you put it, then they will remain so won't they?
!

that’s one reason you and other people try to manipulate it with coaching. (‘I purchased practise papers for my son,’)

Indeed, as with any exam,why is that such a bad thing then? As it happens, it didn't make any difference to the end result did it?

Perhaps you can ‘divulge’ the reason that talented people do well under the comprehensive system and just hazard a guess as to why highly – talented people fail the 11+ – nothing specific to individuals just some more speculation.

Again, define talent and how it is measured for the wider consumption as opposed to your perception of what is talent? Better still, again, provide your sources rather than merely quoting "The Guardian" or "The Sutton Trust"? The gap between private School A level results and State School results doubled under Labour

Perhaps you can ‘divulge’ the reason that talented people do well under the comprehensive system

Again, talented how? academically? practically? I don't doubt that many children do well, but I should imagine that many could better were they allow to develop their full potential; I haven't found any statistics here yet, but again, In Australia, Grammars are being restored because the gap between Comp and Private Education results is growing ever the wider (Smithers 2007)
!

This too is portentous BS - what do you mean by ‘a particular measurement’. You seem to be saying that all definitions of talent are relative (and what does ‘having been determined such a peer,will be determined or graded by opinion alone’

Are you on a sodding windup? Talent IS a measurement. What YOU define as being talented is unlikely to be synonymous with what another defines as being talented, unless there is a widely agreed upon UNIT of measurement for determining talent (generally amongst the peers who are widely considered experts in a particular field) it is otherwise merely an individual's opinion as to what is talented or not. The 11+ is not a measurement of talent but is a determination of IQ who are generally considered more suited to a more rigorous pace at an Academic level or specialist Academic subjects.

Why not teach woodwork and art in the same school without deciding at the age of ten that someone is ‘naturally’ gifted at art OR woodwork?

As I stated earlier, if YOU had every been to a Secondary or even a Comp School, you would know that the speed one at one works or indeed learns, is paced towards that of the slowest pupil; our School tried to resolve this by separating the slower or 'special needs' pupils (as they are now known), and putting them into vocational classes which taught at a pace more suited to them; While I expect that helped both them and those who followed the national curriculum, it didn't resolve the issue of time-wasters and disruption caused by those who didn't want to learn.

‘What YOU think, is merely your opinion,’
That’s right – you asked so I replied - it IS my opinion and a very reasonable one – look at the talented 11+ failures one sees and the untalented ones who succeed.
/
‘It is evident, with the consistency with examination grades, that selection based on what is an IQ is working and is widely acknowledged as such.’
‘Fraid not wayneo – it’s NOT based on ‘an IQ’ and if it appears to be backed up by O and A level results later (I take it that’s what you mean) then that can be explained by the better training and higher aspirations grammar school children are the beneficiaries of.
/
‘Your argument NOW, seems to be based on talent rather than of class, what is YOUR measure of talent?’
My arguments are based on both – the 11+ does not identify talent consistently or accurately and the exam has been taken over by better-off and more middle-class parents so it is an aspect of class warfare. (Haven’t you been reading my posts?)
/
‘I haven't yet seen a report that indicates Grammar Schooling or any Schooling for that matter is devoted to 'talent' anyway, the purpose of Grammar Schools is to allow those who can manage it, a more rigorous pace of learning or to "adopt academic specialisms" (smithers);
The ‘pace’ argument has become more popular in recent years but I’m relying on ‘wayneo’ who says elsewhere on this page that it is to do with ‘ability’ – ‘I went to Secondary School, I did so because my academic level wasn't suited to Grammar, why should my ability at that time hold somebody else back?’
/
… if one is 'talented' as you put it, then they will remain so won't they?’
Yes they will but what I am saying is they are ‘talented’ in the first place but are never properly developed – you’ve never given a convincing explanation of why your son was talented enough to do A levels at 18 but failed the 11+ except with statements about not being stretched at secondary modern school which tend to advance my cause.
/
‘Indeed, as with any exam,why is that such a bad thing then? As it happens, it didn't make any difference to the end result did it?’
You’re missing the point – I’m not saying you shouldn’t do it with an exam – I’m saying the exam is foolish in the first place – otherwise why would you and parents like you – quite rightly – try and manipulate its outcome for your children?
/
‘Again, define talent and how it is measured for the wider consumption as opposed to your perception of what is talent? ‘
Define ability and academic pace – you’ve used both expressions – what is the 11+ about if not a futile quest to identify ‘talent’?
/
‘Better still, again, provide your sources rather than merely quoting "The Guardian" or "The Sutton Trust"? The gap between private School A level results and State School results doubled under Labour’
The Guardian and the Sutton Trust are two valid sources – identify your sources (they include the Sutton Trust when it suits you).
/
Again, talented how? academically? practically? I don't doubt that many children do well, but I should imagine that many could better were they allow to develop their full potential; I haven't found any statistics here yet, but again, In Australia, Grammars are being restored because the gap between Comp and Private Education results is growing ever the wider (Smithers 2007)
This is hardly an unequivocal endorsement of the 11+ in Buckinghamshire – one Australian state (in Australia and the world) is expanding selection in response to circumstances we don’t have. Smithers says, ‘The state of Victoria in Australia is opening new grammar schools to enable the government run system to compete with the independent sector.’
This is a 60 page academic report comparing education in 30 countries – have you read the whole report in detail or have you just cherry-picked that one fact?
/
Are you on a sodding windup?
Language language!
/
Talent IS a measurement.
Then why are you so doubtful about what it consists of and why have you asked me to give my definitions of it?
/
‘What YOU define as being talented is unlikely to be synonymous with what another defines as being talented, unless there is a widely agreed upon UNIT of measurement for determining talent (generally amongst the peers who are widely considered experts in a particular field) it is otherwise merely an individual's opinion as to what is talented or not.
The 11+ is not a measurement of talent but is a determination of IQ who are generally considered more suited to a more rigorous pace at an Academic level or specialist Academic subjects.
This sentence is a bit dodgily-constructed (like some of your reasoning) but surely IQ IS supposed to be a measure of ‘talent’ (NOT ‘pace’)
/
‘As I stated earlier, if YOU had every been to a Secondary or even a Comp School, you would know that the speed one at one works or indeed learns, is paced towards that of the slowest pupil; our School tried to resolve this by separating the slower or 'special needs' pupils (as they are now known), and putting them into vocational classes which taught at a pace more suited to them; While I expect that helped both them and those who followed the national curriculum, it didn't resolve the issue of time-wasters and disruption caused by those who didn't want to learn.’
And this highly-imperfect system was the result of ‘selection’ – you get all the less talented (whatever that means) pupils put them together and make sure the teaching is ‘paced towards that of the slowest pupil’. Not to worry though because down the road a rather randomly-selected group of brighter kids have the opposite system working for them.

There is no reason why a comprehensive system should not deliver good results in Bucks the same way they do elsewhere in the UK and in the same way that a grammar school does – what you have been saying is in opposition to reason.

That’s right – you asked so I replied - it IS my opinion and a very reasonable one – look at the talented 11+ failures one sees and the untalented ones who succeed.

It is pointless trying to maintain an argument relating to 'lost talent' when the measure of 'talent' you apply is based on your opinion or imagination. As for the woolly "look at the talented 11+ failures one sees", well who are they? what are these talents you speak of and that we are supposedly able to see? You throw around accusations of being vague then subject the reader to the same.

Fraid not wayneo – it’s NOT based on ‘an IQ’ .

No, Verbal reasoning skills aren't an establish method of measuring aptitude or IQ, many Employers don't use such tests in selecting candidates, don't of course even mention the Universities that use such tests.

and if it appears to be backed up by O and A level results later (I take it that’s what you mean) then that can be explained by the better training and higher aspirations grammar school children are the beneficiaries of

Right, so it has nothing whatsoever to do with having first selected children with a higher IQ at all, it's all down to Grammar School children receiving special treatment? What 'better' training do Grammar Schools provide then? Aspirations are personal attributes,they don't come from having a brand new text book so why do you assume that aspirations are borne, even attributed to a Grammar School education?

Yes they will but what I am saying is they are ‘talented’ in the first place but are never properly developed – you’ve never given a convincing explanation of why your son was talented enough to do A levels at 18 but failed the 11+ except with statements about not being stretched at secondary modern school which tend to advance my cause.

I don't see how lumping all 'talents' as you put it, into one melting pot, will ever allow a 'talent' to develop; as I said earlier, it will only serve to suppress any 'talent' for the more 'talented' (as you put it), will be held back to that of the slowest in the class; you infer that talent in non Grammar Schools is somehow suppressed yet by scrapping selective education and effectively Grammar Schools, you would would hold back those you acknowledge as obtaining better results. Rather than scrapping selection, it should be embraced further so that excellence is not merely defined by a national curriculum. As for my son, he took and passed 7 GCSEs at his Secondary School,his results were considered well above average for that particular School but he struggled with the workload, his contemporaries at the Grammar School he now attends took 11 GCSE examinations; contrast that workload with the 3 A-levels (which he adds is much greater at Grammar than at sixth form with his older School), even he admits he would have struggled to achieve 11 GCSEs which is nothing to be ashamed of.

‘The state of Victoria in Australia is opening new grammar schools to enable the government run system to compete with the independent sector.’
This is a 60 page academic report comparing education in 30 countries – have you read the whole report in detail or have you just cherry-picked that one fact?

That FACT, is applicable to the specific argument being presented.

Then why are you so doubtful about what it consists of and why have you asked me to give my definitions of it?

Because 'talent' as defined by you is of little significance to others, a sweeping generalisation of "we are wasting talent" without providing a definition or an example with which to compare is pointless. So again, what are the talents you speak of and provide examples of how they lose out to Grammar Schools?

This sentence is a bit dodgily-constructed (like some of your reasoning) but surely IQ IS supposed to be a measure of ‘talent’ (NOT ‘pace’)

Well, i'm afraid the sentence is constructed such from having to stop then trawl through your unstructured replies. IQ, is designed to assess intelligence not talent, talent can be attributed to many disciplines, practical as well as academic which is why I am puzzled you that you would consider a single melting-pot for all, to be the better method of developing 'talent'.

And this highly-imperfect system was the result of ‘selection’ – you get all the less talented (whatever that means) pupils put them together and make sure the teaching is ‘paced towards that of the slowest pupil’. Not to worry though because down the road a rather randomly-selected group of brighter kids have the opposite system working for them.

No, the system is not resultant from selection, this system exists because people are different and because the 'system' does not cater for those at the 'lower-end' of the pile. Even in Grammar Schools you will have students at the top of their game and those at the bottom, in Secondary Schools it is easier to identify because with selection the gap between academic ability is narrower than if all children were chucked into the same pot.

There is no reason why a comprehensive system should not deliver good results in Bucks the same way they do elsewhere in the UK and in the same way that a grammar school does – what you have been saying is in opposition to reason.

One Size Fits ALL, yes, that's going to allow 'talented' children (vocational or academic) to develop and excel isn't it? Also, if Comprehensive Schools were working, why is the gap between Comp and fee paying University admissions greater than for Grammar School? Why did labour feel the need to introduce the now defunct 'gifted and talented' programme if lumping everybody in the same melting pot was such a good idea?

DirectGOV
What 'gifted and talented' means
'Gifted and talented' describes children and young people with an ability to develop to a level significantly ahead of their year group (or with the potential to develop those abilities):

•'gifted' learners are those who have abilities in one or more academic subjects, like maths and English
•'talented' learners are those who have practical skills in areas like sport, music, design or creative and performing arts
Skills like leadership, decision-making and organisation are also taken into account when identifying and providing for gifted and talented children.

In reply to wayneo on 9:46pm Sun 5 Feb 12
Dear wayneo I started to write a long reply to all this stuff in which I was going, using your own words, to illustrate the ‘development’ of your ‘arguments’ and ‘thought’ in favour of 11+ selection, from the early days of 20 January when you were complimenting yourself and your son on your courage in picking yourself up and getting on with life after failing the 11+, while saying the 11+ measured academic ability, and calling opponents of academic selection at age 11 ‘whining sh!ts’ class warriors and Marxists, through to its latest highly subtle and thoughtful form in which you cherry pick facts which you think back up your argument and say the 11+ is to do with ‘pace’. But I decided against it as many of your points have been answered already and your questions are just expressions of doubt for their own sake – so here goes.
‘It is pointless trying to maintain an argument relating to 'lost talent' when the measure of 'talent' you apply is based on your opinion or imagination.’
/
You have tried to confuse this into an argument about defining ‘talent’ before – you didn’t seem to have any difficulty when you were saying the 11+ had measured your ‘academic level’. I have mentioned before that your own son failed the 11+ and then turned out to be suitable for grammar school education – when I asked you how he and others had come to be missed aged 11 you lazily evaded the question saying, ‘Because they didn't pass the 11+ and there could be a number of reasons for that, maturity being one.’ It’s strange isn’t it – for many years the 11+ was justified on the grounds that it identified ‘talent’ or ‘intellectual capacity’ or ‘intelligence’ or just ‘brains’ now you are determined to make the argument into a fatuous one about ‘exactly what do we MEAN when we say talent?’ People like you seem to have no difficulty in deciding what ‘talent’ means when you want to – earlier you said, when this controversy started some weeks ago and you were still in your heroic mode saying things like ‘My son failed his 11 plus (as did I), he didn't whine, he didn't moan he got on with it. He went to a secondary school, done very well and for his A levels he EARNED a place at a Grammar School where he although bloddy hard work, is doing well. No private tutoring, no special treatment just hard work and determination.’ (‘wayneo’ 20 Jan) – at that time you justified the 11+ as it identified ‘academic level or ability’ - ‘I went to Secondary School, I did so because my academic level wasn't suited to Grammar, why should my ability at that time hold somebody else back? …’ You’ve never explained how your lack of academic ability would have held someone back – but when I say ‘talent’ I mean what you say when you refer to ‘academic ability’. I mean what everyone means by it – and don’t start going on about vocational’ talent either – the 11+ was never supposed to identify that.
………
‘As for the woolly "look at the talented 11+ failures one sees", well who are they? what are these talents you speak of and that we are supposedly able to see? You throw around accusations of being vague then subject the reader to the same.’
/
Outside wayne’s world there are people I, and most people, I suspect, meet every day who failed the 11+ and are ‘talented’ in my and other people’s estimation – very ‘talented’ – some of the most famous ones I have mentioned already. In the (much-despised by you) ‘Guardian’, Andrew Dilnot, was the principal of St Hugh's College, Oxford, and pro vice-chancellor of the university and in November 2007 Lord Plant wrote a letter (to the Guardian – wayneo’s bête noire) from King’s College Law School, London University referring to the fat that he had been master of St Catherine's College Oxford from 1994 to 2000 ‘and, having failed the 11-plus, I was educated at what was a secondary modern school but became a comprehensive while I was a pupil there. The Havelock school Grimsby gave me a lifeline after the 11-plus failure and I am eternally grateful to those who taught me there.’ I mention these two men because one of them actually failed the 11+ and then went on to achieve an almost unsurpassable success in academia while the other one went – like the head of the Welsh Assembly, First Minister Carwyn Jones, - to a comprehensive school before becoming a barrister and also Stephen Hester, the RBS CEO, who was in the news earlier this week, who went to a comprehensive school and had a first from Oxford. These are people who could not very well have achieved much greater eminence in their professions but either failed ‘selection’ or prospered under ‘one size fits all’ comprehensive education – Lord Plant in particular shows what a sham ‘selection’ is. These are four highly-prominent examples from the front pages or at least the pages of our press of the talented 11+ failures I was referring to.
………
‘No, Verbal reasoning skills aren't an establish method of measuring aptitude or IQ, many Employers don't use such tests in selecting candidates, don't of course even mention the Universities that use such tests.’
/
In my post of 6.44 on Sunday I quoted your words’ ‘‘It is evident, with the consistency with examination grades, that selection based on what is an IQ is working and is widely acknowledged as such.’
and I replied ‘Fraid not wayneo – it’s NOT based on ‘an IQ’ and if it appears to be backed up by O and A level results later (I take it that’s what you mean) then that can be explained by the better training and higher aspirations grammar school children are the beneficiaries of.’

