I just finished reading the Beatles Autobiograpgy Anthology and in it, they mention several times about taking the Eleven Plus . Does anybody know what this is. Some sort of achievement test?
I just finished reading the Beatles Autobiograpgy Anthology and in it, they mention several times about taking the Eleven Plus . Does anybody know what this is. Some sort of achievement test?
Brit thing....
It was a exam taken at 11 if you passed you could go to a Grammer/high school :bbg: if you failed you got to go to a Secondary Modern school :shiner: Its not been used for many years now...although some schools will ask pupils to take a entrance exam before they get a place...
It was critical because if you did well and went to Grammar school you would probably go onto university and become a well paid professional if you failed you would go to a secondary modern and this would limit your career opportunities. Not much pressure for eleven year olds then!
Many older Brits still talk about it as a significant life event unsurprisingly.
This divisive system was abolished in the 60s/70s and replaced with Comprehensive schools, responsible for the interesting state of British education today.
Just for information to our British friends:
Our school systems, although never having had the eleven plus did basically the same thing in and around the same time. Our public school systems here crank out halfwits more often than not because of a lack of decent educators, lack of parental envolvement, and little or no personal responsibility take by the students because no repriasals are given for their behavior. Basically the kids run amuk these days and no one can do much of anything about it without ending up in court.
Our public school systems now have exit exams for graduation. This, in my opinion, is entirely unacceptable because by that time it's too late and it could have been any one link in the chain over the course of the last 12 years that failed to teach. This is how they keep from blaming the teacher for failing to teach. No one knows who the bad seed was and they want it that way.
So we have students that don't care about learning, teachers that are powerless over their students and in turn have stopped caring about teaching for the most part. And then there's the fact that many of the students educated at the height of this "lack thereof educational explosion" are now teachers themselves teaching more students to be just like them. It's really sad to see and very disheartening to see the students coming out of school these days. As an example we put my daughter in public school for about half a year which is why she's back in private school.
My duaghters Kindergarten teacher would forget to send the kids homework home with them (not going by what my daughter would tell us but by what the teacher would tell us when she was asked why the kids didn't have homework) and couldn't write a complete sentence to save her life. When we would get memos from the school's principle my wife and I would litterally sit down with it and count the number of typos and run-on scentences. I may sound like I'm being nit-picky but you would have had to have seen these things to truly understand. It was bad.
Times may change but standards must remain. Our public school system is the perfect example of what happens when liberal ideology is left to run the place. What was the cause of Britian's educational downfall and why was the 11 plus replced by comprehensive schools? The eleven plus sounds like a good idea to me and should be implimented here as well.
Take care,
Darris C.
Darris,
The problem with the idea of an 11 plus is that it creates a social divide from a very young age. I am not a lop eared liberal, why not dicipline kids properly and enforce high standards?, but separating kids due to so-called 'ability' does more harm than good.
In the past kids who went to 'grammar' schools, like has been previously said, had more chance of going to university and therefore joining a profession, earning a good living etc. Frankly the other kids didn't, unless they did something off their own backs. Kids in the 'comprehensive' schools are obviously going to feel automatically inferior, and lower their own expectations of themselves. No ambition, no result. Socially speaking the two don't mix, either.
Why not introduce a system where everybody gets treated with equal opportunity, no matter what their background and let those who want to get on with it, get on with it.
Maybe I'm an ideallist...
Hello 10 pence,
Not knowing exactly how your educational system works over there I base my assesment on what I know from my local public school system which is less than adaquate in most respects BUT it is diversified AND everyone has the chance to go farther if they so desire. If I'm understanding you correctly secondary modern school is more like a trade school where the children would go to learn a trade because society felt that they were less than adaquate to do anything else??? Where grammar/highschool was more of a prepschool to prepare them to go on to University???
If I'm correct in my assumption then I have to agree with your assessment, but on the otherhand if those that went to modern secondary still had the chances to go on to higher education if they so desired then I would feel more inclined to want the 11 plus. Some people are late bloomers I agree and they should be give the chances as well, however if they have the chance to go on to higher education even in modern secondary school if they work harder then I find nothing wrong with it because that's how people succeed, by working harder.
