I'd love it if someone could point out why it's supposed to be morally better to deny clever kids a decent education at 11 years than to deny thick kids one at age 11.

Wierdly I remember a (Labour voting everything-is-Thatcher's-fault) mate of mine at school was quite happy to claim he was better than me at 18 because he got a place at "proper" university whereas I was inferior because I got a place at a Poly. At first I wondered what this was all about, then I worked out that snobs can use just about any situation to make themselves feel better. Voting Labour being just one of these.

I'm aiming squarely at those kids who simply do not fit in.

Send them to a decent school and they will

Send them to a decent school and they will

Slightly over-simplistic, no?

I'd love it if someone could point out why it's supposed to be morally better to deny clever kids a decent education at 11 years than to deny thick kids one at age 11.

It isnt which is why the comprehensive system seems like a better idea to me. I've taught in an area with grammer schools, at a comp which isnt a real comp, and at a comp in an area with no grammer schools and the later is better for more people. Kids with supportive parents needednt worry about sending their little darlings to a comp as long as its a decent one.

This is historical inaccuracy. If you went to grammar school, the other schools were not comprehensives, they were secondary moderns.

I never heard of any of my local schools being referred to as secondary moderns, they were all called comprehensives. What is the difference?

Children with IQs of 120 and over, were expected to attend grammar schools. An IQ of 120 is hardly spectacular – I believe that approximately one third of the population has an IQ of 120. So a bit above average then.

This statistic is skewed by geography. If you lived a fair distance from the local grammars, then only perhaps 5% of pupils had a place awarded.

I would agree with AA, a school which hasn't had lots of the most capable pupils removed is best for the community as a whole. For ernie_lynch, I'd offer experiences from my apprenticeship to show why segregation harms the less able. I spent quite a lot of time coaching fellow appretices with the academic side (especially maths). Then they spent time showing me how metal fits together 🙂 Imagine if that had been happening for the previous 5 years.

I never heard of any of my local schools being referred to as secondary moderns, they were all called comprehensives. What is the difference?

If you have grammer schools taking the top achieving kids at age 11 in an area, then the comps arent comprehensive as they are missing the top end, they are just not called secondary moderns any more.

Surely they are called comprehensive schools because entry is open to all (comprehensive intake), that would differentiate from the grammars which are selective?

Comprehensive schools take all pupils – all of them. If there are grammar schools in the area they only take some of the pupils hence they are not comprehensive.

Well that doesn't work TJ, since in one area without grammar schools you could have two comprehensive schools. They can't both take all the pupils…

Its not about taking all pupils, its about taking all abilities, if a grammar school is down the road it means you dont have any "real" comps, seems an easy concept to understand as far as I can see.

Comprehensive schools CAN take pupils of all abilities though, that's my point.

Rich – you fail to see the point. If you have a grammar school you do not have a comprehensive school. A comprehensive school is one that can and does take all the pupils in an area. If there is another school that takes some of the pupils then the other is not a comprehensive

No, I don't TJ, although I notice that your definition of a comp seems to change subtly every time 🙂

OK, again, in the last example you give, the other school in the area might not be a grammar school. So you have 2 schools in the area, one taking pupils that the other could educate. And yet according to you, neither is a comprehensive.

A comprehensive is a school that DOES NOT select the intake. Thats WHY it's called a comprehensive!!!

I don't know how to explain it any better. You obviously have a defective education. You simply do not or will not understand.

go have a look at a dictionary

My mum was from a very poor background, in a small town in a now defunct county – her dad was a gardener, badly burnt in the war, whilst her mum worked in a bakery.

At school she did well, passed her eleven plus and was awarded a full scholarship to grammar school, fifteen miles away – she got the bus there and back every day, she was aware that a lot of the kids there were from "better" backgrounds, but she did well at school, passed her O levels and got a job in a bank, only a young marriage and kids prevented her going to university, before spending most of the rest of her career as a civil servant.

My dad was the son of a docker, his mum a shop worker, grew up in inner city Liverpool, technical college where they began to teach him a trade, resulting in an apprenticeship as an Electrician, a few years at sea and an established trade that kept him in work though to retirement.