You have replied to my reply by saying, ‘No, Verbal reasoning skills aren't an establish method of measuring aptitude or IQ, many Employers don't use such tests in selecting candidates, don't of course even mention the Universities that use such tests.’ – I would say to you (apart from the fact that elsewhere you defend the 11+ on the grounds that it assesses pupils for ‘pace’ or maturity rather than intellectual potential – you know NOT like an IQ test) what does your reply MEAN? I am saying no to the proposition ‘that selection based on what is an IQ is working’ and you are saying no to that rather than yes because ‘Verbal reasoning skills aren't an establish method of measuring aptitude or IQ,’
(You were talking above about my vagueness – quite a few of your own posts are vague – like this one – to the point of borderline incoherence – I have not mentioned this before as I don’t want to seem condescending - sometimes your meaning can be guessed but sometimes not – I take it when you said above on Thursday last ‘If it were so indefensible then why do you fell the need to defend it?’ that you meant to say something else and did not mean to accuse me of defending the 11+?)
………
Right, so it has nothing whatsoever to do with having first selected children with a higher IQ at all, it's all down to Grammar School children receiving special treatment? What 'better' training do Grammar Schools provide then? Aspirations are personal attributes,they don't come from having a brand new text book so why do you assume that aspirations are borne, even attributed to a Grammar School education?
/
No and yes – no that’s not what I said – to me it is a mixture of very rough selection and aspirations - yes – what else do you mean when you say ‘All Grammar Schools do, is offer students a different learning pace’. I don’t know whether they have brand new text books or not – that seems a bit of a silly thing to say wayneo - as I pointed out to your alter ego ‘Blueberry’ two years ago they also offer a different syllabus and if you look at O and A level results they must be giving something better to their pupils in the form of tuition – that’s why parents coach their children to pass the 11+. Aspirations AREN’T entirely ‘personal attributes’ – they are something someone learns from the society one is in – that’s what military training does to the immature and that’s why I think that a school where it is ‘cool’ to be clever and successful academically gives such aspirations to its pupils. (You mention above a negative ‘… general ethos of, it was square to be be academically successful.’)
………
‘I don't see how lumping all 'talents' as you put it, into one melting pot, will ever allow a 'talent' to develop; as I said earlier, it will only serve to suppress any 'talent' for the more 'talented' (as you put it), will be held back to that of the slowest in the class; you infer that talent in non Grammar Schools is somehow suppressed yet by scrapping selective education and effectively Grammar Schools, you would would hold back those you acknowledge as obtaining better results.’
/
Funny that - elsewhere you say schools are much of a muchness as if it didn’t make that much difference which one you went to. I don’t see why it should hold back a kid with talent unless you imagine there is no half way point in a comprehensive school between little gentlemen being brainy and chaotic zoos. You’ve never answered my question how would you have held back talented pupils if you are as dim as you claim and you were in the same room as them - and if it is all a matter of aspiration how did your son manage to get out of the quagmire of his secondary school where they all stood around trying to impress girls? I can’t prove it but everywhere in life people manage to develop their talents – they change jobs or do evening classes – my beef with the 11+ is that it postpones or stunts the development of talent – how many married men in their twenties are going to learn languages or study history they never learnt at secondary modern school while they are worrying about the wife and kids? Tell us just how kids with talents (let’s assume for a little while that the word exists because it means something) are actually ‘… a means where academically gifted children can reach their full potential.’ (wayneo 9:36pm Thu 2 Feb 12) or how ‘… Grammar schools allow students to do, is for more academically minded children to pursue a more vigorous academic path than those whowould likely struggle’ (wayneo Sat 21 Jan 12). I DO acknowledge grammar schools get better results – I don’t see why children who do this could not do it equally well in a comprehensive school without disadvantaging 60-70% 0f the rest of their age group.
………
‘As for my son, he took and passed 7 GCSEs at his Secondary School,his results were considered well above average for that particular School but he struggled with the workload, his contemporaries at the Grammar School he now attends took 11 GCSE examinations; contrast that workload with the 3 A-levels (which he adds is much greater at Grammar than at sixth form with his older School), even he admits he would have struggled to achieve 11 GCSEs which is nothing to be ashamed of.’
/
He was ‘considered well above average’ but he failed his 11+ - maybe his contemporaries at grammar school were struggling as well – as I said earlier it sounds as if your son was not stretched at his school – do you think he would have struggled at a grammar school – if he had swapped places with some kid of similar ability would the other kid have struggled while your son coped – would your son and the imaginary kid have been unable to succeed at a comprehensive school? (Andrew Dilnot, Lord Plant, Carwyn Jones and Stephen Hester seem to have managed rather well.)
………
‘That FACT, is applicable to the specific argument being presented.’
/
That’s silly - are all the things done in the State of Victoria FACTS, ‘applicable to the specific argument being presented’ and are the opposite tendency in facts - in numerous countries elsewhere in the report, and in counties in this country that have abolished ‘selection’ - inapplicable FACTS?
………
‘Because 'talent' as defined by you is of little significance to others, a sweeping generalisation of "we are wasting talent" without providing a definition or an example with which to compare is pointless. So again, what are the talents you speak of and provide examples of how they lose out to Grammar Schools?’
/
Read what I have written above.
………
‘Well, i'm afraid the sentence is constructed such from having to stop then trawl through your unstructured replies. IQ, is designed to assess intelligence not talent, talent can be attributed to many disciplines, practical as well as academic which is why I am puzzled you that you would consider a single melting-pot for all, to be the better method of developing 'talent'.’
/
The fact that you have to stop and ‘trawl’ (also called ‘reading with attention’) doesn’t mean my replies are ‘unstructured’ – see what I say above about your own prose. Even if this were true it would not compel you to produce the writing you do – this is a bit like a reverse version of your dodgily-constructed reasoning that your supposed lack of intelligence would hold back brighter kids if you had gone to grammar school. So talent and intelligence are different – someone intelligent could be untalented and a highly talented person could be stupid – see my comments above beginning, ‘You have tried to confuse this into an argument about defining ‘talent’ before …’
The OED gives one definition of talent as ‘A natural faculty; a particular power of the body or mind’ and one definition of intelligence as ‘The faculty of understanding; intellect.’ It’s clear enough what the two words mean and they are identical or virtually so.
………
‘No, the system is not resultant from selection, this system exists because people are different and because the 'system' does not cater for those at the 'lower-end' of the pile. Even in Grammar Schools you will have students at the top of their game and those at the bottom, in Secondary Schools it is easier to identify because with selection the gap between academic ability is narrower than if all children were chucked into the same pot.’
/
‘the 'system' does not cater for those at the 'lower-end' of the pile’- it is clear that the system as a whole works very randomly and for the 60-70% who fail – not just for ‘the lower end of the pile’ – so why not replace the system?
‘…, in Secondary Schools it is easier to identify because with selection the gap between academic ability is narrower than if all children were chucked into the same pot.’ What does that MEAN wayneo?
………
‘One Size Fits ALL, yes, that's going to allow 'talented' children (vocational or academic) to develop and excel isn't it?
Schools are not shoes – one school can cater for a great range of talent without ‘selecting’ them first and advantaging one set and disadvantaging another.
‘Also, if Comprehensive Schools were working, why is the gap between Comp and fee paying University admissions greater than for Grammar School?’
Probably because of the introduction of fees which would disadvantage the less well-off from all schools – there doesn’t seem to be definitive evidence but a lot of school leavers say they are worried about being indebted graduates.
Why did labour feel the need to introduce the now defunct 'gifted and talented' programme if lumping everybody in the same melting pot was such a good idea?’
Maybe they had second thoughts about it and realised comprehensive schools were better for gifted and talented children – I’ll look into it further (haven’t you already?)

wayneo wrote:
the above should have said "No, Verbal reasoning skills are an establish method of measuring aptitude or IQ"

So you meant to say, ‘‘"No, Verbal reasoning skills are an establish method of measuring aptitude or IQ, many Employers don't use such tests in selecting candidates, don't of course even mention the Universities that use such tests.’
/
All right you’ve answered one of my questions already – I am still not sure why you say that many employers don’t use them and I’ve never heard of a university selecting people on the basis of an intelligence test. I would stick with my original reply that I don’t believe that it is an accurate IQ test – it does not allow people to be selected on an accurate measurement of their intellectual capacities – it appears to do so as it puts children into a system where they are well-endowed with the means of doing well at GCSE level.

(I must say that standing around trying to impress young women is a life style many of us can only aspire to - but now I must go to bed.)

Dear wayneo I started to write a long reply to all this stuff in which I was going, using your own words, to illustrate the ‘development’ of your ‘arguments If they're available and have been answered then what's stopping you from summarising them?
from the early days of 20 January when you were complimenting yourself and your son on your courage in picking yourself up and getting on with life after failing the 11+, while saying the 11+ measured academic ability, and calling opponents of academic selection at age 11 ‘whining sh!ts’ class warriors and Marxist
There wasn't any self congratulation or self compliment at all, my point, as opposed to your shoddy insinuations, is that there are people who because they don't get what they want, assume or apply blame for their predicament to others. Little Johnny doesn't pass the test so it must be because of well off people can afford to tutor their children or because they are cheating, aawwwh, pass me a violin then let's scrap the whole lot because Johnny's parents can't accept the fact that their child simply wasn't good enough to pass the test. Well let him do something he IS good at.

you cherry pick facts which you think back up your argument and say the 11+ is to do with ‘pace
Perhaps you should look to your own obsessive behaviour with respect to Ivor before you use ‘cherry picking’ as a slant against somebody who doesn’t happen to agree with you. Isn't that what the authors of the Sutton report do? extract statistics without actually having experienced that which they write about? Besides, we all cherry-pick to a certain extent, you might like to lead by example and summarise an entire 60 page report into a paragraph before you criticise one of cherry-picking.

You have tried to confuse this into an argument about defining ‘talent’ before
No, it’s not confusing to ask you how you define TALENT, YOU, claim that talent is being wasted because of selection, therefore, you must have an idea as to not only what talent is being wasted ,your measure of talent is unlikely to be the same as others, as we have already established, if talent, as with IQ, is measurable and from that an average is applied, then WHY would you not allow those with above average 'talent' or IQ to excel, why would you advocate holding them back and thus wasting the talent?

earlier you said, when this controversy started some weeks ago and you were still in your heroic mode saying things like ‘My son failed his 11 plus (as did I), he didn't whine, he didn't moan he got on with it. He went to a secondary school, done very well and for his A levels he EARNED a place at a Grammar School where he although bloddy hard work, is doing well. No private tutoring, no special treatment just hard work and determination.’ (‘wayneo’ 20 Jan) – at that time you justified the 11+ as it identified ‘academic level or ability’ - ‘I went to Secondary School, I did so because my academic level wasn't suited to Grammar, why should my ability at that time hold somebody else back? …’ You’ve never explained how your lack of academic ability would have held someone back –
Again, not quite sure why stating facts is deemed in Lawrence's world to be heroic, perhaps you could explain.
As I've explained twice now but that you continue to choose to ignore and unlike you, having BEEN to a Secondary School one learns at a pace of the slowest pupil, academically I struggled to achieve anything over what can be determined as average yet even in Secondary School, those that were above average, were constrained by those who didn't want to learn, or those who were below average academically. It's a fact of life that we are not all equal, that we all have personal attributes and differing abilities that benefit us and society but that unfortunately, success in this Country is determined by academic ability rather than by (if we use the DirectGOV definition), talent and academic ability.

I don’t see why it should hold back a kid with talent It's not that you don't see, it's that you didn't see it because you wasn't there.
Outside wayne’s world there are people I, and most people, I suspect, meet every day who failed the 11+ and are ‘talented’ in my and other people’s estimation I have no doubt there are many talented people but it's fallacious to suggest that because they have a talent, that they would able to cope with the demands of a Grammar School Education?

very ‘talented’ – some of the most famous ones I have mentioned already. In the (much-despised by you) ‘Guardian’, Andrew Dilnot, was the principal of St Hugh's College, Oxford, and pro vice-chancellor of the university and in November 2007 Lord Plant wrote a letter (to the Guardian – wayneo’s bête noire) from King’s College Law School, London University referring to the fat that he had been master of St Catherine's College Oxford from 1994 to 2000 ‘and, having failed the 11-plus, I was educated at what was a secondary modern school but became a comprehensive while I was a pupil there. The Havelock school Grimsby gave me a lifeline after the 11-plus failure and I am eternally grateful to those who taught me there.’ I mention these two men because one of them actually failed the 11+ and then went on to achieve an almost unsurpassable success in academia while the other one went – like the head of the Welsh Assembly, First Minister Carwyn Jones, - to a comprehensive school before becoming a barrister and also Stephen Hester, the RBS CEO, who was in the news earlier this week, who went to a comprehensive school and had a first from Oxford. These are people who could not very well have achieved much greater eminence in their professions but either failed ‘selection’ or prospered under ‘one size fits all’ comprehensive education – Lord Plant in particular shows what a sham ‘selection’ is. These are four highly-prominent examples from the front pages or at least the pages of our press of the talented 11+ failures I was referring to.
There will always be exceptions and I'm very pleased that there are, that the number of people you provide as examples can be counted on one hand, is hardly indicative of an unfair system , the examples you provide do not pose sufficient reasonable or logical grounds for effectively scrapping selective Education that consistently provides top class results.
In my post of 6.44 on Sunday I quoted your words’ ‘‘It is evident, with the consistency with examination grades, that selection based on what is an IQ is working and is widely acknowledged as such.’
and I replied ‘Fraid not wayneo – it’s NOT based on ‘an IQ’ and if it appears to be backed up by O and A level results later (I take it that’s what you mean) then that can be explained by the better training and higher aspirations grammar school children are the beneficiaries of.’

You have replied to my reply by saying, ‘No, Verbal reasoning skills aren't an establish method of measuring aptitude or IQ, many Employers don't use such tests in selecting candidates, don't of course even mention the Universities that use such tests.’ – I would say to you (apart from the fact that elsewhere you defend the 11+ on the grounds that it assesses pupils for ‘pace’ or maturity rather than intellectual potential – you know NOT like an IQ test) what does your reply MEAN? My reply was a rather unfortunate attempt at sarcasm,which after having read through later tried to correct, it should be read that many organisations continue to use IQ tests as form of selection. You have also haven’t as yet, provided any evidence that Grammar School Children receive better training or have higher aspirations.
I am saying no to the proposition ‘that selection based on what is an IQ is working’ and you are saying no to that rather than yes because ‘Verbal reasoning skills aren't an establish method of measuring aptitude or IQ,’
(You were talking above about my vagueness – quite a few of your own posts are vague – like this one – to the point of borderline incoherence – I have not mentioned this before as I don’t want to seem condescending - sometimes your meaning can be guessed but sometimes not – I take it when you said above on Thursday last ‘If it were so indefensible then why do you fell the need to defend it?’ that you meant to say something else and did not mean to accuse me of defending the 11+?)
In addition to the previous paragraph, I am aware of many of my faults and I accept them, I wish others would do the same.
No and yes – no that’s not what I said – to me it is a mixture of very rough selection and aspirations - yes – what else do you mean when you say ‘All Grammar Schools do, is offer students a different learning pace’. I don’t know whether they have brand new text books or not – that seems a bit of a silly thing to say wayneo - as I pointed out to your alter ego ‘Blueberry’ two years ago they also offer a different syllabus and if you look at O and A level results they must be giving something better to their pupils in the form of tuition – that’s why parents coach their children to pass the 11+. I don't know who Blueberry is. I would imagine ( though not having not been to Grammar School), that the GCSE and A level results are better because the children are better able at achieving their academic potential by learning at a more rigorous pace than contemporary students from Secondary Schools, that's the purpose of selection and the results certainly indicate that the process works.

Aspirations AREN’T entirely ‘personal attributes’ – they are something someone learns from the society one is in – that’s what military training does to the immature and that’s why I think that a school where it is ‘cool’ to be clever and successful academically gives such aspirations to its pupils. (You mention above a negative ‘… general ethos of, it was square to be be academically successful.’)
I’m sure, other than commenting on La Boudin or the Coldstream Guards, that you have actually experienced Military training in order to make such a comment, or, is it like your experience of Secondary School, that being from what you read or hear from others? One can have an aspiration for others but either way it is a DESIRE to do something so therefore IS a personal attribute; any goals or desires applied to others cannot be construed as being aspirations unless they themselves share in those aspirations.

Read what I have written above. I have and it doesn't make sense.
Funny that - elsewhere you say schools are much of a muchness as if it didn’t make that much difference which one you went to. Would you mind being clearer?

I don’t see why it should hold back a kid with talent unless you imagine there is no half way point in a comprehensive school between little gentlemen being brainy and chaotic zoos Again, you don't see because you have never seen it. I have and while I can only speak for the School I attended, while there were some that did well, I am confident they could have done better had they not been in an environment where there were those who a) couldn't be @rsed or were disruptive and b) who were much slower than the rest. The level of attainment speaks for itself so perhaps you can explain why you believe
. You’ve never answered my question how would you have held back talented pupils if you are as dim as you claim and you were in the same room as them - and if it is all a matter of aspiration how did your son manage to get out of the quagmire of his secondary school where they all stood around trying to impress girls? I never claimed to being ‘dim’ and don’t believe that I am but then, as with talent, we all have our own interpretation as to how it is attributed or applied. As for your question, I have answered it, read paragraph 5 1ten times so that you don’t forget. I don’t believe I stated that” it was all a matter of aspiration” or that my son (unlike my experience), had experienced a quagmire. As I already explained to you but again, you disregard I wrote, “As for my son, he took and passed 7 GCSEs at his Secondary School,his results were considered well above average for that particular School but he struggled with the workload, his contemporaries at the Grammar School he now attends took 11 GCSE examinations; contrast that workload with the 3 A-levels (which he adds is much greater at Grammar than at sixth form with his older School). It’s a fact of life that some will find academic work much easier than others and are more suited to it.
I can’t prove it but everywhere in life people manage to develop their talents – they change jobs or do evening classes – my beef with the 11+ is that it postpones or stunts the development of talent
Anybody CAN develop skills, whether they become talented or not is dependent on a number of factors, some are naturally talented, some have aspirations that mean they would like to do something but unfortunately however much they try, are unable to realise those aspirations. We can all learn new skills but at a pace or speed more suited to ability, which is exactly why we have the 11+. It aims to separate those with an above average IQ and allow them to develop academic achievement at a pace and within such subjects that are widely considered attainable for that level of student.
how many married men in their twenties are going to learn languages or study history they never learnt at secondary modern school while they are worrying about the wife and kids?
Although I will likely incur further prevarication of self congratulation, nevertheless, I did exactly that; I went to College and studied something I believed I was good at rather than what I wanted, I didn’t claim any benefits, I lived from a part-time job working two evenings a week and weekends, i’m sure there are many who did the same, again, when one is out of School, one can find time to develop skills but not necessarily in subjects that we have aspirations for.

Tell us just how kids with talents (let’s assume for a little while that the word exists because it means something) are actually ‘… a means where academically gifted children can reach their full potential.
“Source DirectGOV
What 'gifted and talented' means
'Gifted and talented' describes children and young people with an ability to develop to a level significantly ahead of their year group (or with the potential to develop those abilities):

•'gifted' learners are those who have abilities in one or more academic subjects, like maths and English
•'talented' learners are those who have practical skills in areas like sport, music, design or creative and performing arts
Skills like leadership, decision-making and organisation are also taken into account when identifying and providing for gifted and talented children.
I don’t think you can teach a gift or indeed teach somebody to be talented.

Feb 12) or how ‘… Grammar schools allow students to do, is for more academically minded children to pursue a more vigorous academic path than those whowould likely struggle’ (wayneo Sat 21 Jan 12). I DO acknowledge grammar schools get better results – I don’t see why children who do this could not do it equally well in a comprehensive school without disadvantaging 60-70% 0f the rest of their age group.

It is a generalisation to suggest that all 60%-70% are disadvantaged besides, how would a Grammar School CONFER a disadvantage, you haven’t provided any evidence (other than acknowledging their success), that Grammar Schools receive better funding, teaching, resources or support than Secondary Schools. Again, I don’t think the problem is with selective education or Grammar Schools, I think having a time-constrained, one-size fits all focus towards an academic education rather than allowing more time or more vocational choice is primarily to blame. Labour’s idea of University for all or that unless one has a degree they aren’t of any worth is what is creating a disadvantage to children. There are some excellent qualifications and apprenticeships that are offered to youngsters that are often overlooked or disregarded because a degree is considered the be all and end all regarding attainment. Rather than concentrating on the perceived unfairness of Grammar Schools, I think it better that time was applied to resolving some of the issues with Education system as a whole.
He was ‘considered well above average’ but he failed his 11+ -
He was considered above average at the School he was in yes, that doesn’t mean his IQ was above average does it?
maybe his contemporaries at grammar school were struggling as well
If, as you suggest, there are Children who somehow passed the 11+ because they were ‘coached’, then I daresay there are yes.
as I said earlier it sounds as if your son was not stretched at his school – do you think he would have struggled at a grammar school
I think he stretched himself, working more hours than I would have liked or would have encouraged in the evenings etc but that was his choice. I have had conversations with him about it and he freely admits that the workload and expectation would likely have been a struggle for him, ultimately though, he has taken A level subjects that he both enjoys and subsequently did well in at GCSE.
if he had swapped places with some kid of similar ability would the other kid have struggled while your son coped – would your son and the imaginary kid have been unable to succeed at a comprehensive school?
I really couldn’t say, I think he has the potential to do very well in his chosen subjects but had to work above and beyond on the subjects he wasn’t shall we say have a natural flair or interest in.
(Andrew Dilnot, Lord Plant, Carwyn Jones and Stephen Hester seem to have managed rather well.)
.Andrew Dilnot, Olchfa School Swansea, 2000 pupils, school attainment rate @5GCSE A*-C = 72%
!One teacher’s comments on linkedin “Teaching History in a secondary school (Olchfa) in Wales. Interested in how technology can help break the current 'industrial' school system and move us towards Free Range Learning
Lord Plant. Havelock School Grimsby, , previously a Grammar which is when Lord Havelock attended the School he received his degree in 1966), in 1968 Havelock became a Comprehensive and more recently an academy
!Carwyn Jones, Brynteg Comp which became a comp in 1971, one person to note since 1971, now look at the illumni for Bridgend Grammar School for Boys school (which having merged Heol Gam Secondary Modern, became Brynteg). Bridgend Grammar School for Boys: Prof Edward Abel CBE, Professor of Inorganic Chemistry at the University of Exeter from 1972-97, and President of the Royal Society of Chemistry from 1996-8,Prof Michael Brown, Vice-Chancellor of Liverpool John Moores University since 2000,Robert Minhinnick, poet,Prof Gareth Morris CBE, Professor of Microbiology at Aberystwyth University from 1971-2000, Prof David Thomas, Professor of Geography at the University of Birmingham from 1978-95, John V. Tucker, computer scientist, G. Wyn Rees, Solicitor and Judge
!
Stephen Hester, Easingwold School and son of a University Professor.
Easingwold School, despite being rated as one of the finest schools in North Yorkshire, Ofsted rating average,

Dear wayneo I started to write a long reply to all this stuff in which I was going, using your own words, to illustrate the ‘development’ of your ‘arguments

If they're available and have been answered then what's stopping you from summarising them?

from the early days of 20 January when you were complimenting yourself and your son on your courage in picking yourself up and getting on with life after failing the 11+, while saying the 11+ measured academic ability, and calling opponents of academic selection at age 11 ‘whining sh!ts’ class warriors and Marxist

There wasn't any self congratulation or self compliment at all, my point, as opposed to your shoddy insinuations, is that there are people who because they don't get what they want, assume or apply blame for their predicament to others. Little Johnny doesn't pass the test so it must be because of well off people can afford to tutor their children or because they are cheating, aawwwh, pass me a violin then let's scrap the whole lot because Johnny's parents can't accept the fact that their child simply wasn't good enough to pass the test. Well let him do something he IS good at.

you cherry pick facts which you think back up your argument and say the 11+ is to do with ‘pace

Perhaps you should look to your own obsessive behaviour with respect to Ivor before you use ‘cherry picking’ as a slant against somebody who doesn’t happen to agree with you. Isn't that what the authors of the Sutton report do? extract statistics without actually having experienced that which they write about? Besides, we all cherry-pick to a certain extent, you might like to lead by example and summarise an entire 60 page report into a paragraph before you criticise one of cherry-picking.