Again if by going to modern secondary school one is taken out of the loop completely then as I said I agree with you especially since you're having to pay the same for education as everyone else through taxation. In that respect the 11 plus should have been abolished and a more consistant educational procedure should have been taken.
Over here it tends to be a little backward at present. Basically if you did nothing during 1 through 12 th grade other than mess around you are actually sought after by the Universities because they want to "change your poor pathetic life" and they throw maney at you. At this point one can go to University on tax payer money and still do nothing in class, party all night and still be a loser at no additional cost to the student :)
The problems that our public schools as well as higher educational facilities have in many cases is a lack of accountability. Nothing is required for the students or the teachers. Kids can fail and still be passed. Teachers can get away with teaching nothing and are also sought after by public schools because their passing rates for students are so high which looks good for the school.
When I was in highschool I was a teachers aid for one of my history teachers. One day when I walked in she looked pretty ticked off ("mad" if you don't get the descriptive) I asked her what the problem was and she through a piece of paper at me so I read it. In escence it said that the failure rate in her class was at a level too high for acceptability purposes and asked if she would utilize a more liberal scoring approach so that more passing grades could be given in her class. In otherwords if they don't pass pass them anyway so it looks better on paper.
I was very impressed when she said that if the students didn't earn those grades she wasn't going to give them out like free candy. I too had her for class and I was passing without any problem. Hell, several of the students on her roster never even showed up to class and had zeros because of it so it would have been rediculous to give a passing grade or any grade at all for that matter to a student that was never there. That is what has become of some of our school system and I fear the majority of it at that.
I have my duaghter in private school not because of the prestige of being in a private school but so that she can get an education.
I'm afraid to think of what she would have to face if she were to have stayed in public school any longer. I got into an arguement with a young liberal lady once about education and the advantages of the wealthy in this department.
What was intresting about the arguement was that she was a stay at home wife with two kids afforded by her husbands salary as a professor at the local college which ain't small change for this area. She said that the wealthy had unfair advantages in education because they could afford it and eveyone should get the same chances. So I looked at her and said "Okay, you pay for my daughters private school." When she asked why she should do that I told her that her household income was higher than mine so therefore by the standards set by her and her kind she should pay for my daughters private school so that she could have the same advantages as kids from wealthy families. Needless to say she wasn't pleased but she was speachless :) The discussion went no further and I just smiled my Cheshire cat grin and went on spanking the pants off of her at Trivial Pursuit. She even had the nerve to try to cheat off of my controller. Typical though.
Oh well, give me more insight to how the schools work over there and especially the 11 plus thing.
Take care,
Darris C.
Darris,
Supposedly now everybody has the chance to go to university, whichever version of school they go to. In the UK most schools are able to accept pupils of all ability levels. A number of schools have permission from government to ask that entrants fulfill an entrance exam (similar in principle to the 11 plus).
Also in existence are private schools (ironically called 'public schools'!), which are usually boarding and attract fees up to and beyond $20,000 per year. These are usually full of kids who have no concept of the 'real' world anyway.
We too have league tables of school performance which are ALLEDGEDLY affecting how papers are marked. I find it sad that kids are being educated fraudulently because of Government policy, but that seems to be how life is at the moment.
If I had children, and the money, I agree with you- privatly paid education would be my choice, even if all it meant was making the right contacts while there. Sad isn't it?
Depends on what you define as the "real world" I suppose! For many of the kids in private education this is the real world, where hard work gets results, where learning is a positive thing, where following the rules is a necessary survival skill, where you succeed through educational success, go on through "O levels/GCSEs", A levels and University to a professional career where you mix with people who shared your educational background and outlook and have your view of the "real world" reinforced.10 Pence Short said:
Also in existence are private schools (ironically called 'public schools'!), which are usually boarding and attract fees up to and beyond $20,000 per year. These are usually full of kids who have no concept of the 'real' world anyway.
Comprehensive schools have given opportunity to individuals who might otherwise not have been able to go to University (although the massive increase in University places has devalued the perception of graduates). However it also created a culture of lowest common denominator which provides for children with special educational needs but fails the brighter students and frequently drags teaching down to classroom control and not "teaching" due to the misguided policy of inclusion.