From very, very modest backgrounds, they ended up owning a house with a nice garden, and successfully set up two sons to the point where they had a job and career themselves.

Would my mum have ended up doing what she did if she had not gone to Grammar school? almost definitely not, social mobility led to her getting a banking and civil service career, a lot of her school friends ended up as teachers, again some from the same pretty poor backgrounds, the 11+ identified those with ability and gave them the best educations. At the same time, I don't think for one second my dad would have benefitted from a more "conventional" education, his education suited his skills and abilities perfectly.

Problem with a "comprehensive" education is that its the classic socialist problem of trying to produce equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity – you end up with everyone getting a middle of the road education with nobody able to excel despite personal ability, a grey homologous mass, with everyone learning the same and nobody having their education tailored to what they need or are likely to do in the future.

The beauty of the proper grammar school system was that it was not just a grammar school or nothing, there were also secondary modern and technical colleges meaning a variety of educational opportunities were open to be tailored to kids.

I think we're arguing semantics here TJ, or we're talking about different things.

You can't disagree with this, because it's true:

A comprehensive is a school that DOES NOT select the intake. Thats WHY it's called a comprehensive!!!

I don't think it's wrong to call them comprehensives, because they offer an education to everyone, regardless of ability. You think they're called that to represent a system without selection. But how can they be, since they were designated when selection was in place?

Zulu – very nice anecdotes but wrong I am afraid.

A true comprehensive system such as I attended gives equality of opportunity. It is well proven that the brightest kids do well no matter what the school is, those of middling ability do better in non selective schools, those of lower ability it makes no difference to them what the school is.

Selection destroys the chances of some kids – either those who are late developers who fail an 11 plus but would get a levels – and that is more common than you think, it fails those who do poorly in one off exams and most importantly it fails those who just pass the eleven plus – they struggle in the grammar school and don't get the attention that they need.

This is why the vast majority of Teachers and education professionals are against selection. It is a poor way to educate children.

A good education is about more than exam results

Rich wrong again – comprehensives were designed as a replacement for the selective school system. You are misusing the word. A comprehensive school has a comprehensive intake of all the pupils in the area. You simply cannot have a comprehensive school if a quarter of the kids don't go there.

A good education is about more than exam results

Couldn't agree more – however its also not about how many go to university afterwards, see my points about technical schools and apprenticeships.

The problem with the eleven plus is that it is too rigid. My fully comprehensive school had good technical educations available as well and allowed people the flexibility to have a mix of academic and technical educations and also to transfer between the systems seamlessly at any time. Something denied to people that fail the eleven plus

Not where I'm from TJ, they existed concurrently. Also, wouldn't they just be called schools if there was no selection system? There was none of this technical college business where I grew up. I'm not as old as you, perhaps I'm missing some of the history. Certainly the school I attended had always been selective.

I'm fully with you TJ, selection based on ability (to pass exams) at 11 is insane. I don't think the subject matter is different between selective and comps, just the amount of funding and the quality of teaching. FWIW, I don't quite fit your descriptions. I was a high achiever at 11 but struggled at grammar school because I wasn't top dog anymore. I disliked 1.5 hours of commuting a day, and couldn't really form close friendships with the others as they lived miles from me. I think it's telling that I have no contact with anyone I went to school with now. All my closest mates are those I grew up with, but they all went to the comp or catholic school.

Would my mum have ended up doing what she did if she had not gone to Grammar school?

Quite possibly. I've got loads of friends who work in the City, some of whom have done very well for themselves. Not one went to grammar school.

RichPenny – Member

Not where I'm from TJ, they existed concurrently……………….. I'm not as old as you,

Perhaps the key things here – some areas never actually introduced a comprehensive system. All they did was rename their secondary modern schools comprehensives without removing the Grammars thus it was never a comprehensive system. Comprehensive schooling was developed in the 60 s and 70 s as a replacement for selection at 11.

OK, that makes sense. LOL, did they think people wouldn't notice?

A comprehensive system is one without selection, so if an area such as reading where I live, has grammar schools within it the "comprehensive schools" are not proper comps they are secondary moderns named something else. Is this not an easy concept to understand or is it me thats stupid?