You have tried to confuse this into an argument about defining ‘talent’ before

No, it’s not confusing to ask you how you define TALENT, YOU, claim that talent is being wasted because of selection, therefore, you must have an idea as to not only what talent is being wasted ,your measure of talent is unlikely to be the same as others, as we have already established, if talent, as with IQ, is measurable and from that an average is applied, then WHY would you not allow those with above average 'talent' or IQ to excel, why would you advocate holding them back and thus wasting the talent?

earlier you said, when this controversy started some weeks ago and you were still in your heroic mode saying things like ‘My son failed his 11 plus (as did I), he didn't whine, he didn't moan he got on with it. He went to a secondary school, done very well and for his A levels he EARNED a place at a Grammar School where he although bloddy hard work, is doing well. No private tutoring, no special treatment just hard work and determination.’ (‘wayneo’ 20 Jan) – at that time you justified the 11+ as it identified ‘academic level or ability’ - ‘I went to Secondary School, I did so because my academic level wasn't suited to Grammar, why should my ability at that time hold somebody else back? …’ You’ve never explained how your lack of academic ability would have held someone back –

Again, not quite sure why stating facts is deemed in Lawrence's world to be heroic, perhaps you could explain.
As I've explained twice now but that you continue to choose to ignore and unlike you, having BEEN to a Secondary School one learns at a pace of the slowest pupil, academically I struggled to achieve anything over what can be determined as average yet even in Secondary School, those that were above average, were constrained by those who didn't want to learn, or those who were below average academically. It's a fact of life that we are not all equal, that we all have personal attributes and differing abilities that benefit us and society but that unfortunately, success in this Country is determined by academic ability rather than by (if we use the DirectGOV definition), talent and academic ability.

I don’t see why it should hold back a kid with talent

It's not that you don't see, it's that you didn't see it because you wasn't there.

Outside wayne’s world there are people I, and most people, I suspect, meet every day who failed the 11+ and are ‘talented’ in my and other people’s estimation

I have no doubt there are many talented people but it's fallacious to suggest that because they have a talent, that they would able to cope with the demands of a Grammar School Education?

very ‘talented’ – some of the most famous ones I have mentioned already. In the (much-despised by you) ‘Guardian’, Andrew Dilnot, was the principal of St Hugh's College, Oxford, and pro vice-chancellor of the university and in November 2007 Lord Plant wrote a letter (to the Guardian – wayneo’s bête noire) from King’s College Law School, London University referring to the fat that he had been master of St Catherine's College Oxford from 1994 to 2000 ‘and, having failed the 11-plus, I was educated at what was a secondary modern school but became a comprehensive while I was a pupil there. The Havelock school Grimsby gave me a lifeline after the 11-plus failure and I am eternally grateful to those who taught me there.’ I mention these two men because one of them actually failed the 11+ and then went on to achieve an almost unsurpassable success in academia while the other one went – like the head of the Welsh Assembly, First Minister Carwyn Jones, - to a comprehensive school before becoming a barrister and also Stephen Hester, the RBS CEO, who was in the news earlier this week, who went to a comprehensive school and had a first from Oxford. These are people who could not very well have achieved much greater eminence in their professions but either failed ‘selection’ or prospered under ‘one size fits all’ comprehensive education – Lord Plant in particular shows what a sham ‘selection’ is. These are four highly-prominent examples from the front pages or at least the pages of our press of the talented 11+ failures I was referring to.

There will always be exceptions and I'm very pleased that there are, that the number of people you provide as examples can be counted on one hand, is hardly indicative of an unfair system , the examples you provide do not pose sufficient reasonable or logical grounds for effectively scrapping selective Education that consistently provides top class results.

In my post of 6.44 on Sunday I quoted your words’ ‘‘It is evident, with the consistency with examination grades, that selection based on what is an IQ is working and is widely acknowledged as such.’
and I replied ‘Fraid not wayneo – it’s NOT based on ‘an IQ’ and if it appears to be backed up by O and A level results later (I take it that’s what you mean) then that can be explained by the better training and higher aspirations grammar school children are the beneficiaries of.’

You have replied to my reply by saying, ‘No, Verbal reasoning skills aren't an establish method of measuring aptitude or IQ, many Employers don't use such tests in selecting candidates, don't of course even mention the Universities that use such tests.’ – I would say to you (apart from the fact that elsewhere you defend the 11+ on the grounds that it assesses pupils for ‘pace’ or maturity rather than intellectual potential – you know NOT like an IQ test) what does your reply MEAN?

My reply was a rather unfortunate attempt at sarcasm,which after having read through later tried to correct, it should be read that many organisations continue to use IQ tests as form of selection. You have also haven’t as yet, provided any evidence that Grammar School Children receive better training or have higher aspirations.

I am saying no to the proposition ‘that selection based on what is an IQ is working’ and you are saying no to that rather than yes because ‘Verbal reasoning skills aren't an establish method of measuring aptitude or IQ,’
(You were talking above about my vagueness – quite a few of your own posts are vague – like this one – to the point of borderline incoherence – I have not mentioned this before as I don’t want to seem condescending - sometimes your meaning can be guessed but sometimes not – I take it when you said above on Thursday last ‘If it were so indefensible then why do you fell the need to defend it?’ that you meant to say something else and did not mean to accuse me of defending the 11+?)

In addition to the previous paragraph, I am aware of many of my faults and I accept them, I wish others would do the same.

No and yes – no that’s not what I said – to me it is a mixture of very rough selection and aspirations - yes – what else do you mean when you say ‘All Grammar Schools do, is offer students a different learning pace’. I don’t know whether they have brand new text books or not – that seems a bit of a silly thing to say wayneo - as I pointed out to your alter ego ‘Blueberry’ two years ago they also offer a different syllabus and if you look at O and A level results they must be giving something better to their pupils in the form of tuition – that’s why parents coach their children to pass the 11+.

I don't know who Blueberry is. I would imagine ( though not having not been to Grammar School), that the GCSE and A level results are better because the children are better able at achieving their academic potential by learning at a more rigorous pace than contemporary students from Secondary Schools, that's the purpose of selection and the results certainly indicate that the process works.

Aspirations AREN’T entirely ‘personal attributes’ – they are something someone learns from the society one is in – that’s what military training does to the immature and that’s why I think that a school where it is ‘cool’ to be clever and successful academically gives such aspirations to its pupils. (You mention above a negative ‘… general ethos of, it was square to be be academically successful.’)

I’m sure, other than commenting on La Boudin or the Coldstream Guards, that you have actually experienced Military training in order to make such a comment, or, is it like your experience of Secondary School, that being from what you read or hear from others? One can have an aspiration for others but either way it is a DESIRE to do something so therefore IS a personal attribute; any goals or desires applied to others cannot be construed as being aspirations unless they themselves share in those aspirations.

Read what I have written above.

I have and it doesn't make sense.

Funny that - elsewhere you say schools are much of a muchness as if it didn’t make that much difference which one you went to.

Would you mind being clearer?

I don’t see why it should hold back a kid with talent unless you imagine there is no half way point in a comprehensive school between little gentlemen being brainy and chaotic zoos

Again, you don't see because you have never seen it. I have and while I can only speak for the School I attended, while there were some that did well, I am confident they could have done better had they not been in an environment where there were those who a) couldn't be @rsed or were disruptive and b) who were much slower than the rest. The level of attainment speaks for itself so perhaps you can explain why you believe

. You’ve never answered my question how would you have held back talented pupils if you are as dim as you claim and you were in the same room as them - and if it is all a matter of aspiration how did your son manage to get out of the quagmire of his secondary school where they all stood around trying to impress girls?

I never claimed to being ‘dim’ and don’t believe that I am but then, as with talent, we all have our own interpretation as to how it is attributed or applied. As for your question, I have answered it, read paragraph 5 1ten times so that you don’t forget. I don’t believe I stated that” it was all a matter of aspiration” or that my son (unlike my experience), had experienced a quagmire. As I already explained to you but again, you disregard I wrote, “As for my son, he took and passed 7 GCSEs at his Secondary School,his results were considered well above average for that particular School but he struggled with the workload, his contemporaries at the Grammar School he now attends took 11 GCSE examinations; contrast that workload with the 3 A-levels (which he adds is much greater at Grammar than at sixth form with his older School). It’s a fact of life that some will find academic work much easier than others and are more suited to it.

I can’t prove it but everywhere in life people manage to develop their talents – they change jobs or do evening classes – my beef with the 11+ is that it postpones or stunts the development of talent

Anybody CAN develop skills, whether they become talented or not is dependent on a number of factors, some are naturally talented, some have aspirations that mean they would like to do something but unfortunately however much they try, are unable to realise those aspirations. We can all learn new skills but at a pace or speed more suited to ability, which is exactly why we have the 11+. It aims to separate those with an above average IQ and allow them to develop academic achievement at a pace and within such subjects that are widely considered attainable for that level of student.

how many married men in their twenties are going to learn languages or study history they never learnt at secondary modern school while they are worrying about the wife and kids?

Although I will likely incur further prevarication of self congratulation, nevertheless, I did exactly that; I went to College and studied something I believed I was good at rather than what I wanted, I didn’t claim any benefits, I lived from a part-time job working two evenings a week and weekends, i’m sure there are many who did the same, again, when one is out of School, one can find time to develop skills but not necessarily in subjects that we have aspirations for.

Tell us just how kids with talents (let’s assume for a little while that the word exists because it means something) are actually ‘… a means where academically gifted children can reach their full potential.

“Source DirectGOV
What 'gifted and talented' means
'Gifted and talented' describes children and young people with an ability to develop to a level significantly ahead of their year group (or with the potential to develop those abilities):

•'gifted' learners are those who have abilities in one or more academic subjects, like maths and English
•'talented' learners are those who have practical skills in areas like sport, music, design or creative and performing arts
Skills like leadership, decision-making and organisation are also taken into account when identifying and providing for gifted and talented children.
I don’t think you can teach a gift or indeed teach somebody to be talented.

Feb 12) or how ‘… Grammar schools allow students to do, is for more academically minded children to pursue a more vigorous academic path than those whowould likely struggle’ (wayneo Sat 21 Jan 12). I DO acknowledge grammar schools get better results – I don’t see why children who do this could not do it equally well in a comprehensive school without disadvantaging 60-70% 0f the rest of their age group.

It is a generalisation to suggest that all 60%-70% are disadvantaged besides, how would a Grammar School CONFER a disadvantage, you haven’t provided any evidence (other than acknowledging their success), that Grammar Schools receive better funding, teaching, resources or support than Secondary Schools. Again, I don’t think the problem is with selective education or Grammar Schools, I think having a time-constrained, one-size fits all focus towards an academic education rather than allowing more time or more vocational choice is primarily to blame. Labour’s idea of University for all or that unless one has a degree they aren’t of any worth is what is creating a disadvantage to children. There are some excellent qualifications and apprenticeships that are offered to youngsters that are often overlooked or disregarded because a degree is considered the be all and end all regarding attainment. Rather than concentrating on the perceived unfairness of Grammar Schools, I think it better that time was applied to resolving some of the issues with Education system as a whole.

He was ‘considered well above average’ but he failed his 11+ -

He was considered above average at the School he was in yes, that doesn’t mean his IQ was above average does it?

maybe his contemporaries at grammar school were struggling as well

If, as you suggest, there are Children who somehow passed the 11+ because they were ‘coached’, then I daresay there are yes.

as I said earlier it sounds as if your son was not stretched at his school – do you think he would have struggled at a grammar school

I think he stretched himself, working more hours than I would have liked or would have encouraged in the evenings etc but that was his choice. I have had conversations with him about it and he freely admits that the workload and expectation would likely have been a struggle for him, ultimately though, he has taken A level subjects that he both enjoys and subsequently did well in at GCSE.

if he had swapped places with some kid of similar ability would the other kid have struggled while your son coped – would your son and the imaginary kid have been unable to succeed at a comprehensive school?

I really couldn’t say, I think he has the potential to do very well in his chosen subjects but had to work above and beyond on the subjects he wasn’t shall we say have a natural flair or interest in.

(Andrew Dilnot, Lord Plant, Carwyn Jones and Stephen Hester seem to have managed rather well.)

.

Andrew Dilnot, Olchfa School Swansea, 2000 pupils, school attainment rate @5GCSE A*-C = 72%

!One teacher’s comments on linkedin “Teaching History in a secondary school (Olchfa) in Wales. Interested in how technology can help break the current 'industrial' school system and move us towards Free Range Learning

Lord Plant. Havelock School Grimsby,

, previously a Grammar which is when Lord Havelock attended the School he received his degree in 1966), in 1968 Havelock became a Comprehensive and more recently an academy

!Carwyn Jones, Brynteg Comp which became a comp in 1971

, one person to note since 1971, now look at the illumni for Bridgend Grammar School for Boys school (which having merged Heol Gam Secondary Modern, became Brynteg). Bridgend Grammar School for Boys: Prof Edward Abel CBE, Professor of Inorganic Chemistry at the University of Exeter from 1972-97, and President of the Royal Society of Chemistry from 1996-8,Prof Michael Brown, Vice-Chancellor of Liverpool John Moores University since 2000,Robert Minhinnick, poet,Prof Gareth Morris CBE, Professor of Microbiology at Aberystwyth University from 1971-2000, Prof David Thomas, Professor of Geography at the University of Birmingham from 1978-95, John V. Tucker, computer scientist, G. Wyn Rees, Solicitor and Judge
!

Stephen Hester, Easingwold School and son of a University Professor.

Easingwold School, despite being rated as one of the finest schools in North Yorkshire, Ofsted rating, average,

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
(I must say that standing around trying to impress young women is a life style many of us can only aspire to - but now I must go to bed.)

Maybe, but just not when people are trying to learn.