Private schools are divisive both socially and educationally. They give an "unfair" advantage and remove the interests of any parents with any power or influence to change the system from the failing comprehensive system. However the idea of equality is as naive as the concepts of "rights" and even if all kids were educated in the comprehensive (or state system) motivated wealthy parents would provide additional support with after hours tutors etc.
Tim,
My comments on the 'real world' weren't a reflection on the level of work, but the happy cushion they seem to have from the every day planet.
Having dilemas like 'Which Bentley should Jeeves wash today?', and 'Should I wear the blue jodphers or the cream at today's hunt?' don't wash with me as real life issues. Without the worry of dad axe murdering mum, or the local dealer firebombing your council flat, no wonder private school kids perform better than others. I would never debate that.
Rightly or wrongly I believe that everybody should have the right to an education of such quality that people from all walks of life could end up with the same opportunities. Told you I was an ideallist.
Tim and 10 pence,
You both make good points although seemingly diametrically opposed. When I read what each of you have written I equate it to my father and his life growing up. He didn't have it easy as a kid by any stretch of the imagination. His family was always moving around, sometimes didn't know where the next meal was coming from or where they'd be living next. Basically he grew up worse than dirt poor. The funny thing was that my dad never let that stop him. My dad took advantage of every oportunity and did what he new he had to do. He got and education in public schools regardless of the number times he changed schools and put himself through college and did very well. When my dad graduated he went out and worked hard and again did well.
When I hear "everyone should be given the same opportunities as the wealthy." I look at my dad and think that if he could do it everyone can you just have to want to. He had all the same opportunities as anyone else and took advantage of them. But therein lies the problem that I see. My dad wanted to get out of that life and wanted to do better for himself and his family. So many people expect it to be given to them as if they are entitled to it without the same hard work and it just isn't that way although liberal ideology would tell you it should be. My dad worked hard and taught me the value of working hard to get where you want to be. That is exactly what I too have done though my life wasn't what his was growing up and I thank him for that, but I don't expect anything from anyone be it education or anything else. I'll do it the old fashioned way...I'll earn it!
I'm still not clear on how the educational system works over there. When the 11 plus was still in use was secondary modern school nothing more than a trade school or did it teach reading, writing, and arithematic just perhaps not as advanced? I'm a strong believer in peoples ability to do whatever it is they set their minds too. The information is out there for everyone and no one is holding you back from being educated if it's what one wants to do. If I were to fail an exam and put into trade school as a mason I would become the best mason I could and on my off time I would study science and medicine anyway and go on from there. As I said the information is there and anyone can use it to their advantage, but if one elects not to do anything other than what's been handed out then they deserve what they get and should get no more IMO.
When people are challenged they will do more and even greater things than those that are not challenged as is evident in ours as well as your school systems. When the education system is watered down to catch the slow learners it is the more advanced students that fall through the cracks and sometimes get dragged down to a much lower level which isn't the right way to go about it. Schools need to raise the bar not lower it and make sure that everyone gets over it without compromising education levels. I am the same as you in that I'm very saddened when I see school age kids that can't spell, read or write.
Something I really thought was funnywas when Ex-President Bill Clinton stood in front of a camera and told people that he wanted to guarantee that all students would be able to read by the third grade. I remember some of grade school and as I recall we were being taught basic reading skills in kindergarten (public school mind you) and were taught more advanced reading techniques by first grade meaning that we were already able to read by first grade and before. By third grade we were in study and reading groups going through 10 or 15 books a year depending on your abilities but the one thing I remember is that slower students were encouraged and pushed to do better and helped by teachers and students alike to reach that goal. Now days schools can't even set a goal for fear of hurting a childs self esteem and bringing a lawsuit on themselves by the school board itself. So reading by the third grade is a step backward not a step forward in my view.
My daughter learned to read in preschool so when we tried public school for Kindergarten most of the kids in the class couldn't read. My daughter was one of four that could read out of a class of 22 students. The teacher was going over rudimentary reading skills but basically went over color identification (i.e. they colored a lot) for the most part. That was when I, as a parent, decided I would work 24 hours a day doing whatever I had to to make sure that I gave my child every opportunity to do better, but that goes back to what I, as a parent, am willing to do for my children and not just sit back and wait for everyone else to handle it for me.