In reply to your post of 4:40pm Thu 9 Feb 12
(‘…….’ = start of your comment, including my original remark that you are replying to and ‘?’ = start of my reply to your comment)
Dear wayneo I started to write a long reply to all this stuff in which I was going, using your own words, to illustrate the ‘development’ of your ‘arguments If they're available and have been answered then what's stopping you from summarising them?
/
It would take so long and would be a work of attack as they are so inconsistent – maybe I will do it just for the laugh.
…….
from the early days of 20 January when you were complimenting yourself and your son on your courage in picking yourself up and getting on with life after failing the 11+, while saying the 11+ measured academic ability, and calling opponents of academic selection at age 11 ‘whining sh!ts’ class warriors and Marxist
…….
There wasn't any self congratulation or self compliment at all, my point, as opposed to your shoddy insinuations, is that there are people who because they don't get what they want, assume or apply blame for their predicament to others. Little Johnny doesn't pass the test so it must be because of well off people can afford to tutor their children or because they are cheating, aawwwh, pass me a violin then let's scrap the whole lot because Johnny's parents can't accept the fact that their child simply wasn't good enough to pass the test. Well let him do something he IS good at.
/
I’ve explained before why there WAS a considerable tone of self-congratulation in your early replies. A lot of people who oppose the 11+ have passed it or gone to secondary education without having to take it in comprehensive schools. One of the reasons I did not summarise all of what you have put up here before is that quite a bit of it is sarcastic snarling like this stuff, rather than reasoned argument for the practice of selection at 10 or 11, and to have summarised it would have involved me in sarcastic ripostes against some of the things you have said.
Also for God’s sake stop saying I ‘insinuate’ things – according to the OED insinuate means, ‘To introduce tortuously, sinuously, indirectly, or by devious methods; to introduce by imperceptible degrees or subtle means....’ I have hardly done hat - everything I have wanted to say I hope I have said directly and clearly.
…….
you cherry pick facts which you think back up your argument and say the 11+ is to do with ‘pace
Perhaps you should look to your own obsessive behaviour with respect to Ivor before you use ‘cherry picking’ as a slant against somebody who doesn’t happen to agree with you. Isn't that what the authors of the Sutton report do? extract statistics without actually having experienced that which they write about?
/
I fail to see the connection between cherry picking and what you call ‘obsessive behaviour with respect to ivor’ – if my behaviour IS obsessional (and I think it is not) then how does that disqualify me from accusing you of cherry picking? The OED defines cherry picking as, ‘To choose selectively (the most beneficial or profitable items, opportunities, etc’ – in your case to choose facts selectively. And you DO cherry pick - there are dozens of facts in the Sutton Trust report which do not support your case but you chose one fact which you believed (mistakenly in my view) did support you.
…….
Besides, we all cherry-pick to a certain extent, you might like to lead by example and summarise an entire 60 page report into a paragraph before you criticise one of cherry-picking.
/
I’ve wasted a lot of time on you already – often answering questions already answered - and would say that I have already summarised the important facts – there are 30 countries referred to in the Sutton Trust report and you mention the practice of one only – the State of Victoria. What would I be ‘leading’ people to ‘by example’ and what would people learn if I summarised a sixty page report – what is the relevance of the way children are educated in Holland for instance?
…….
You have tried to confuse this into an argument about defining ‘talent’ before
No, it’s not confusing to ask you how you define TALENT, YOU, claim that talent is being wasted because of selection, therefore, you must have an idea as to not only what talent is being wasted ,your measure of talent is unlikely to be the same as others, as we have already established,
/
You brought in earlier a complete red herring – the idea of ‘vocational’ talent and the idea that there should be training for people with that kind of ‘talent’ – this may be reasonable but has nothing to do with the 11+- or do you suppose it ‘selects’ bright children because it is able to spot vocational talent?
…….
if talent, as with IQ, is measurable and from that an average is applied,
/
What does that MEAN wayneo?
…….
then WHY would you not allow those with above average 'talent' or IQ to excel, why would you advocate holding them back and thus wasting the talent?
/
I have no objection to anyone, including those of above average talent, ‘excelling’ – I just don’t think they do so under the present system – a lot of excellent talent is wasted while a minority of (undoubted) talent is hothoused.
…….
earlier you said, when this controversy started some weeks ago and you were still in your heroic mode saying things like ‘My son failed his 11 plus (as did I), he didn't whine, he didn't moan he got on with it. He went to a secondary school, done very well and for his A levels he EARNED a place at a Grammar School where he although bloddy hard work, is doing well. No private tutoring, no special treatment just hard work and determination.’ (‘wayneo’ 20 Jan) – at that time you justified the 11+ as it identified ‘academic level or ability’ - ‘I went to Secondary School, I did so because my academic level wasn't suited to Grammar, why should my ability at that time hold somebody else back? …’ You’ve never explained how your lack of academic ability would have held someone back –
Again, not quite sure why stating facts is deemed in Lawrence's world to be heroic, perhaps you could explain.
/
The explanation is that the ‘facts’ that you ‘state’ tend to show you and your son in a heroic light – undaunted by a setback and struggling on valiantly (see also my remarks above beginning, ‘I’ve explained before why there WAS a considerable tone of self-congratulation in your early replies.’)
…….
As I've explained twice now but that you continue to choose to ignore and unlike you, having BEEN to a Secondary School one learns at a pace of the slowest pupil, academically I struggled to achieve anything over what can be determined as average yet even in Secondary School, those that were above average, were constrained by those who didn't want to learn, or those who were below average academically.
/
So there WERE children ‘that were above average,’ – then why didn’t they pass the 11+? Also I haven’t ‘chosen’ to ignore your ‘explanation’ - you haven’t ‘explained’ why ‘one learns at a pace of the slowest pupil’. Presumably the ‘slowest’ people in each year’s intake would have been almost impossible to make learn – was everyone else unable to learn because those people were there – was everybody held back to their pace? You have given a personal impression of what you feel it was like at your school. Presumably there were streams based on ability in your secondary school so you didn’t learn at the pace of the most untalented and indolent child there – it is obviously possible to do this in a comprehensive school as well – which give ALL children the opportunity to excel – not just 11+ successes.
…….
It's a fact of life that we are not all equal, that we all have personal attributes and differing abilities that benefit us and society
/
That’s (very obviously) right – what has that got to do with the 11+ which lamentably fails to identify people on the basis of their talent?
…….
but that unfortunately, success in this Country is determined by academic ability rather than by (if we use the DirectGOV definition), talent and academic ability.
/
That’s right too – and the 11+ has long since been manipulated to ensure a majority of children are put a few laps behind in the race for success. (You’re preaching to the converted here in another way – I have post graduate degrees and I also took courses in hard landscaping and horticulture and some of the gardening and landscaping people that I met were good people and intelligent as well. They were not educated though as they had almost all failed their 11+. Some offered me jobs - though I’m not saying that is necessarily a sign of intelligence.)
…….
I don’t see why it should hold back a kid with talent It's not that you don't see, it's that you didn't see it because you wasn't there.
/
This is silly and it’s why I have not answered your questions about my own educational background – I didn’t see it because I wasn’t there so I HAVE to accept things on the say-so of wayne (and his son of course). (Why don’t you defend the 11+ on rational grounds instead of calling on your personal authority and that of your son?) You weren’t at a grammar school so you can’t say what goes on there – the Sutton Trust – which you quote when you think its findings agree with your views – is an independent educational research body but earlier you said they were (extracting) ‘statistics without actually having experienced that which they write about?’ Failing the 11+ seems to have put you in a position of unassailable authority in educational matters – rather like the Pope in matters of Catholic doctrine.
…….
Outside wayne’s world there are people I, and most people, I suspect, meet every day who failed the 11+ and are ‘talented’ in my and other people’s estimation I have no doubt there are many talented people but it's fallacious to suggest that because they have a talent, that they would able to cope with the demands of a Grammar School Education?
/
Why is it fallacious and how does that prove that the 11+ identifies people unsuited to a grammar school education?
(This brings me back to something I should have mentioned last time – you mention your son in your post of 5 February - you said,
‘As for my son, he took and passed 7 GCSEs at his Secondary School,his results were considered well above average for that particular School but he struggled with the workload, his contemporaries at the Grammar School he now attends took 11 GCSE examinations; contrast that workload with the 3 A-levels (which he adds is much greater at Grammar than at sixth form with his older School), even he admits he would have struggled to achieve 11 GCSEs which is nothing to be ashamed of.’
So the judgement of wayne’s son is being brought in here. Wayne’s son took seven GCSE’s with effort and his contemporaries at grammar school took eleven and ‘even he admits he would have struggled to achieve 11 GCSEs’ – seven GCSE’s is 63% of eleven GCSE’s – was this intellectual capacity accurately measured in advance by the 11+ and if he was only 63% as talented as his grammar school contemporaries at that age, how did he make up the extra 37% in the meantime – did you give him a fish-intensive diet to feed his brain between the ages of 11 and 17? Even then you say your son was ‘‘considered well above average’ – what about the others between the average and your son, or were there others who were more talented than your son? Why do so many bright children like your son fail the 11+? Don’t you see the absurdity of the claims you make for the 11+?)
very ‘talented’ – some of the most famous ones I have mentioned already. In the (much-despised by you) ‘Guardian’, (to the Guardian – wayneo’s bête noire) Andrew Dilnot, was the principal of St Hugh's College, Oxford, and pro vice-chancellor of the university and in November 2007 Lord Plant wrote a letter from King’s College Law School, London University referring to the fat that he had been master of St Catherine's College Oxford from 1994 to 2000 ‘and, having failed the 11-plus, I was educated at what was a secondary modern school but became a comprehensive while I was a pupil there. The Havelock school Grimsby gave me a lifeline after the 11-plus failure and I am eternally grateful to those who taught me there.’ I mention these two men because one of them actually failed the 11+ and then went on to achieve an almost unsurpassable success in academia while the other one went – like the head of the Welsh Assembly, First Minister Carwyn Jones, - to a comprehensive school before becoming a barrister and also Stephen Hester, the RBS CEO, who was in the news earlier this week, who went to a comprehensive school and had a first from Oxford. These are people who could not very well have achieved much greater eminence in their professions but either failed ‘selection’ or prospered under ‘one size fits all’ comprehensive education – Lord Plant in particular shows what a sham ‘selection’ is. These are four highly-prominent examples from the front pages or at least the pages of our press of the talented 11+ failures I was referring to.
…….
There will always be exceptions and I'm very pleased that there are, that the number of people you provide as examples can be counted on one hand, is hardly indicative of an unfair system , the examples you provide do not pose sufficient reasonable or logical grounds for effectively scrapping selective Education that consistently provides top class results.
/
You asked me for examples wayne (‘As for the woolly "look at the talented 11+ failures one sees", well who are they?’ – remember?) and I gave them to you – do you expect life histories of thousands of people – if you open your eyes you can SEE lots of ‘talented 11+ failures’ - these four I chose because they are outstanding proof of the idiocy of the claims you make for the 11+.) The top class results you refer to could be shared by a much larger percentage of our children than is the case with the artificially-limited numbers under 11+ ‘selection’. (By the way saying you’re ‘very pleased at the exceptions’ after doubting their existence looks like nothing so much as a politician saying to Jeremy Paxman, when Paxman has given them an unanswerable question, the words, ‘I’m very glad you asked me that Jeremy’.)
…….
In my post of 6.44 on Sunday I quoted your words’ ‘‘It is evident, with the consistency with examination grades, that selection based on what is an IQ is working and is widely acknowledged as such.’
and I replied ‘Fraid not wayneo – it’s NOT based on ‘an IQ’ and if it appears to be backed up by O and A level results later (I take it that’s what you mean) then that can be explained by the better training and higher aspirations grammar school children are the beneficiaries of.’

You have replied to my reply by saying, ‘No, Verbal reasoning skills aren't an establish method of measuring aptitude or IQ, many Employers don't use such tests in selecting candidates, don't of course even mention the Universities that use such tests.’ – I would say to you (apart from the fact that elsewhere you defend the 11+ on the grounds that it assesses pupils for ‘pace’ or maturity rather than intellectual potential – you know NOT like an IQ test) what does your reply MEAN?
My reply was a rather unfortunate attempt at sarcasm,which after having read through later tried to correct, it should be read that many organisations continue to use IQ tests as form of selection.
/
I cannot think of any organisations that use IQ tests – usually they use educational qualifications – and that puts children who are educated in grammar schools at an advantage.
You have also haven’t as yet, provided any evidence that Grammar School Children receive better training or have higher aspirations.
/
‘Wayne’ has littered this correspondence with statements about the superior results achieved by grammar school pupils – if the training is no better and the aspirations the same then what is the purpose of grammar schools and ‘selection’ for them? Why are so many secondary modern schools in this area ‘failing’ according to the Schools Inspectorate?
…….
I am saying no to the proposition ‘that selection based on what is an IQ is working’ and you are saying no to that rather than yes because ‘Verbal reasoning skills aren't an establish method of measuring aptitude or IQ,’
/
(You were talking above about my vagueness – quite a few of your own posts are vague – like this one – to the point of borderline incoherence – I have not mentioned this before as I don’t want to seem condescending - sometimes your meaning can be guessed but sometimes not – I take it when you said above on Thursday last, ‘If it were so indefensible then why do you fell (sic) the need to defend it?’ that you meant to say something else and did not mean to accuse me of defending the 11+?)
In addition to the previous paragraph, I am aware of many of my faults and I accept them, I wish others would do the same.
…….
No and yes – no that’s not what I said – to me it is a mixture of very rough selection and aspirations - yes – what else do you mean when you say ‘All Grammar Schools do, is offer students a different learning pace’. I don’t know whether they have brand new text books or not – that seems a bit of a silly thing to say wayneo - as I pointed out to your alter ego ‘Blueberry’ two years ago they also offer a different syllabus and if you look at O and A level results they must be giving something better to their pupils in the form of tuition – that’s why parents coach their children to pass the 11+.
I don't know who Blueberry is. I would imagine ( though not having not been to Grammar School), that the GCSE and A level results are better because the children are better able at achieving their academic potential by learning at a more rigorous pace than contemporary students from Secondary Schools, that's the purpose of selection and the results certainly indicate that the process works.
‘I would imagine ( though not having not been to Grammar School), that the GCSE and A level results are better because the children are better able at achieving their academic potential by learning at a more rigorous pace than contemporary students from Secondary Schools, that's the purpose of selection and the results certainly indicate that the process works. ‘
/
WHY do you imagine that – you seem to attribute almost supernatural powers to the judging capabilities of the 11+?.
…….
Aspirations AREN’T entirely ‘personal attributes’ – they are something someone learns from the society one is in – that’s what military training does to the immature and that’s why I think that a school where it is ‘cool’ to be clever and successful academically gives such aspirations to its pupils. (You mention above a negative ‘… general ethos of, it was square to be be academically successful.’)
I’m sure, other than commenting on La Boudin or the Coldstream Guards, that you have actually experienced Military training in order to make such a comment, or, is it like your experience of Secondary School, that being from what you read or hear from others?
/
I don’t remember referring to Boudin or the Coldstream Guards – PLEASE explain as this is BAFFLING but in any case I am going on comments I heard many times as a younger man from National Service men – they made remarks along the lines of ‘National Service showed me what I was CAPABLE of doing’ and that it made them grow up. When I was a student I had to produce an essay a week and at first I did not believe I could do it – after I had managed it with great difficulty once or twice I got better and better at it and grew more confident in my own abilities. I was being forced to grow. This applies to most experiences in life – we develop and grow up as time goes by (in the majority of cases).
…….
One can have an aspiration for others but either way it is a DESIRE to do something so therefore IS a personal attribute; any goals or desires applied to others cannot be construed as being aspirations unless they themselves share in those aspirations.
/
The first part of that sentence doesn’t really make sense but personal aspiration is something you adopt from your surroundings – it is part of an ethos and people who are put into a school of the type you say you went to are not being given a chance to share in an ethos of curiosity and learning.
…….
Read what I have written above. I have and it doesn't make sense.
/
What I had written above was a reply to your paragraph beginning with the words, ‘I don't see how lumping all 'talents' as you put it, into one melting pot, will ever allow a 'talent' to develop;’ …….
I said, ‘ Funny that - elsewhere you say schools are much of a muchness as if it didn’t make that much difference which one you went to.’
…….
Would you mind being clearer?
/
This is a reference to your remarks on Sat 21 Jan 12, ‘… clever men and women as you put it, will find their own potential, they don't need degrees, they don't need examinations, they find their own way in life, being clever, is not always determined by academic ability alone’ and on Sun 29 Jan 12, ‘All schools are a mixed bag in my opinion’.
…….
I don’t see why it should hold back a kid with talent unless you imagine there is no half way point in a comprehensive school between little gentlemen being brainy and chaotic zoos Again, you don't see because you have never seen it. I have and while I can only speak for the School I attended, while there were some that did well, I am confident they could have done better had they not been in an environment where there were those who a) couldn't be @rsed or were disruptive and b) who were much slower than the rest. The level of attainment speaks for itself so perhaps you can explain why you believe
/
Why I believe WHAT wayneo – don’t you READ these things to see that they make sense before you press the ‘submit’ button? Also you are ‘confident’ based on your experience of the school you attended – THAT’S a powerful argument! Surel the ones that ‘did well’ would have ‘done better’ in a comprehensive school environment?
…….
. You’ve never answered my question how would you have held back talented pupils if you are as dim as you claim and you were in the same room as them - and if it is all a matter of aspiration how did your son manage to get out of the quagmire of his secondary school where they all stood around trying to impress girls? I never claimed to being ‘dim’ and don’t believe that I am but then, as with talent, we all have our own interpretation as to how it is attributed or applied. As for your question, I have answered it, read paragraph 5 1ten times so that you don’t forget. I don’t believe I stated that” it was all a matter of aspiration” or that my son (unlike my experience), had experienced a quagmire. As I already explained to you but again, you disregard I wrote, “As for my son, he took and passed 7 GCSEs at his Secondary School,his results were considered well above average for that particular School but he struggled with the workload, his contemporaries at the Grammar School he now attends took 11 GCSE examinations; contrast that workload with the 3 A-levels (which he adds is much greater at Grammar than at sixth form with his older School). It’s a fact of life that some will find academic work much easier than others and are more suited to it.
/
If I got the right bit then the relevant part of paragraph five, ‘I don’t see why it should hold back a kid with talent It's not that you don't see, it's that you didn't see it because you wasn't there’ is not exactly a baffling reply to my question, as I explained above. As you say you have already trotted out an ‘explanation’ of the performance of your son and his contemporaries at 11+ and A level – what you said before and on other occasions is not an explanation of why a supposedly intelligent boy could fail the 11+ and then do A levels any more than your ‘explanation’ of why an 11+ success should be held back because there are lazy and immature boys at his comprehensive school – do you think there are no lazy and immature children at grammar schools?
…….
I can’t prove it but everywhere in life people manage to develop their talents – they change jobs or do evening classes – my beef with the 11+ is that it postpones or stunts the development of talent
Anybody CAN develop skills, whether they become talented or not is dependent on a number of factors, some are naturally talented, some have aspirations that mean they would like to do something but unfortunately however much they try, are unable to realise those aspirations. We can all learn new skills but at a pace or speed more suited to ability, which is exactly why we have the 11+.
/
Ha! Back to the ‘pace’ argument – ‘which is exactly why we have the 11+’ - never envisaged when the 11+ was first introduced and very popular in recent years – it’s a good idea – ‘pace’ suggests subtlety – you are not suggesting people’s kids are thick – they just learn at a slightly slower pace! I see you believe that people ‘develop skills’ and then can ‘become talented’ – surely all that we have said before suggests that talents are innate and as I said above the 11+ obviously does not spot talent with any degree of accuracy. Also if the end of secondary education is GCSE sittings and results – how do the two sets of schools work at a different ‘pace’ to get to the same goal at the same time of life?
…….
It aims to separate those with an above average IQ and allow them to develop academic achievement at a pace and within such subjects that are widely considered attainable for that level of student.
/
It AIMS to do that but it DOESN’T. Why is there such a wide disparity between A and O level results between grammar and secondary modern schools – do you think that the bottom layer of talent at grammar schools is thirty odd percentage points more clever than the top layer of talent in secondary moderns? And, as I just said why do they arrive at the age of eighteen doing GCSE O and A levels – identical exams and in the same subjects if they have supposedly been travelling at different paces with different talent after being sorted with SCRUPULOUS accuracy by the 11+? And what does ‘at a pace and within such subjects that are widely considered attainable for that level of student’ mean and who widely considers those subjects attainable and as I just said they are the same subjects in grammar and secondary modern so they must be widely considered somewhere to be attainable by both groups?
…….
how many married men in their twenties are going to learn languages or study history they never learnt at secondary modern school while they are worrying about the wife and kids?
Although I will likely incur further prevarication of self congratulation, nevertheless, I did exactly that; I went to College and studied something I believed I was good at rather than what I wanted, I didn’t claim any benefits, I lived from a part-time job working two evenings a week and weekends, i’m sure there are many who did the same, again, when one is out of School, one can find time to develop skills but not necessarily in subjects that we have aspirations for.
/
If you are making any kind of argument by telling us of your experiences then I think you are arguing on my behalf without realising it again – if you were bright enough to have, ‘studied something I believed I was good at rather than what I wanted,’ (whatever that means) then surely you could have done it at school – and how many grammar school pupils have to wait until they leave school to do this – or have they had the opportunity to go straight to university and then perhaps undertake professional training?
No doubt a lot of people DO go to classes part-time when they leave school but that this is not the same as passing the 11+ and going straight to university or professional training. Also if you look at school websites on the Internet the choice of subjects is different – grammar schools concentrate on the arts and sciences secondary moserns on sport and vocational subjects shaping children’s futures regardless of their natural talents and predilections – why do you think parents have their children coached to the 11+ - it’s to improve their adult life? Beside this many people simply don’t go to classes part-time when they leave school for the reasons I mentioned – they have missed the opportunity before the age of 18 and are getting on with a later stage of their life.
(This part of your reply is very strange wayne – I think you mean ‘accusation’ when you say ‘prevarication’ and what the hell is the relevance of studying ‘something I believed I was good at rather than what I wanted’ or ‘skills’ being ‘not necessarily in subjects that we have aspirations for’?)
…….
Tell us just how kids with talents (let’s assume for a little while that the word exists because it means something) are actually ‘… a means where academically gifted children can reach their full potential.
“Source DirectGOV
What 'gifted and talented' means
'Gifted and talented' describes children and young people with an ability to develop to a level significantly ahead of their year group (or with the potential to develop those abilities):

•'gifted' learners are those who have abilities in one or more academic subjects, like maths and English
•'talented' learners are those who have practical skills in areas like sport, music, design or creative and performing arts
Skills like leadership, decision-making and organisation are also taken into account when identifying and providing for gifted and talented children.
I don’t think you can teach a gift or indeed teach somebody to be talented.
Feb 12) or how ‘… Grammar schools allow students to do, is for more academically minded children to pursue a more vigorous academic path than those whowould likely struggle’ (wayneo Sat 21 Jan 12). I DO acknowledge grammar schools get better results – I don’t see why children who do this could not do it equally well in a comprehensive school without disadvantaging 60-70% 0f the rest of their age group.
It is a generalisation to suggest that all 60%-70% are disadvantaged besides, how would a Grammar School CONFER a disadvantage, you haven’t provided any evidence (other than acknowledging their success), that Grammar Schools receive better funding, teaching, resources or support than Secondary Schools.
/
It would CONFER a disadvantage by giving a superior form of education to its own pupils and abandoning other schools’ pupils to an inferior sort – if this is not the case and they don’t have any advantage then why do grammar schools get near-perfect percentile performances at important GCSE subjects and why do we have so many ‘failing’ secondary moderns but no ‘failing’ grammar schools – they don’t have failing comprehensive schools everywhere in adjoining counties the way we have failing secondary modern schools?
…….
Again, I don’t think the problem is with selective education or Grammar Schools, I think having a time-constrained, one-size fits all focus towards an academic education rather than allowing more time or more vocational choice is primarily to blame.
/
What is the ‘problem’ you are referring to – the disparity between academic achievement in grammar schools and secondary modern schools? If so then ‘one size fits all’ (stupid phrase taken from the clothing industry to confuse matters) does not exist in Bucks – we have that exceptionally fine-tuned device for measuring either IQ, or maturity or ‘pace’ – the11+ examination - just as kids hit ten or eleven - so this situation doesn’t arise here – what is the ‘problem’ to which you refer?
…….
Labour’s idea of University for all or that unless one has a degree they aren’t of any worth is what is creating a disadvantage to children.
/
Earlier you referred to class war and accused people like me of being Marxist and suggested Mike Appleyard wasn’t really a Conservative – are you sure YOU don’t have a political agenda here wayneo – you are making insider-sounding comments about Conservative support for (reputedly maverick) European MP Daniel Hannan? (See, http://www.bucksfree
press.co.uk/news/952
6272.Tory_Euro_MP__H
igh_Speed_2_will_tra
mple_Sir_John_Hampde
n_s_legacy/) When did Labour say it had an ‘idea of University for all or that unless one has a degree they aren’t of any worth’? The last Labour government in its early stages DID attempt to extend greatly access to university but it was not because they thought non-graduates were worthless – it was supposedly part of a scheme to make us British a more skilled workforce if I remember aright.
…….
There are some excellent qualifications and apprenticeships that are offered to youngsters that are often overlooked or disregarded because a degree is considered the be all and end all regarding attainment. Rather than concentrating on the perceived unfairness of Grammar Schools, I think it better that time was applied to resolving some of the issues with Education system as a whole.
/
As I said earlier I have taken vocational courses and I think you have a valid point when you endorse the worth of such courses and the work they train you for however a degree (as I pointed out some weeks ago) IS vitally important in real life if you can get one and you require good grade A levels for that - if someone fails their 11+ they are going to be at a disadvantage in comparison with someone who does not – the 11+ has nothing to do with ‘qualifications and apprenticeships’ and is an enduring injustice to no point for the 60-70% of children who fail the 11+.
…….
He was ‘considered well above average’ but he failed his 11+ -
He was considered above average at the School he was in yes, that doesn’t mean his IQ was above average does it?
/
Crafty one this but it suggests students like your son at grammar school are not necessarily of above average IQ – oh yes – the ‘pace’ argument comes in here. Also see my comments earlier about percentages of intelligence and fish diets, and if he was able to compete with 11+ successes at age 18, then presumably he was above average along with the grammar school boys who had passed their 11+ - or were these 11+ successes also not above average in spite of what you said earlier on about the 11+ being an IQ test?
…….
maybe his contemporaries at grammar school were struggling as well
If, as you suggest, there are Children who somehow passed the 11+ because they were ‘coached’, then I daresay there are yes.
/
I ‘somehow’ think you know that’s not what I meant - maybe they were struggling in the manner described earlier, as it was new and hard work – nothing is worth winning without a struggle – it doesn’t mean they were coached in advance – merely that they were being forced to develop their potential. If they WERE coached in advance then this is another argument for the abolition of the 11+.
…….
as I said earlier it sounds as if your son was not stretched at his school – do you think he would have struggled at a grammar school
I think he stretched himself, working more hours than I would have liked or would have encouraged in the evenings etc but that was his choice. I have had conversations with him about it and he freely admits that the workload and expectation would likely have been a struggle for him, ultimately though, he has taken A level subjects that he both enjoys and subsequently did well in at GCSE.
/
So he would probably have struggled and succeeded at grammar school if he had passed the 11+.
…….
if he had swapped places with some kid of similar ability would the other kid have struggled while your son coped – would your son and the imaginary kid have been unable to succeed at a comprehensive school?
I really couldn’t say, I think he has the potential to do very well in his chosen subjects but had to work above and beyond on the subjects he wasn’t shall we say have a natural flair or interest in.
/
Obviously I can’t really say either but most people have to work above and beyond at times, and your son and the imaginary kid would equally have had to do that at a comprehensive school before succeeding .
…….
(Andrew Dilnot, Lord Plant, Carwyn Jones and Stephen Hester seem to have managed rather well.)
.Andrew Dilnot, Olchfa School Swansea, 2000 pupils, school attainment rate @5GCSE A*-C = 72%
/
That is probbsaly because they are taking ALL the children locally and not creaming off the top 30% and then coaching them towards O and A level like a grammar school.
…….
!One teacher’s comments on linkedin “Teaching History in a secondary school (Olchfa) in Wales. Interested in how technology can help break the current 'industrial' school system and move us towards Free Range Learning
/
An interesting comment I suppose but whathas it to do with 11+ selection in this county or the debate about ‘selection’?
…….
Lord Plant. Havelock School Grimsby, , previously a Grammar which is when Lord Havelock attended the School he received his degree in 1966), in 1968 Havelock became a Comprehensive and more recently an academy
/
1 At first my reply to this was as follows,
‘Wayne what you say appears to be true – however he DOES say in the Guardian the stuff I quoted earlier, ‘having failed the 11-plus, I was educated at what was a secondary modern school but became a comprehensive while I was a pupil there. The Havelock school Grimsby gave me a lifeline after the 11-plus failure’ so he DID in any case fail the 11+ and achieve tremendous academic distinction – I can’t understand the disparity between what you say and what he says so I will look into this further. As I said though you appear at the moment to be right.’
2 I then thought it was a funny old world where wayneo knew more about Lord Plant’s life than Lord Plant himself did. So I emailed Lord Plant my comment and your reply at London University and he emailed me a reply in which he said,
‘When I went to Havelock School in 1956 … there were what were called grammar streams and secondary modern streams within the same school. … Because of this hybrid nature it was definitely not a grammar school … Having failed the 11 plus I went into 1 A that is the first year top secondary modern class … it would be quite wrong to call it a grammar school but it's organisation whatever one calls it provided me with an opportunity which otherwise I would not have’
Best wishes
Raymond Plant

…….

!Carwyn Jones, Brynteg Comp which became a comp in 1971, one person to note since 1971, now look at the illumni for Bridgend Grammar School for Boys school (which having merged Heol Gam Secondary Modern, became Brynteg). Bridgend Grammar School for Boys: Prof Edward Abel CBE, Professor of Inorganic Chemistry at the University of Exeter from 1972-97, and President of the Royal Society of Chemistry from 1996-8,Prof Michael Brown, Vice-Chancellor of Liverpool John Moores University since 2000,Robert Minhinnick, poet,Prof Gareth Morris CBE, Professor of Microbiology at Aberystwyth University from 1971-2000, Prof David Thomas, Professor of Geography at the University of Birmingham from 1978-95, John V. Tucker, computer scientist, G. Wyn Rees, Solicitor and Judge
/
Bit dodgy here too wayne - if you look under ‘People educated at Brynteg Comprehensive School’ on the school website there is a list of twenty-four people who have achieved eminence in various walks of life in this country including,
Professor Michael Brown CBE was the Vice-Chancellor of Liverpool John Moores University in Liverpool
Keith Burnett CBE FRS is the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sheffield. politician, who has represented the constituency of Ogmore since the National Assembly for Wales was established in 1999.
They also have ex-students eminent in national sport.
…….
Stephen Hester, Easingwold School and son of a University Professor.
Easingwold School, despite being rated as one of the finest schools in North Yorkshire, Ofsted rating average.
/
It looks as if you are arguing my case once again.
It’s interesting that a man like Professor Ron Hester should feel happy sending his son Stephen to a comprehensive school, or do you know something he doesn’t? The Scotsman calls Hester’s parents, ‘… sufficiently GROUNDED to have decided to dispatch their precocious son to Easingwold Comprehensive in North Yorkshire’ – are you just less grounded? Their judgement must be fairly sound if he eventually got a first at Oxford and has become a millionaire as well as a distinguished amateur scientist.
According to Wikipedia,
‘Easingwold School is a mixed, comprehensive 11-18 school in Easingwold, North Yorkshire, England. The school has specialist Language College status and has approximately 1,500 students, including the Sixth Form, located on site.’
Your statement that Easingwold School is judged ‘average’ by Ofsted also seems a bit dodgy wayneo.
The latest Ofsted report I found on the net admittedly was for 2001. (Can you give me a reference for the one where you found the word ‘average’?) The Ofsted report I saw runs to 59 pages and I have searched it (digitally) for the word ‘average’ which you quoted and this word occurs numerous times - always in phrases like ‘Results in AVCE, AS- and A-level examinations in 2001 are above average’ or ‘The average points scored in AVCE, AS- and A-level examinations in 2001 are above national averages,’ (both page 27).

On page 15 ‘PART B: COMMENTARY the report describes, WHAT THE SCHOOL DOES WELL’. What it does well goes on for more than two pages and the report says, ‘Standards are well above average and achievement is very good.’

Also ‘Teaching and learning are good.’ ‘Pupils’ attitudes, behaviour and personal development are very good’, and ‘Leadership provides a clear educational direction towards high academic standards’. What it does well includes provision for children who in wayne’s words are more vocational, ‘The Challenge Award scheme programme is very well planned to be relevant to the needs of lower attaining pupils in Years 10 and 11, and gives them very useful experience of the world and the skills needed to cope’
‘WHAT COULD BE IMPROVED’ takes up half a page and says (page 18)
Sixth form attendance is not accurately recorded.

The sixth form curriculum is not as good as it could be. (Nevertheless the critiscisms are not serious.)

Also it meets wayneo’s requirements, ‘The sixth form curriculum offers a wide range of AS- and A-level courses, and an adequate number of vocational courses to complement what is available locally.’

It continues, ‘However, the allocation of time to all subjects is below the recommended minimum for sixth form courses, and further mathematics is given only one lesson.

Some areas of the school’s work are not adequately managed.

The school does not meet statutory requirements for religious education in the sixth
form, or for a daily act of worship.
Standards in individual subjecst and in the sixth form are listed,
In the sixth form ‘Results in AVCE, AS- and A-level examinations in 2001 are above average.’ ‘The average points scored in AVCE, AS- and A-level examinations in 2001 are above national averages,’

Their only area of weakness appears to be in maths as mentioned above (page 17) however, ‘Mathematics Overall, the quality of provision in mathematics is very good.’ (page 38)

It was obvious from an early stage that you were a dogmatically opinionated individual wayne. I listed Hester and the other people in response to a question by you, ‘… the talented 11+ failures one sees", well who are they?’ – remember? and your response to this part of my reply has gone from dogmatic to misleading unless you have found a more recent Ofsted report that lists the result of ten years of gradual decline. The reason I listed these people in the first place, apart from your request, was that they are typical of people I meet every week and the extreme nature of their talent and achievement shows how many other people who are much cleverer than average must fall through the net of 11+ selection. I suggest you read the Ofsted report on Easingwold – it describes a very good school that caters for all local children in what must be a very pleasant environment in terms of landscape as well as school ethos – our schools could be like that as well instead of middle class ghettoes or failing secondary moderns.

Soon – when I have some more time - I shall post on here listing all your nonsensical contradictory justifcations of the 11+and ask which is correct.

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
(I must say that standing around trying to impress young women is a life style many of us can only aspire to - but now I must go to bed.)

Maybe, but just not when people are trying to learn.

It was intended humorously and was posted in case 1 anyone is reading this and 2 they have a sense of humour.

I’ve explained before why there WAS a considerable tone of self-congratulation in your early replies. A lot of people who oppose the 11+ have passed it or gone to secondary education without having to take it in comprehensive schools. One of the reasons I did not summarise all of what you have put up here before is that quite a bit of it is sarcastic snarling like this stuff, rather than reasoned argument for the practice of selection at 10 or 11, and to have summarised it would have involved me in sarcastic ripostes against some of the things you have said.
Also for God’s sake stop saying I ‘insinuate’ things – according to the OED insinuate means, ‘To introduce tortuously, sinuously, indirectly, or by devious methods; to introduce by imperceptible degrees or subtle means....’ I have hardly done hat - everything I have wanted to say I hope I have said directly and clearly.

I disagree, explaining oneself does not mean one is being self congratulatory, as for my use of 'insinuation', no, I don't think I will stop using it, I think the word is applicable which is why I use it in the first place.

I fail to see the connection between cherry picking and what you call ‘obsessive behaviour with respect to ivor’ – if my behaviour IS obsessional (and I think it is not) then how does that disqualify me from accusing you of cherry picking?
The OED defines cherry picking as, ‘To choose selectively (the most beneficial or profitable items, opportunities, etc’ – in your case to choose facts selectively.

The pattern of behaviour you extend towards Ivor is one of obsession, you might not agree however the OED definition of obsession is " an idea or thought that continually preoccupies or intrudes on a person’s mind", you cherry pick elements of Ivor's posts in order to attack him, I use parts of a 60 page report in order to provides examples or facts that support my case as do you. You still haven't answered how one would manage to summarise a whole 60 page report on a comments thread.
And you DO cherry pick - there are dozens of facts in the Sutton Trust report which do not support your case but you chose one fact which you believed (mistakenly in my view) did support you.

That it does support "my view" doesn't mean that it's not factual or that It can't be used to support my position, besides, I don't think the Sutton Trust report supports your view OR my view anyway. There are many reports that have been provided to the Sutton Trust and by many authors, I don't see the Sutton Trust as being exclusively against selection or pro comprehensive neither do many of the reports provide all of the answers. When one looks at some of the findings, I haven't yet found any suggestion that Grammar Schools aren't working only that the rest of the Education system clearly isn't, what is evident, is that the gap between State Education and private is growing ever the wider but less so with Grammar Schools.

I’ve wasted a lot of time on you already – often answering questions already answered - and would say that I have already summarised the important facts – there are 30 countries referred to in the Sutton Trust report and you mention the practice of one only – the State of Victoria. What would I be ‘leading’ people to ‘by example’ and what would people learn if I summarised a sixty page report – what is the relevance of the way children are educated in Holland for instance?
If you feel it is wasting your time or that you aren't interested THEN NOBODY IS FORCING YOU TO PARTICIPATE ARE THEY? I don't think you've explained alot at all., you haven't provided an explanation as to why, when selective education works for those that go to Grammar Schools, why it is in the best interests of those children to be lumped into a Comprensive system? You haven't explained how Grammar kids get a better education or indeed whether they are provided more resources. Furthermore, you bang on about "wasted talent" yet would be content to take kids who measurably do better out of the Grammar School system and lump them in together with abilities, how is that not wasting 'talent'?

You brought in earlier a complete red herring – the idea of ‘vocational’ talent and the idea that there should be training for people with that kind of ‘talent’ – this may be reasonable but has nothing to do with the 11+- or do you suppose it ‘selects’ bright children because it is able to spot vocational talent?

Let us refer back to DirectGov, it will be simpler for you to understand:
!
'gifted' learners are those who have abilities in one or more academic subjects, like maths and English, the 11+ aims to select those who would fit into this category.
!
'talented' learners are those who have practical skills in areas like sport, music, design or creative and performing arts.
!
It is here that I use the term more vocational skills than academic.
!
It has everything to do with the 11+ and selection, if you read Smithers final report he states:
!
"If it wants children to be grouped on educational merit, it should allow MORE academic selection.
!
While Smithers is not necessarily advocated a Grammar System per ce, I believe he is advocating more selection across the education system as a whole. The fact is, if one wants to harness 'talents' as you would put it, then you put those who are talented or gifted at something, together and enhance it, first however, that case they need to either display signs of having that talent or gift or be selected for those attributes.


I cannot think of any organisations that use IQ tests – usually they use educational qualifications – and that puts children who are educated in grammar schools at an advantage. .

That you cannot think hardly amounts to a determination of facts does it? As for "putting Grammar Schools at an advantage", that might be the case from a league table perspective but then you're actually admitting that selection works. I don't consider that those who having been selected and then go on to do well is a bad thing, if what are you suggesting, is that we scrap selection and restrict the abilities of those who would otherwise be elligible for a Grammar Place, in a misguided belief that other Schools will do better??? How does your holding 30-40% of students back help your cause of not wasting talent ???
Wayne’ has littered this correspondence with statements about the superior results achieved by grammar school pupils – if the training is no better and the aspirations the same then what is the purpose of grammar schools and ‘selection’ for them? Why are so many secondary modern schools in this area ‘failing’ according to the Schools Inspectorate?
You keep on banging on about aspirations, what makes you assume that children who don't go to Grammar School don't have aspirations or that higher aspirations are the preserve of being at a Grammar School????? The fact is, that Grammar Schools will take persons who pass selection and allow them to be in an environment that is deemed more suited to their ability, that those students continue to do well cannot merit an accusation of being the causation of non-selective Schools 'failing' ,or indeed doing poorly. One would have to look at the reasons WHY those Schools are obtaining poor results in the first place and there are many reasons, maybe the Schools aren't failing, that the children are reaching their potential and it is actally the curriculum that is failing the children; unless you can provide any evidence that Grammar Schools recieve better funding, more support etc than their contemporaries then your claims are frivolous.
Why I believe WHAT wayneo – don’t you READ these things to see that they make sense before you press the ‘submit’ button? Also you are ‘confident’ based on your experience of the school you attended – THAT’S a powerful argument! Surel the ones that ‘did well’ would have ‘done better’ in a comprehensive school environment?
It makes a more plausible argument my having attended a Secondary School and knowing what it was like rather than what I believe it to be. Why would they have done better in a Comprehensive School as opposed to a Secondary School and what is your evidence base to support such a claim?
If I got the right bit then the relevant part of paragraph five, ‘I don’t see why it should hold back a kid with talent It's not that you don't see, it's that you didn't see it because you wasn't there’ is not exactly a baffling reply to my question, as I explained above. As you say you have already trotted out an ‘explanation’ of the performance of your son and his contemporaries at 11+ and A level – what you said before and on other occasions is not an explanation of why a supposedly intelligent boy could fail the 11+ and then do A levels any more than your ‘explanation’ of why an 11+ success should be held back because there are lazy and immature boys at his comprehensive school – do you think there are no lazy and immature children at grammar schools?

I flly expect that there are lazy and immature children at Grammar Schools however the level of attainment and expectation is different, not only that, unlike Comprehensive Schools where the attainment gap of lower and higher levels is of 100% of the School population, Grammar School children being at the top 30 - 40% have much narrower levels of attainment as does Secondary Schools (Hope you got that). Again, my Son's undertaking A levels but in subjects he is good at and enjoys, had he of gone to Grammar School and taken 11 GCSEs rather than seven, then yes, he would have struggled, I don't know how many times I have to explain it to you.

It AIMS to do that but it DOESN’T. Why is there such a wide disparity between A and O level results between grammar and secondary modern schools – do you think that the bottom layer of talent at grammar schools is thirty odd percentage points more clever than the top layer of talent in secondary moderns?
The bottom layer of Grammar Schools compared to the top layer of Secondary Schools might well be roughly the same, the gap between the top layer of Grammar Schools compared to the bottom layer of Secondary Schools is much wider and is a good indication of why in my opinion, mixing all into one pot is a bad idea. What I'd rather see, is those at the bottom layer being provided with opportunties that they are more comfortable at and that might not even be on an academic scale.

As I said earlier I have taken vocational courses and I think you have a valid point when you endorse the worth of such courses and the work they train you for however a degree (as I pointed out some weeks ago) IS vitally important in real life if you can get one and you require good grade A levels for that - if someone fails their 11+ they are going to be at a disadvantage in comparison with someone who does not – the 11+ has nothing to do with ‘qualifications and apprenticeships’ and is an enduring injustice to no point for the 60-70% of children who fail the 11+.

I think a degree is vitally important but that too much enthesis has been attributed to gaining a degree, I expect it depends on whether we see degrees as the preserve of the academic or whether it can be attributed to more disciplines that historically were of a vocational nature.Some imployers say that degrees are being "watered down", that many students are opting for 'easier' course, then we have the like of JCB with their fantastic apprenticeship scheme/ academy who state that it is extremely important that a particular course carries an equivalent of 4 GCSEs. Again, i think the problem is that the entheis or measure of success is weighted heavily towards academic success rather than the more traditional trades or disciplines.

Crafty one this but it suggests students like your son at grammar school are not necessarily of above average IQ – oh yes – the ‘pace’ argument comes in here. Also see my comments earlier about percentages of intelligence and fish diets, and if he was able to compete with 11+ successes at age 18, then presumably he was above average along with the grammar school boys who had passed their 11+ - or were these 11+ successes also not above average in spite of what you said earlier on about the 11+ being an IQ test?

I would say and accept that having failed his 11+ that his IQ isn't above the average, I don't see why that would be a problem for anybody to acknowledge. What is pace? As for fish diets, I didn't read it and i'm not really sure that it would apply to all anyway. As for above average, his GCSE results were above average for the School he was at the time which was a Secondary, his predicted AS level results are slightly above the target that would have been predicted based on his previous GCSE results.
!
how’ think you know that’s not what I meant - maybe they were struggling in the manner described earlier, as it was new and hard work – nothing is worth winning without a struggle – it doesn’t mean they were coached in advance – merely that they were being forced to develop their potential. If they WERE coached in advance then this is another argument for the abolition of the 11+.

But I don't think one can be coached to pass such a test only in what is expected of the test.

So he would probably have struggled and succeeded at grammar school if he had passed the 11+.
NIt's hypothetical but i don't think so because he was undertaking that extra work for 7 GCSEs, not the 11 that Grammar Schools usually take.

Obviously I can’t really say either but most people have to work above and beyond at times, and your son and the imaginary kid would equally have had to do that at a comprehensive school before succeeding .

Maybe But could they do better being in an environment that caters more to their abilities?

That is probabally because they are taking ALL the children locally and not creaming off the top 30% and then coaching them towards O and A level like a grammar school.

Actually, I think 72% is very good but I think it masks just how the children at the lower end of the pile are being failed, at least with a Grammar School, which consistently obtains results in the 90s, it makes it easier at Secondary level to see where education is letting down youngsters, rather than breaking the good Schools, let's let's resolve the problems with the Schools that are failing and not mask them by massaging the results of the 'brighter' kids.

An interesting comment I suppose but whathas it to do with 11+ selection in this county or the debate about ‘selection’?

I think by free-range learning he is referring to choice and attributing ones skills with their capabilities.

At first my reply to this was as follows,
‘Wayne what you say appears to be true – however he DOES say in the Guardian the stuff I quoted earlier, ‘having failed the 11-plus, I was educated at what was a secondary modern school but became a comprehensive while I was a pupil there. The Havelock school Grimsby gave me a lifeline after the 11-plus failure’ so he DID in any case fail the 11+ and achieve tremendous academic distinction – I can’t understand the disparity between what you say and what he says so I will look into this further. As I said though you appear at the moment to be right.’
2 I then thought it was a funny old world where wayneo knew more about Lord Plant’s life than Lord Plant himself did. So I emailed Lord Plant my comment and your reply at London University and he emailed me a reply in which he said,
‘When I went to Havelock School in 1956 … there were what were called grammar streams and secondary modern streams within the same school. … Because of this hybrid nature it was definitely not a grammar school … Having failed the 11 plus I went into 1 A that is the first year top secondary modern class … it would be quite wrong to call it a grammar school but it's organisation whatever one calls it provided me with an opportunity which otherwise I would not have’
Best wishes
Raymond Plant


LOL, "it would be quite wrong to call it a Grammar School" except for the School itself calling itself a Grammar School, either way, I guess we were both right.
Bit dodgy here too wayne - if you look under ‘People educated at Brynteg Comprehensive School’ on the school website there is a list of twenty-four people who have achieved eminence in various walks of life in this country including,
Professor Michael Brown CBE was the Vice-Chancellor of Liverpool John Moores University in Liverpool
Keith Burnett CBE FRS is the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sheffield. politician, who has represented the constituency of Ogmore since the National Assembly for Wales was established in 1999.
They also have ex-students eminent in national sport.

II did see it but then sports has no relevance to the 11+, Prof Michael Brown was educated at Bridgend Grammar School for Boys which was precursor to Brynteg.

It looks as if you are arguing my case once again.
I don't think I've ever argued your case, your case for you, I don't think you have a case to answer.

It’s interesting that a man like Professor Ron Hester should feel happy sending his son Stephen to a comprehensive school
or do you know something he doesn’t? The Scotsman calls Hester’s parents, ‘… sufficiently GROUNDED to have decided to dispatch their precocious son to Easingwold Comprehensive in North Yorkshire’ – are you just less grounded?
Did he have a choice or are you merely quoting the opinion of a Journalist as to what's 'grounded'?

Their judgement must be fairly sound if he eventually got a first at Oxford and has become a millionaire as well as a distinguished amateur scientist.

And you accuse me of cherry picking! Yes, well done, you've picked but a handful of people out of thousands in order to substantiate your claim that the 11+ is all bad, that we should scrap Grammar Schools and educate everybody in Comprehensice Schools, marvellous Lawrence, your logic and reasoning is sound, dear oh dear.

According to Wikipedia,
‘Easingwold School is a mixed, comprehensive 11-18 school in Easingwold, North Yorkshire, England. The school has specialist Language College status and has approximately 1,500 students, including the Sixth Form, located on site.’
Your statement that Easingwold School is judged ‘average’ by Ofsted also seems a bit dodgy wayneo.
The latest Ofsted report I found on the net admittedly was for 2001. (Can you give me a reference for the one where you found the word ‘average’?)

Rather than post the whole report, The 2009 report overal says satisfactory, where 1 is Outstanding, 2 is good, 3 is satisfactory, 4 is inadequate, wikipedia stated average

The Ofsted report I saw runs to 59 pages and I have searched it (digitally) for the word ‘average’ which you quoted and this word occurs numerous times - always in phrases like ‘Results in AVCE, AS- and A-level examinations in 2001 are above average’ or ‘The average points scored in AVCE, AS- and A-level examinations in 2001 are above national averages,’ (both page 27).

On page 15 ‘PART B: COMMENTARY the report describes, WHAT THE SCHOOL DOES WELL’. What it does well goes on for more than two pages and the report says, ‘Standards are well above average and achievement is very good.’

Also ‘Teaching and learning are good.’ ‘Pupils’ attitudes, behaviour and personal development are very good’, and ‘Leadership provides a clear educational direction towards high academic standards’. What it does well includes provision for children who in wayne’s words are more vocational, ‘The Challenge Award scheme programme is very well planned to be relevant to the needs of lower attaining pupils in Years 10 and 11, and gives them very useful experience of the world and the skills needed to cope’
‘WHAT COULD BE IMPROVED’ takes up half a page and says (page 18)
Sixth form attendance is not accurately recorded.

The sixth form curriculum is not as good as it could be. (Nevertheless the critiscisms are not serious.)

Also it meets wayneo’s requirements, ‘The sixth form curriculum offers a wide range of AS- and A-level courses, and an adequate number of vocational courses to complement what is available locally.’

It continues, ‘However, the allocation of time to all subjects is below the recommended minimum for sixth form courses, and further mathematics is given only one lesson.

Some areas of the school’s work are not adequately managed.

The school does not meet statutory requirements for religious education in the sixth
form, or for a daily act of worship.
Standards in individual subjecst and in the sixth form are listed,
In the sixth form ‘Results in AVCE, AS- and A-level examinations in 2001 are above average.’ ‘The average points scored in AVCE, AS- and A-level examinations in 2001 are above national averages,’

Their only area of weakness appears to be in maths as mentioned above (page 17) however, ‘Mathematics Overall, the quality of provision in mathematics is very good.’ (page 38)

performance tables Easingwold GCSE 5+A*-C, 2007 58%, 2008 53%, 2009 65%, 2010 68%, Easingwold School is average, compared to other Schools in the region, Selective Schools are consistently in the high 90s for the region. As of 2009 Ofsted report they are still number 3, satisfactory.That's NOT to say that they aren't doing well according to their ability which at KS 2-4 is at 78%

It was obvious from an early stage that you were a dogmatically opinionated individual wayne.

And you're not Lawrence?
I listed Hester and the other people in response to a question by you, ‘… the talented 11+ failures one sees", well who are they?’ – remember? and your response to this part of my reply has gone from dogmatic to misleading unless you have found a more recent Ofsted report that lists the result of ten years of gradual decline. The reason I listed these people in the first place, apart from your request, was that they are typical of people I meet every week and the extreme nature of their talent and achievement shows how many other people who are much cleverer than average must fall through the net of 11+ selection.
You produce a handful of people and claim that to be representative of a failed or unfair system, give me a break! Tell me, why are Comprehensives any better or different to than Secondary Modern?

I suggest you read the Ofsted report on Easingwold – it describes a very good school that caters for all local children in what must be a very pleasant environment in terms of landscape as well as school ethos – our schools could be like that as well instead of middle class ghettoes or failing secondary moderns.
I must ask you to back up your claim that Secondary Moderns are failing or that Comprehensives are somehow better. I personally see little difference between the two. How have you come to determine this?

Soon – when I have some more time - I shall post on here listing all your nonsensical contradictory justifcations of the 11+and ask which is correct.”

Whatever floats your boat Lawrence, have fun.

I’ve explained before why there WAS a considerable tone of self-congratulation in your early replies. A lot of people who oppose the 11+ have passed it or gone to secondary education without having to take it in comprehensive schools. One of the reasons I did not summarise all of what you have put up here before is that quite a bit of it is sarcastic snarling like this stuff, rather than reasoned argument for the practice of selection at 10 or 11, and to have summarised it would have involved me in sarcastic ripostes against some of the things you have said.
Also for God’s sake stop saying I ‘insinuate’ things – according to the OED insinuate means, ‘To introduce tortuously, sinuously, indirectly, or by devious methods; to introduce by imperceptible degrees or subtle means....’ I have hardly done hat - everything I have wanted to say I hope I have said directly and clearly.

I disagree, explaining oneself does not mean one is being self congratulatory, as for my use of 'insinuation', no, I don't think I will stop using it, I think the word is applicable which is why I use it in the first place.

I fail to see the connection between cherry picking and what you call ‘obsessive behaviour with respect to ivor’ – if my behaviour IS obsessional (and I think it is not) then how does that disqualify me from accusing you of cherry picking?
The OED defines cherry picking as, ‘To choose selectively (the most beneficial or profitable items, opportunities, etc’ – in your case to choose facts selectively.

The pattern of behaviour you extend towards Ivor is one of obsession, you might not agree however the OED definition of obsession is " an idea or thought that continually preoccupies or intrudes on a person’s mind", you cherry pick elements of Ivor's posts in order to attack him, I use parts of a 60 page report in order to provides examples or facts that support my case as do you. You still haven't answered how one would manage to summarise a whole 60 page report on a comments thread.

And you DO cherry pick - there are dozens of facts in the Sutton Trust report which do not support your case but you chose one fact which you believed (mistakenly in my view) did support you.

That it does support "my view" doesn't mean that it's not factual or that It can't be used to support my position, besides, I don't think the Sutton Trust report supports your view OR my view anyway. There are many reports that have been provided to the Sutton Trust and by many authors, I don't see the Sutton Trust as being exclusively against selection or pro comprehensive neither do many of the reports provide all of the answers. When one looks at some of the findings, I haven't yet found any suggestion that Grammar Schools aren't working only that the rest of the Education system clearly isn't, what is evident, is that the gap between State Education and private is growing ever the wider but less so with Grammar Schools.

I’ve wasted a lot of time on you already – often answering questions already answered - and would say that I have already summarised the important facts – there are 30 countries referred to in the Sutton Trust report and you mention the practice of one only – the State of Victoria. What would I be ‘leading’ people to ‘by example’ and what would people learn if I summarised a sixty page report – what is the relevance of the way children are educated in Holland for instance?

If you feel it is wasting your time or that you aren't interested THEN NOBODY IS FORCING YOU TO PARTICIPATE ARE THEY? I don't think you've explained alot at all., you haven't provided an explanation as to why, when selective education works for those that go to Grammar Schools, why it is in the best interests of those children to be lumped into a Comprensive system? You haven't explained how Grammar kids get a better education or indeed whether they are provided more resources. Furthermore, you bang on about "wasted talent" yet would be content to take kids who measurably do better out of the Grammar School system and lump them in together with abilities, how is that not wasting 'talent'?

You brought in earlier a complete red herring – the idea of ‘vocational’ talent and the idea that there should be training for people with that kind of ‘talent’ – this may be reasonable but has nothing to do with the 11+- or do you suppose it ‘selects’ bright children because it is able to spot vocational talent?

Let us refer back to DirectGov, it will be simpler for you to understand:
!
'gifted' learners are those who have abilities in one or more academic subjects, like maths and English, the 11+ aims to select those who would fit into this category.
!
'talented' learners are those who have practical skills in areas like sport, music, design or creative and performing arts.
!
It is here that I use the term more vocational skills than academic.
!
It has everything to do with the 11+ and selection, if you read Smithers final report he states:
!
"If it wants children to be grouped on educational merit, it should allow MORE academic selection.
!
While Smithers is not necessarily advocated a Grammar System per ce, I believe he is advocating more selection across the education system as a whole. The fact is, if one wants to harness 'talents' as you would put it, then you put those who are talented or gifted at something, together and enhance it, first however, that case they need to either display signs of having that talent or gift or be selected for those attributes.

I cannot think of any organisations that use IQ tests – usually they use educational qualifications – and that puts children who are educated in grammar schools at an advantage. .

That you cannot think hardly amounts to a determination of facts does it? As for "putting Grammar Schools at an advantage", that might be the case from a league table perspective but then you're actually admitting that selection works. I don't consider that those who having been selected and then go on to do well is a bad thing, if what are you suggesting, is that we scrap selection and restrict the abilities of those who would otherwise be elligible for a Grammar Place, in a misguided belief that other Schools will do better??? How does your holding 30-40% of students back help your cause of not wasting talent ???

Wayne’ has littered this correspondence with statements about the superior results achieved by grammar school pupils – if the training is no better and the aspirations the same then what is the purpose of grammar schools and ‘selection’ for them? Why are so many secondary modern schools in this area ‘failing’ according to the Schools Inspectorate?

You keep on banging on about aspirations, what makes you assume that children who don't go to Grammar School don't have aspirations or that higher aspirations are the preserve of being at a Grammar School????? The fact is, that Grammar Schools will take persons who pass selection and allow them to be in an environment that is deemed more suited to their ability, that those students continue to do well cannot merit an accusation of being the causation of non-selective Schools 'failing' ,or indeed doing poorly. One would have to look at the reasons WHY those Schools are obtaining poor results in the first place and there are many reasons, maybe the Schools aren't failing, that the children are reaching their potential and it is actally the curriculum that is failing the children; unless you can provide any evidence that Grammar Schools recieve better funding, more support etc than their contemporaries then your claims are frivolous.

Why I believe WHAT wayneo – don’t you READ these things to see that they make sense before you press the ‘submit’ button? Also you are ‘confident’ based on your experience of the school you attended – THAT’S a powerful argument! Surel the ones that ‘did well’ would have ‘done better’ in a comprehensive school environment?

It makes a more plausible argument my having attended a Secondary School and knowing what it was like rather than what I believe it to be. Why would they have done better in a Comprehensive School as opposed to a Secondary School and what is your evidence base to support such a claim?

If I got the right bit then the relevant part of paragraph five, ‘I don’t see why it should hold back a kid with talent It's not that you don't see, it's that you didn't see it because you wasn't there’ is not exactly a baffling reply to my question, as I explained above. As you say you have already trotted out an ‘explanation’ of the performance of your son and his contemporaries at 11+ and A level – what you said before and on other occasions is not an explanation of why a supposedly intelligent boy could fail the 11+ and then do A levels any more than your ‘explanation’ of why an 11+ success should be held back because there are lazy and immature boys at his comprehensive school – do you think there are no lazy and immature children at grammar schools?

I expect that there are lazy and immature children at Grammar Schools however the level of attainment and expectation is different, not only that, unlike Comprehensive Schools where the attainment gap of lower and higher levels is of 100% of the School population, Grammar School children being at the top 30 - 40% have much narrower levels of attainment as does Secondary Schools (Hope you got that). Again, my Son's undertaking A levels but in subjects he is good at and enjoys, had he of gone to Grammar School and taken 11 GCSEs rather than seven, then yes, he would have struggled, I don't know how many times I have to explain it to you.

It AIMS to do that but it DOESN’T. Why is there such a wide disparity between A and O level results between grammar and secondary modern schools – do you think that the bottom layer of talent at grammar schools is thirty odd percentage points more clever than the top layer of talent in secondary moderns?

The bottom layer of Grammar Schools compared to the top layer of Secondary Schools might well be roughly the same, the gap between the top layer of Grammar Schools compared to the bottom layer of Secondary Schools is much wider and is a good indication of why in my opinion, mixing all into one pot is a bad idea. What I'd rather see, is those at the bottom layer being provided with opportunties that they are more comfortable at and that might not even be on an academic scale.

As I said earlier I have taken vocational courses and I think you have a valid point when you endorse the worth of such courses and the work they train you for however a degree (as I pointed out some weeks ago) IS vitally important in real life if you can get one and you require good grade A levels for that - if someone fails their 11+ they are going to be at a disadvantage in comparison with someone who does not – the 11+ has nothing to do with ‘qualifications and apprenticeships’ and is an enduring injustice to no point for the 60-70% of children who fail the 11+.

I think a degree is vitally important but that too much enthesis has been attributed to gaining a degree, I expect it depends on whether we see degrees as the preserve of the academic or whether it can be attributed to more disciplines that historically were of a vocational nature.Some imployers say that degrees are being "watered down", that many students are opting for 'easier' course, then we have the like of JCB with their fantastic apprenticeship scheme/ academy who state that it is extremely important that a particular course carries an equivalent of 4 GCSEs. Again, i think the problem is that the entheis or measure of success is weighted heavily towards academic success rather than the more traditional trades or disciplines.

Crafty one this but it suggests students like your son at grammar school are not necessarily of above average IQ – oh yes – the ‘pace’ argument comes in here. Also see my comments earlier about percentages of intelligence and fish diets, and if he was able to compete with 11+ successes at age 18, then presumably he was above average along with the grammar school boys who had passed their 11+ - or were these 11+ successes also not above average in spite of what you said earlier on about the 11+ being an IQ test?

I would say and accept that having failed his 11+ that his IQ isn't above the average, I don't see why that would be a problem for anybody to acknowledge. What is pace? As for fish diets, I didn't read it and i'm not really sure that it would apply to all anyway. As for above average, his GCSE results were above average for the School he was at the time which was a Secondary, his predicted AS level results are slightly above the target that would have been predicted based on his previous GCSE results.
!

how’ think you know that’s not what I meant - maybe they were struggling in the manner described earlier, as it was new and hard work – nothing is worth winning without a struggle – it doesn’t mean they were coached in advance – merely that they were being forced to develop their potential. If they WERE coached in advance then this is another argument for the abolition of the 11+.

But I don't think one can be coached to pass such a test only in what is expected of the test.

So he would probably have struggled and succeeded at grammar school if he had passed the 11+.

NIt's hypothetical but i don't think so because he was undertaking that extra work for 7 GCSEs, not the 11 that Grammar Schools usually take.

Obviously I can’t really say either but most people have to work above and beyond at times, and your son and the imaginary kid would equally have had to do that at a comprehensive school before succeeding .

Maybe But could they do better being in an environment that caters more to their abilities?

That is probabally because they are taking ALL the children locally and not creaming off the top 30% and then coaching them towards O and A level like a grammar school.

Actually, I think 72% is very good but I think it masks just how the children at the lower end of the pile are being failed, at least with a Grammar School, which consistently obtains results in the 90s, it makes it easier at Secondary level to see where education is letting down youngsters, rather than breaking the good Schools, let's let's resolve the problems with the Schools that are failing and not mask them by massaging the results of the 'brighter' kids.

An interesting comment I suppose but whathas it to do with 11+ selection in this county or the debate about ‘selection’?

I think by free-range learning he is referring to choice and attributing ones skills with their capabilities.

At first my reply to this was as follows,
‘Wayne what you say appears to be true – however he DOES say in the Guardian the stuff I quoted earlier, ‘having failed the 11-plus, I was educated at what was a secondary modern school but became a comprehensive while I was a pupil there. The Havelock school Grimsby gave me a lifeline after the 11-plus failure’ so he DID in any case fail the 11+ and achieve tremendous academic distinction – I can’t understand the disparity between what you say and what he says so I will look into this further. As I said though you appear at the moment to be right.’
2 I then thought it was a funny old world where wayneo knew more about Lord Plant’s life than Lord Plant himself did. So I emailed Lord Plant my comment and your reply at London University and he emailed me a reply in which he said,
‘When I went to Havelock School in 1956 … there were what were called grammar streams and secondary modern streams within the same school. … Because of this hybrid nature it was definitely not a grammar school … Having failed the 11 plus I went into 1 A that is the first year top secondary modern class … it would be quite wrong to call it a grammar school but it's organisation whatever one calls it provided me with an opportunity which otherwise I would not have’
Best wishes
Raymond Plant

LOL, "it would be quite wrong to call it a Grammar School" except for the School itself calling itself a Grammar School, either way, I guess we were both right.

Bit dodgy here too wayne - if you look under ‘People educated at Brynteg Comprehensive School’ on the school website there is a list of twenty-four people who have achieved eminence in various walks of life in this country including,
Professor Michael Brown CBE was the Vice-Chancellor of Liverpool John Moores University in Liverpool
Keith Burnett CBE FRS is the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sheffield. politician, who has represented the constituency of Ogmore since the National Assembly for Wales was established in 1999.
They also have ex-students eminent in national sport.

II did see it but then sports has no relevance to the 11+, Prof Michael Brown was educated at Bridgend Grammar School for Boys which was precursor to Brynteg.

It looks as if you are arguing my case once again.

I don't think I've ever argued your case, I really don't think at the moment you have a case for me to answer. Taking a good system that is proven to work only to dismantle it, is illogical and wrong.

It’s interesting that a man like Professor Ron Hester should feel happy sending his son Stephen to a comprehensive school
or do you know something he doesn’t? The Scotsman calls Hester’s parents, ‘… sufficiently GROUNDED to have decided to dispatch their precocious son to Easingwold Comprehensive in North Yorkshire’ – are you just less grounded?

Did he have a choice or are you merely quoting the opinion of a Journalist as to what's 'grounded'?

Their judgement must be fairly sound if he eventually got a first at Oxford and has become a millionaire as well as a distinguished amateur scientist.

And you accuse me of cherry picking! Yes, well done, you've picked but a handful of people out of thousands in order to substantiate your claim that the 11+ is all bad, that we should scrap Grammar Schools and educate everybody in Comprehensice Schools, marvellous Lawrence, your logic and reasoning is sound, dear oh dear.

According to Wikipedia,
‘Easingwold School is a mixed, comprehensive 11-18 school in Easingwold, North Yorkshire, England. The school has specialist Language College status and has approximately 1,500 students, including the Sixth Form, located on site.’
Your statement that Easingwold School is judged ‘average’ by Ofsted also seems a bit dodgy wayneo.
The latest Ofsted report I found on the net admittedly was for 2001. (Can you give me a reference for the one where you found the word ‘average’?)

Rather than post the whole report, The 2009 report overal says satisfactory, where 1 is Outstanding, 2 is good, 3 is satisfactory, 4 is inadequate, wikipedia stated average

The Ofsted report I saw runs to 59 pages and I have searched it (digitally) for the word ‘average’ which you quoted and this word occurs numerous times - always in phrases like ‘Results in AVCE, AS- and A-level examinations in 2001 are above average’ or ‘The average points scored in AVCE, AS- and A-level examinations in 2001 are above national averages,’ (both page 27).

On page 15 ‘PART B: COMMENTARY the report describes, WHAT THE SCHOOL DOES WELL’. What it does well goes on for more than two pages and the report says, ‘Standards are well above average and achievement is very good.’

Also ‘Teaching and learning are good.’ ‘Pupils’ attitudes, behaviour and personal development are very good’, and ‘Leadership provides a clear educational direction towards high academic standards’. What it does well includes provision for children who in wayne’s words are more vocational, ‘The Challenge Award scheme programme is very well planned to be relevant to the needs of lower attaining pupils in Years 10 and 11, and gives them very useful experience of the world and the skills needed to cope’
‘WHAT COULD BE IMPROVED’ takes up half a page and says (page 18)
Sixth form attendance is not accurately recorded.

The sixth form curriculum is not as good as it could be. (Nevertheless the critiscisms are not serious.)

Also it meets wayneo’s requirements, ‘The sixth form curriculum offers a wide range of AS- and A-level courses, and an adequate number of vocational courses to complement what is available locally.’

It continues, ‘However, the allocation of time to all subjects is below the recommended minimum for sixth form courses, and further mathematics is given only one lesson.

Some areas of the school’s work are not adequately managed.

The school does not meet statutory requirements for religious education in the sixth
form, or for a daily act of worship.
Standards in individual subjecst and in the sixth form are listed,
In the sixth form ‘Results in AVCE, AS- and A-level examinations in 2001 are above average.’ ‘The average points scored in AVCE, AS- and A-level examinations in 2001 are above national averages,’

Their only area of weakness appears to be in maths as mentioned above (page 17) however, ‘Mathematics Overall, the quality of provision in mathematics is very good.’ (page 38)

performance tables Easingwold GCSE 5+A*-C, 2007 58%, 2008 53%, 2009 65%, 2010 68%, Easingwold School is average, compared to other Schools in the region, Selective Schools are consistently in the high 90s for the region. As of 2009 Ofsted report they are still number 3, satisfactory.That's NOT to say that they aren't doing well according to their ability which at KS 2-4 is at 78%

It was obvious from an early stage that you were a dogmatically opinionated individual wayne.

And you're not Lawrence? I think we both are but I don't see that as a bad thing if ultimately a better solution can come from such opinions.

I listed Hester and the other people in response to a question by you, ‘… the talented 11+ failures one sees", well who are they?’ – remember? and your response to this part of my reply has gone from dogmatic to misleading unless you have found a more recent Ofsted report that lists the result of ten years of gradual decline. The reason I listed these people in the first place, apart from your request, was that they are typical of people I meet every week and the extreme nature of their talent and achievement shows how many other people who are much cleverer than average must fall through the net of 11+ selection.

You produce a handful of people and claim that to be representative of a failed or unfair system, give me a break! Tell me, why are Comprehensives any better or different to than Secondary Modern?

I suggest you read the Ofsted report on Easingwold – it describes a very good school that caters for all local children in what must be a very pleasant environment in terms of landscape as well as school ethos – our schools could be like that as well instead of middle class ghettoes or failing secondary moderns.

I must ask you to back up your claim that Secondary Moderns are failing or that Comprehensives are somehow better. I personally see little difference between the two. How have you come to determine this?

Soon – when I have some more time - I shall post on here listing all your nonsensical contradictory justifcations of the 11+and ask which is correct.”

Whatever floats your boat Lawrence, have fun, i'm off down to the pub.

Lawrence Linehan wrote:

wayneo wrote:

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote: (I must say that standing around trying to impress young women is a life style many of us can only aspire to - but now I must go to bed.)

Maybe, but just not when people are trying to learn.

It was intended humorously and was posted in case 1 anyone is reading this and 2 they have a sense of humour.

I did at first consider it in good humour but wasn't sure given some of our previous exchanges. Of course many of us aspire to that :-) I hope you will accept my apology for being blunt and not accepting it for the good humour in which it was intended.

‘I disagree, explaining oneself does not mean one is being self congratulatory, as for my use of 'insinuation', no, I don't think I will stop using it, I think the word is applicable which is why I use it in the first place.’
/
I will leave it to anyone reading this to decide if you are self-congratulatory or not – I’ve quoted some of your brave stuff earlier. WHY is the word ‘insinuate’ applicable?
…….
The pattern of behaviour you extend towards Ivor is one of obsession, you might not agree however the OED definition of obsession is " an idea or thought that continually preoccupies or intrudes on a person’s mind", you cherry pick elements of Ivor's posts in order to attack him, I use parts of a 60 page report in order to provides examples or facts that support my case as do you. You still haven't answered how one would manage to summarise a whole 60 page report on a comments thread.
/
Unless you confuse me with some of the other people – who take ivor seriously- I cannot see why you say that – igor and attacks on him calling him ‘evil’ are quite funny I think – on another posting board I have said to someone who said igor should be shut down,‘LOL. It's good fun rubbishing igor though - I think if I am honest I will say I like it the way it is…’ I ‘cherry pick’ the STUPID bits of igor’s blog. You didn’t ‘use parts of a 60 page report in order to provides examples or facts that support my case’ – you misleadingly said ‘Sat 4 Feb 12 … Australia is opening more Grammar Schools’. It is a bit stupid to take a report by the Sutton Trust 60 pages in length and dealing with 30 countries and say because they are doing something in one Australian state it ought to be done here – you don’t have to summarise 60 pages - my point is that you took one (oversimplified – it referred to Victoria not ‘Australia’) fact and made a completely unjustifiable generalisation from it – the State of Victoria is considering selective schools so it must be all right here.
…….

That it does support "my view" doesn't mean that it's not factual or that It can't be used to support my position,
/
I didn’t say it wasn’t factual – merely that it didn’t support your case – do explain why the fact that Victoria is considering the introduction of selective schools supports your case (whatever that is – it seems to change over time) and why that fact that 29 0ther countries and all the other Australian states aren’t is NOT relevant.
…….
besides, I don't think the Sutton Trust report supports your view OR my view anyway.
/
I agree – they’re impartial – that’s what gives them their authority and I’ve quoted earlier their report last year that said grammar schools were socially divisive and that DOES support my view.
…….
There are many reports that have been provided to the Sutton Trust and by many authors, I don't see the Sutton Trust as being exclusively against selection or pro comprehensive neither do many of the reports provide all of the answers.
…….
I have not said anything different to that – when has the Sutton Trust supported the 11+ or your (ludicrous) idea of ‘pace’?
…….
When one looks at some of the findings, I haven't yet found any suggestion that Grammar Schools aren't working only that the rest of the Education system clearly isn't, what is evident, is that the gap between State Education and private is growing ever the wider but less so with Grammar Schools.
/
Tell us more – how do grammar schools reduce the gap between state and private educated university students (not just your ‘explanation’ based on your own experience or intuitions- is there any EVIDENCE from third parties?). Or is this your interpretation of what the facts must mean (as in the State of Victoria)? (Give us quotes as I did with the Ofsted report into Easingwold School.) Maybe we should make ‘the rest of the Education system’ into grammar schools – if ‘the rest of the Education system’ isn’t working does this suggest anything about the whole system?
…….
If you feel it is wasting your time or that you aren't interested THEN NOBODY IS FORCING YOU TO PARTICIPATE ARE THEY?
/
I DO think it’s a waste of my time to repeat things to you that I’ve already explained – often in reply to devious arguments - and I’ve already said why I think your nonsense is (just) worth answering – see my post of 8:22pm Thu 2 Feb 12 ‘I'm like the bloke in the bible I'm answering you according to your folly lest be wise in your own estimation (Proverbs 26:5).’
…….
I don't think you've explained a lot at all., you haven't provided an explanation as to why, when selective education works for those that go to Grammar Schools, why it is in the best interests of those children to be lumped into a Comprensive system?
/
This is always presented by you from the point of view of 11+ successes – it’s not AGAINST their interests and it’s IN the interests of the overwhelming majority of kids who fail but could benefit from a grammar school education. You yourself say ‘selective education works for those that go to Grammar Schools’ – what about the rest of them – the great majority?
…….
You haven't explained how Grammar kids get a better education or indeed whether they are provided more resources.
/
If they DON’T get a better education why do you think ‘… selective education works for those that go to Grammar Schools,… it is in the best interests of those children’? Also an article in the British Educational Research Journal Vol. 33, No. 2 (Apr., 2007), pp. 155-178 entitled ‘Secondary Modern Schools: Are Their Pupils Disadvantaged?’ by Levačić and Marsh says ‘ … secondary modern schools in the years 2000/01-2002/03 were funded around £80 less per pupil while grammar school pupils received over £100 more per pupil compared to comprehensive schools. Secondary modern schools were more likely to be in financial deficit than comprehensive and particularly grammar schools. Thus, students are academically disadvantaged by attending secondary modern schools, which in most selective LEAs do not receive sufficient additional funding to offset the depressing effects on attainment of the increased social segregation arising from a selective system.’
…….
Furthermore, you bang on about "wasted talent" yet would be content to take kids who measurably do better out of the Grammar School system and lump them in together with abilities, how is that not wasting 'talent'?
/
Apart from the fact that it only benefits them as part of a SYSTEM that builds in 70% underachievement, as I mentioned in my last post to you, where there is comprehensive education some children do outstandingly well without selection. The proportions are higher than in Bucks as well. (This has been mentioned before in correspondences you have participated in or must have read.)
…….
You brought in earlier a complete red herring – the idea of ‘vocational’ talent and the idea that there should be training for people with that kind of ‘talent’ – this may be reasonable but has nothing to do with the 11+- or do you suppose it ‘selects’ bright children because it is able to spot vocational talent in thise who fail the 11+?
Let us refer back to DirectGov, it will be simpler for you to understand:
!
'gifted' learners are those who have abilities in one or more academic subjects, like maths and English, the 11+ aims to select those who would fit into this category.
!
'talented' learners are those who have practical skills in areas like sport, music, design or creative and performing arts.
!
It is here that I use the term more vocational skills than academic.
!
It has everything to do with the 11+ and selection, if you read Smithers final report he states:
!
"If it wants children to be grouped on educational merit, it should allow MORE academic selection.
!
While Smithers is not necessarily advocated a Grammar System per ce, I believe he is advocating more selection across the education system as a whole. The fact is, if one wants to harness 'talents' as you would put it, then you put those who are talented or gifted at something, together and enhance it, first however, that case they need to either display signs of having that talent or gift or be selected for those attributes.
/
The directGov report - blimey – wayne’s killer weapon - this is about the third time you have quoted DirectGov – you seem to think each time you quote it you will – well I’m not sure. What is the relevance of it here? You have also resurrected from twelve days ago Professor Smithers of the Sutton Trust whom you introduced with his little anecdote about HIS own background – what has he got to do with DirectGov’s definitions and why do you ‘believe’ that although ‘Smithers is not (sic) necessarily advocated a Grammar System per ce’ (sic) he is nonetheless ‘…advocating more selection across the education system as a whole’? Why is it a ‘fact’ that to ‘harness talents’ (what does THAT mean wayne?) ‘you put those who are talented or gifted at something, together and enhance it’. IF this is true then you DO ‘… need to … (have them) selected for those attributes’ however if this is the case then why are comprehensive schools so successful and why have no local authorities reintroduced 11+ selection after abolishing it? (Don’t give me devious stuff about ‘lobbies’ in answer to this – or Marxist class warfare in reply either.)
…….
I cannot think of any organisations that use IQ tests – usually they use educational qualifications – and that puts children who are educated in grammar schools at an advantage. .
That you cannot think hardly amounts to a determination of facts does it?
/
Then tell me of some – I have never been selected for interview after an IQ test or taken one afterwards - tell me of some. I and everyone outside wayne’s world take exams (which ones often influenced by the 11+ !)
…….
As for "putting Grammar Schools at an advantage", that might be the case from a league table perspective but then you're actually admitting that selection works.
/
I haven’t used the phrase ‘putting Grammar Schools at an advantage’ anywhere – you are quoting yourself. (Having said that I would point out that I said earlier (Sun 5 Feb 12) about selection ‘…to me it is a mixture of very rough selection’.)
…….
I don't consider that those who having been selected and then go on to do well is a bad thing, if what are you suggesting, is that we scrap selection and restrict the abilities of those who would otherwise be elligible for a Grammar Place, in a misguided belief that other Schools will do better??? How does your holding 30-40% of students back help your cause of not wasting talent ???
/
I AM suggesting that as I believe the 30% will be able to do equally well in a comprehensive school without completely excluding the remaining 70%. If what you said was true wayneo I would be the first behind you but it is quite unreasonable, at variance with facts, and you keep on backing it up with your own experiences. Do kids who pass the 11+ REALLY need to be kept in purdah to avoid being wasted and why are they not wasted in counties where there is comprehensive schooling? (Someone has called grammar schools ‘the ghettoes of the advantaged.’) A number of Conservative councils have introduced comprehensive education to good effect.
…….
You keep on banging on about aspirations, what makes you assume that children who don't go to Grammar School don't have aspirations or that higher aspirations are the preserve of being at a Grammar School?????
/
What I am banging on about wayne is that academically-talente
d 11+ failures are diverted from developing their talents in secondary modern schools and that the aspirations of ALL children can be served – including children who currently pass the 11+ - in comprehensive schools. You’re the one who – even if you didn’t use the word aspiration – mentioned kids who don’t think it’s cool to be good at school. If the aspirations ARE no different in grammar schools then why have grammar schools?
…….
The fact is, that Grammar Schools will take persons who pass selection and allow them to be in an environment that is deemed more suited to their ability, that those students continue to do well cannot merit an accusation of being the causation of non-selective Schools 'failing' ,or indeed doing poorly.
/
The selection process is lamentably inaccurate as I have said before – who ‘deems’ this environment ‘more suited to their ability’? If everyone’s children were in one local school then the parents of talented ones would jolly well make sure it WASN’T a failing school and the fact that the advantaged (usually) for miles around can have little ghettos of their own at the moment means that it doesn’t really matter if secondary modern schools fail.
…….
One would have to look at the reasons WHY those Schools are obtaining poor results in the first place and there are many reasons, maybe the Schools aren't failing, that the children are reaching their potential and it is actally the curriculum that is failing the children; unless you can provide any evidence that Grammar Schools recieve better funding, more support etc than their contemporaries then your claims are frivolous.
/
Then have a look at the reasons WHY the schools are failing wayne. If grammar schools DON’T confer any advantage then why are they more successful in examination and why do they get more pupils into good universities? (See aslo your own comments below ‘ … at Grammar Schools however the level of attainment and expectation is different,’) In terms of money, the figures are publicly available here, http://www.buckscc.g
ov.uk/bcc/schools/bu
dget.page the sums of money seem much the same. This is impossible to prove but I would say – from anecdotal evidence I admit – that the curriculum and the standard of higher education reached by teachers in grammar schools is different. Also I have mentioned before a friend’s son failed the 11+ and said he was continuing to be taught what he had learnt at junior school while his contemporaries at grammar school were already being coached for O and A level. The Ofsted report for the The Royal Grammar School is an outstandingly effective college with specialisms in language and in mathematics and
computing. Staff are fiercely ambitious for their students. The overwhelming majority of parents strongly support the school's drive to give students an outstanding educational experience…. Boarding provision also contributes well to the students' academic success. This is all on the back of families whose children fail the 11+ and never see hair or hide of this type of education in the less-privileged part of our apartheid system. Also see what I said above about British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 33, No. 2 (Apr., 2007).

(By the way you need to check ‘frivolous’ as well as ‘insinuate’ in the OED.)
…….
It makes a more plausible argument my having attended a Secondary School and knowing what it was like rather than what I believe it to be. Why would they have done better in a Comprehensive School as opposed to a Secondary School and what is your evidence base to support such a claim?
/
How can your having been to a secondary modern BE ‘a more plausible argument’? I suppose you mean it gives you more authority – as I said before if you went to such a school then presumably it disqualifies you from commenting on grammar and comprehensive schools – let me now repeat the sense of what I said before –
Firstly - to make things simpler still for you wayne – if I can’t comment on secondary schools because I didn’t go to one then if you didn’t go to grammar school how can you comment on grammar schools?
I have ignored your stupid challenges to say what sort of school I went to as;
1 If I was privately educated (like Boris Johnson who has also, guardedly, attacked the 11+ - bloody Marxist!) I can be accused of talking from an ivory tower.
2 If I went to a grammar school – as you suspect – then, once again, I can be accused (as you have already done) of talking from an ivory tower to a gritty man of the people who failed his 11+.
3 If I FAILED the 11+ I can be told to man up, get over it, and get on with life, like you and your son.
We are talking about 11+ selection in Bucks – NOT our life histories (well actually that IS what you’re talking about but I’m not.) So my life story is irrelevant – so is yours and your son – for God’s realise it.
…….
… unlike Comprehensive Schools where the attainment gap of lower and higher levels is of 100% of the School population,
/
What does that MEAN wayne? It DOESN’T make sense.
Likewise
Grammar School children being at the top 30 - 40% have much narrower levels of attainment as does Secondary Schools (Hope you got that).
/
NOBODY got that wayne.
…….
Again, my Son's undertaking A levels but in subjects he is good at and enjoys, had he of gone to Grammar School and taken 11 GCSEs rather than seven, then yes, he would have struggled, I don't know how many times I have to explain it to you.
/
I’m not sure why you are telling me that again – I have suggested he was not stretched by secondary modern- that he could have done better in a comprehensive or grammar school and that kids who passed the 11+ would have been like him if they had failed it – you’ve ‘explained’ NOTHING by reciting your son’ academic career (again).
…….
The bottom layer of Grammar Schools compared to the top layer of Secondary Schools might well be roughly the same, the gap between the top layer of Grammar Schools compared to the bottom layer of Secondary Schools is much wider and is a good indication of why in my opinion, mixing all into one pot is a bad idea. What I'd rather see, is those at the bottom layer being provided with opportunties that they are more comfortable at and that might not even be on an academic scale.
/
This makes sense (I’m not saying I agree with but I ‘got’ it as you just said). The comprehensive scheme seems to work elsewhere so why not here for very talented children at the top range of achievement in grammar schools. Why do people who support the 11+ have to describe it through the lens of their own experience and by using metaphors like ‘one size fits all’ or ‘all into one pot’? The ingredients in the pot will separate themselves and reach their own level in a comprehensive pot without having to have a very small pot of their own and a big one for the remaining 70%.
…….
I think a degree is vitally important but that too much enthesis has been attributed to gaining a degree,
/
In the real world it IS important and getting to grammar school in this county is usually the first step – that’s why parents have their children coached for it at the moment. So it should be available to all children not just 30%.
…….
… we see degrees as the preserve of the academic or whether it can be attributed to more disciplines that historically were of a vocational nature.
/
How can we, ‘… see degrees as the preserve of the academic or whether it can be attributed to more disciplines that historically were of a vocational nature’? Once again what does that MEAN wayne?
…….
Some imployers say that degrees are being "watered down", that many students are opting for 'easier' course, then we have the like of JCB with their fantastic apprenticeship scheme/ academy who state that it is extremely important that a particular course carries an equivalent of 4 GCSEs.
/
All this is I agree with but is not strictly relevant to the subject of the 11+ which, in spite of all you say, is dedicated to ensuring a minority of students are given an advantage with regard to education when they leave school and go through life. Some people say the ‘watered down’ degrees are the result of the decay of the apprentice system – people have to have a degree in say hotel management before they can work in a hotel rather than star at the bottom and work their way through the system the way they did years ago.
…….
Again, i think the problem is that the entheis or measure of success is weighted heavily towards academic success rather than the more traditional trades or disciplines.
/
As I said above, ‘In the real world it IS important and getting to grammar school in this county is usually the first step – that’s why parents have their children coached for it. So it should be available to all children not just 30%.’

(I did not say anything about this at first but you have used the (non-existent) word ‘enthesis’ twice and in different ways – one suggests it is a misspelling of ‘emphasis’ but the other one is a bit mysterious.)
…….
I would say and accept that having failed his 11+ that his IQ isn't above the average, I don't see why that would be a problem for anybody to acknowledge.
/
I have no problems on a personal level – just that (once again) I can’t understand how he is able to do A levels at 18 but fails his 11+ at 10 or 11.
…….
What is pace
/
I brought up this idea as I was worried you were going to use it (like ‘maturity’) to explain why your son is able to do A levels at 18 but fails his 11+ at 10 or 11. I got the idea from ‘wayneo’ a non political commentator who has said, (29 Jan) ‘ What do kids at grammar schools learn? Unless on a vocational course, the same curriculum as any other student but with more pressure and at a faster pace.’ Also (29 Jan) ‘I don't believe i've "spoken of excellence" at all, I see Selective education as means of categorising those who are more academically suited to the general pace of Grammar schools to that of Secondary’ and on the same day ‘All Grammar Schools do, is offer students a different learning pace than that of a Secondary School’.
…….
As for fish diets, I didn't read it and i'm not really sure that it would apply to all anyway.
/
It’s a joke as a fish diet was at one time supposed to make people more intelligent – that would explain how little wayne is able to do A levels at 18 but fails his 11+ at 10 or 11.
…….
. As for above average, his GCSE results were above average for the School he was at the time which was a Secondary, his predicted AS level results are slightly above the target that would have been predicted based on his previous GCSE results.
/
That still doesn’t explain how he is able to do A levels at 18 but fails his 11+ at 10 or 11.
…….
But I don't think one can be coached to pass such a test only in what is expected of the test.
/
Another dodgy (meaning wise) statement there but if the first part makes sense then - if you think that - then why did you ‘misunderstand’ my question about kids at grammar school struggling – if you CAN’T be coached to pass how did they get there? (What does, ‘one can be coached… only in what is expected of the test’ MEAN?)
…….
Maybe But could they do better being in an environment that caters more to their abilities?
/
A comprehensive school could cater equally well. (Do they REALLY need to be kept in purdah like this – these bright kids - won’t their talents get them through without every other kid being kept away from the well of learning with them?)
…….
Actually, I think 72% is very good but I think it masks just how the children at the lower end of the pile are being failed, at least with a Grammar School, which consistently obtains results in the 90s,
/
I take it that ‘the children at the lower end of the pile’ are the ones who fail the 11+ and go to often failing and re-branded secondary modern schools?
…….
… it makes it easier at Secondary level to see where education is letting down youngsters, rather than breaking the good Schools, let's let's resolve the problems with the Schools that are failing and not mask them by massaging the results of the 'brighter' kids.
/
Ofsted reports list what is good and bad in ALL schools – the idea that the neglect of ‘the children at the lower end of the pile’ is being overlooked to ‘massage’ the results of brighter children is a quickly thought-up excuse wayneo - Easingwold School had a vocational section as well which the Ofsted inspectors praised. Why are there so many reports in the BFP in the last ten years of failing secondary modern schools locally if more selection is the answer?
…….
I think by free-range learning he is referring to choice and attributing ones skills with their capabilities.
/
I would guess it’s something to do with that possibly but he doesn’t mean that you have to have the 11+ to accomplish it – he’s saying you can do it in school using modern technology.
…….
LOL, "it would be quite wrong to call it a Grammar School" except for the School itself calling itself a Grammar School, either way, I guess we were both right.
/
I see where you were coming from but I think I will take Lord Plant’s word.
…….
II did see it but then sports has no relevance to the 11+, Prof Michael Brown was educated at Bridgend Grammar School for Boys which was precursor to Brynteg.
/
I thought I would mention sport as its shows they produce ‘rounded’ pupils – if the school website has it wrong this time (unlike Havelock school) then I would say there are another twenty-plus people listed on the school website as their former students.
…….
I don't think I've ever argued your case, I really don't think at the moment you have a case for me to answer. Taking a good system that is proven to work only to dismantle it, is illogical and wrong.
/
I don’t think you’ve answered my case but that is not because it isn’t there to answer. The system at present is only good for a few.
…….
Did he have a choice or are you merely quoting the opinion of a Journalist as to what's 'grounded'?
/
I AM quoting the judgement of the journalist about their groundedness – but I think what he meant was that Professor Ron Hester and his wife could have had their son privately educated or they could have avoided the local comprehensive some other way but they chose to take a sensible view – unlike you – and assume their child’s talents would not be wasted if he went there.
…….
And you accuse me of cherry picking! Yes, well done, you've picked but a handful of people out of thousands in order to substantiate your claim that the 11+ is all bad, that we should scrap Grammar Schools and educate everybody in Comprehensice Schools, marvellous Lawrence, your logic and reasoning is sound, dear oh dear.
/
Bit dishonest this - YOU asked me to name some and I chose them at your request – I have explained why I chose these particular four before wayneo. (This from a man who chooses one individual – his SON to make wide-ranging statements about the 11+ !) Also I notice you didn’t accuse me of cherry picking when I mentioned Alistair Cooke, Edward Heath, Alan Bennet or Dudley Moore on 21 January, ‘For every ordinary kid like Alistair Cooke, Edward Heath, Alan Bennet or Dudley Moore there thousands put on the scrapheap and hundreds of well-off ones given an unnecessary help.’ I am advocating the abolition of the 11+ because of the thousands of other less-famous people who fail the 11+. (Lawrence shakes his head ‘wayneo oh dear oh dear!’)
…….
The latest Ofsted report I found on the net admittedly was for 2001. (Can you give me a reference for the one where you found the word ‘average’?)
Rather than post the whole report, The 2009 report overal says satisfactory, where 1 is Outstanding, 2 is good, 3 is satisfactory, 4 is inadequate, wikipedia stated average
/
I didn’t ask you to post the whole report but you do have a point – the ratings are down on 2001 however the head teacher’s preamble to the report says, ‘The school has been inspected under a new Framework for Inspection which only came into force on 1 September this year; It has been made very clear by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector, Christine Gilbert, that ‘the bar has been raised’; it is significantly harder to be judged satisfactory, good or outstanding than it was before September;
• Another change is that some of the judgements are ‘limiting’: in other words, if you get below a
certain grade on one judgement, it is impossible to be judged higher than that grade for others.
This explains why we are Grade 2 (good) or even Grade 1 (outstanding) for a majority of
judgements, including attainment, but the overall judgement is that the school is “satisfactory
with some good and outstanding features”.
• This means that this report cannot be compared with the school’s previous reports because
the Framework, especially the judgements, has changed significantly.’
The report also says,

The results for 2009 show a rise in standards, especially in science and modern languages...
• The school is inclusive and has a strong sense of community.
• Students have an excellent level of attendance...
• ...they speak with warmth and pride of the enjoyment they get from coming to school.
• They feel safe and well supported.
• The language specialism pervades the whole school, enhancing students’ personal and cultural
development...
• The vast majority of Year 11 students have already secured A* - C grade in English literature... and...
science...
• School leaders work well in partnership with a wide range of other agencies...
• ...a committed senior team...
• Students have positive attitudes...
• Students...show a good level of self-discipline...
• Students take an active role in being part of, and building, their strong school community.
• They have successfully tackled important matters including changes to the school day.
• Students say that, on the rare occasions when bullying happens, ’we know who to tell and that they
will deal with it.’
• ...good standards in literacy, numeracy and timely careers advice....provide a useful foundation in
preparing students for their adult life.
•...teachers display good subject knowledge...
In any case wayne – what are you trying to prove? You asked me (furiously) for the names of people who were talented and had failed the 11+ or done well in comprehensive schools and I gave you four. Now you are trying to say that one of them – Stephen Hester went to a school that is average like other comprehensive schools in the area. If this is the case then this proves what I say – Hester is clearly outstandingly talented – a first at Oxford and a highly successful career and life afterwards and he went to a COMPREHNSIVE SCHOOL!
…..
performance tables easingwold gcse 5+a*-c, 2007 58%, 2008 53%, 2009 65%, 2010 68%, easingwold school is average, compared to other schools in the region, selective schools are consistently in the high 90s for the region. as of 2009 ofsted report they are still number 3, satisfactory.that's not to say that they aren't doing well according to their ability which at ks 2-4 is at 78%
/
If I understand this properly it doesn’t alter what I just said about it being possible to go to a comprehensive and still be outstandingly successful but also – you say ‘selective schools are consistently in the high 90s for the region’. I have only used the internet but the north of Yorkshire seems to be a non-selective area – there are no selective schools to outperform Easingwold, which does very well by the look of it. Could you point me to the results of the selective schools in North Yorks that outperform Easingwold
…..
You produce a handful of people and claim that to be representative of a failed or unfair system, give me a break! Tell me, why are Comprehensives any better or different to than Secondary Modern?
/
I’ve already explained why I produced them – at your request – and I have already explained why comprehensive schools are better than secondary moderns – secondary moderns are part of an apartheid system - ‘the ghettoes of the advantaged’ and the rest. Why don’t you explain why so many secondary moderns are ‘failing’?
/
I READ about local secondary moderns failing in the BFP – see, Tuesday 10th June 2008 The Beaconsfield School is among four in south Bucks today named as a "National Challenge School" by ministers.
These schools must improve results by 2011 or face takeover by better schools, they warned.
When schools league tables were published last Apr I wrote a letter to the BFP saying ‘… last November the BFP published an editorial about Highcrest School (formerly Hatters Lane) entitled: ‘Outstanding school explodes a myth’. The editorial said: ‘Grammar schools are great and the rest are rubbish. All too often that’s the impression given when dinner-table talk turns to education.’ The BFP went on to say: ‘The reality is quite different.’ I see though that Highcrest School - you know the ‘outstanding’ one that exploded a myth - comes 25th out of 28 in the schools listed in terms of performance at Level 2. The Misbourne School is 18th - ten places ahead of Highcrest - but in the same edition of the paper there is a report that the Misbourne School is ‘failing’ despite being in ‘special measures’ since last year.
‘wayneo’ – a non dogmatically opinioted individual posted,
Now will those that would like to see the demise of Grammar Schools kindly shut up?... I didn't go to Grammar, I failed my 11+ but I did very well at my Secondary School where I was best placed, I don't feel envious of those that went to Grammar, I actually feel proud that this County still has them and that is reflective in the results above. I've no doubt that those in the School that I attended would have held back some of those who ended up going to Grammar. We are all different and despite the howls of protestations from the lefties, Grammar Schools and selective education works.”
(Basically all the dross - dubious use of words included – ‘reflective’ - that you’ve been paraphrasing and repeating here.)
An embittered Marxist class warrior posted, sorry, snarled later that morning,
NicM says...
Mon 4 Apr 11
Suggest you go and look at the data (Table 16) that shows that Berkshire (that has comprehensive schools) has similar results on average to Bucks. But then again its not the average student that anyone worries about is it?”
There are other things as well – Wye Valley School had problems last August – see,
http://www.bucksfree
press.co.uk/educatio
n/news/9177416.Conce
rns_raised_over_dipl
oma_course_at_Bourne
_End_school/
(Apparently a wrong course was taught for the exam.)
There were seven critical posts from family mebers (different families) criticising the course and I wrote a post saying,
This is what will happen when you have educational apartheid - grammar schools providing ‘excellence’ to children from Gerrards Cross and Beaconsfield and schools like Wye Valley (formerly Deyncourt) providing ‘sport’ as a specialist course. Every few months you get a story like this in the BFP and always about secondary moderns.


Nobody contradicted this.
…..

I had a feeling that you posted under multiple pseudonyms, you're not one of those who answers his own posts are you? Anyway, three days to construct a reply, not too bad, I'm going to enjoy my weekend so will respond on Monday. Cheers.

I've been busy and what does 'you're not one of those who answers his own posts are you' mean? (Congratulations on sticking to English words though.)

I despise these human beings who post under multiple pseudonyms.

Here Lawrence – you don’t think wayne is going to spend any time this weekend googling your names and scouring the pages of the BFP to see what else you have had to say, before he writes some fresh piece of non-sequiturs and false conclusions based on his own and his son’s life history do you?

(What’s the weather like today in Annapolis?)