If you wouldn't mind giving me a little more information regarding how the schools were when they have the 11 plus I would appreciate it.
Thanks,
Darris C.
Darris,
UK system is fairly simple- all children have the right to a state education, in a mainly 1 tier system (ie. all schools are supposedly equal). There is no longer an 11 Plus type arrangement.
Those with enough money may choose to privately educate their children, usually to include boarding. These schools can obviously afford better facilities (and probably teachers), and are mainly populated by children who mix in 'upper' circles of society.
In principle our system should work well, but the government keeps moving the goalposts quicker than the schools can shoot. so they are always playing cath-up. Sham, really, because it's the kids that suffer.
Sorry but can't let that pass, there is nothing wrong with idealism but it has to be based on reality. All public(private) schools are not filled with the inbred wealthy degenerates of the upper classes. Most of the local private schools in Yorkshire for example are composed of the children of middle class professionals.Equally not all comprehensive kids suffer a life of degredation and sink estates (Boston Spa anyone?).10 Pence Short said:
Having dilemas like 'Which Bentley should Jeeves wash today?', and 'Should I wear the blue jodphers or the cream at today's hunt?' don't wash with me as real life issues. Without the worry of dad axe murdering mum, or the local dealer firebombing your council flat, no wonder private school kids perform better than others. I would never debate that.
I'd agree with the fact that most have access to better resources but they also have no special needs kids, no kids there who are unable to be disciplined, no parents who are likely to thump the teachers and usually a desire to do well. Things sadly missing from the State system. That's not to say everyone succeeds from private schools, I've seen kids who have done no work and dropped out so the desire to succeed is as important as Darris stated.
Ideally every kid would have an education structured to them, practical and technical and not academic for some, academic for others, vocational for others. I'll believe it when I see it!
Darris the Secondary Moderns gave a good but basic education, it taught the three R's (Reading,Writing and Arithmatic)but no Latin etc. and prepared children for the more basic jobs. You could go on to College or Polytechnic ("inferior" universities)if you got the grades. You could leave school at 15 and become an apprentice, or go down the mines, work in the steel mills etc. All that's gone now like much of the developing world our manufacturing industry is in decline.
Hello Tim and 10 Pence,
I appreciate all the information. I would say that from Tims description 11 plus was testing that took kids into more advanced studies I will agree, but secondary modern didn't exclude kids from striving to do better for themselves if I read correctly. It appears to be similar in effect to Above Grade Level classes in high school vs, Grade Level or Below Grade Level. Each student still gets an education but at different levels and perhaps a different pace but none of the levels destines anyone for anything (greatness or failure) it is up to the individual as to where they end up not the school or their placement therein.
As I've said before if it were a situation where the test determined which students would get an actual education vs. those that would be sent directly to trade school then I can see where it would be unfair perhaps. But I can also see the same unfairness in not allowing schools to reward those that were perhaps more advanced. It's really a Catch 22 but you hear less complaining from the more advanced or more affluent in those respects
Hypothetically speaking, if the 11 plus were still in effect it would work like this (at least here it would):
Little Johnny sits for the 11 plus today. Johnny has spent his educational carreer thus far sitting in the back of the room doing basically nothing other than causing problems and telling the teacher where he or she can stick it and gets no repriasals for doing so. Little Johnny finishes the test, hands it in and waits for the results.
Johnny knows he passed because he's a smart guy and can do anything anyone hands him despite the fact he hasn't learned anything being taught because he refuses and is failing. The results come back and little Johnny failed to even score on the test. Well, little Johnny is outraged. He jumps up, throws a fit, throws a chair narrowly missing the teacher and storms out of the room not to be seen from the rest of the day.
The following day Johnny's teacher gets a call to come to the principles office. There in the office sit the principle and Johnny's parents. The teacher is asked to have a seat and the principle starts in with
Principle: "Johnny's parents are concerned about their sons failing the 11 plus and would like to know what you would be willing to do about it?"
Teacher: "Nothing. If he didn't pass he didn't pass. Those are not my rules they're the testing boards rules."
Principle: "Yes, but you administered the test and graded it. We already have a lower than usual number of passing grades on the 11 plus as it is. Don't you want to see our school get the recognition it deserves?"
Teacher: "Yes, but if we..."
Principle: "I knew you would understand. Johnny's parents are happy with that as well which will lessen the possibility of any legal action against the school. So you run along back to class and give Johnny the grade he "deserves."
Teacher: "I will not just go change a grade on a student that didn't do the work!"
Principle: "Well, that's a shame because I sure would hate to see something like this become carreer ending for someone as promising as yourself. If Johnny's parent decide to take legal action someone will have to pay the price and it will not be this school, but rather an individual that's not a...how should we say
a team player."
Teacher: "I get your point. I hope you can live with this decision."
Principle: "If Johnny's parents can then I can too."
That would be how it would go in this day and time which would basically render it obsolete. If someone thinks they should have passed and want something bad enough without working for it, they can get it. It's sad but true and it happens all the time which is why personal responsibility is all but gone and why being held accountable is so tabboo.
Take care,
Darris C.
Tim,
As usual I was perhaps guilty of polarising my point a little for dramatic effect...
However, following my education at state schools (Western primary school in Harrogate and Rosset Secondary School, also in Harrogate), I can say that if a child wants to learn and REALLY desires it, they can. But the state school can still be viewed as a handicap to a fullsome education, rather than an aid sometimes- of course it often depends on the quality and motivation of the staff.
The very fact that you say private schools are populated also by the 'middle classes' is my point- class (the social one, that is). Why should children born into less favourable conditions be limited to lower quality education. This surely keeps the devide between the haves and the have-nots?
In my experience the only time public schoolers mix with the 'lower classes' is when they want to purchase some more, er, recreational antibiotics, if you get my drift. My own secondary school, Rosset, is plonked right opposite Ashville Public School- nobody but nobody mixed between the schools, yet the 30 yards across the road was all that separated the two schools.
I think it's sad.
The debate about quality of education being linked to government funding versus tuition has been going on for quite awhile now. Do you folks really believe that funding is an issue when it comes to teaching children?
I don't. I remember a story about a former NYC teacher who set up a classroom in her own low income apartment and taught a small group of children there. I think there were only 10- 15 kids in her class and they were somewhere between the US 5th or 6th grade level; she taught them everything from algebra to geometry. These kids were making failing grades in the city public school system and were often truant because of a lack of interest in school. She brought them up to a level where they passed 8th grade level apptitude tests. She use a computer, a DVD player or a satelite hookup in order to teach them. In fact, she only had a handful of used books and some photocopied material for them to use; sometimes, she took them on field trips to the museums an etc. She is proof that it is not toys that educate children; it is caring, dedicated, intelligent and sometimes tough teachers that help children learn.
Not sure i'd agree with some of this Tim,Tim Hunter said:
I'd agree with the fact that most have access to better resources but they also have no special needs kids, no kids there who are unable to be disciplined, no parents who are likely to thump the teachers and usually a desire to do well.
Yes they have better resources, but you have to pay for them..
Special needs kids just get pushed harder.
Disipline can be just as bed in the priviate sector, just you never here about it bad for the schools reputation.
Not sure some parents would not be prepared to thump the teacher, but i bet the teacher would lose their job rather than the pupil getting expelled..
Yep if i were paying all that money to send my kid to school she would have a very big desire to do well......
Funding is alway going to be a issue, we dont have bottom less pockets to do everything.
But our local school has not been painted for over 10 years and others in the area have begged old tins of paint just so they can paint the woodwork....
Private schools are divisive, if you can afford to pay more you often get better service. Although John R is right not all private schools are bastions of elitism.
Are we being hypocritical in expecting more for more money in other walks of life but not in education and health care?
I have to say we mixed very well with the girls from our local comprehensive, when I was at an all boys private school :D
I'd agree though that private schools usually do engender a sense of superiority (reinforced by the success of their students) however as I remember one of the reasons we didn't mix much with the other local comprehensive kids was their attitude to us. Which was let us say not inclusive or non violent.
Don't know the answer, fairness doesn't exist unless we make it so and a lot of people (including our Prime minister) are not prepared to be fair when it comes to giving their kids an advantage.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks