Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.
(, Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread
I can hardly be much older than you and I did the 11+
(, Tue 23 Nov 2010, 14:26, 2 replies, latest was 15 years ago)
I thought the 11+ determined if you went to grammar school
(, Tue 23 Nov 2010, 14:28, Reply)
I didn't think they existed anymore...
Goes to show what I know, FUCK NUFFIN
(, Tue 23 Nov 2010, 14:33, Reply)
the 11+ is a voluntary entrance exam for grammar schools. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11%2B
(, Tue 23 Nov 2010, 14:35, Reply)
a lot of schools known as grammars are now fee-paying
(, Tue 23 Nov 2010, 14:36, Reply)
12 or 13 different schools in total. Couple of them were grammars
(, Tue 23 Nov 2010, 14:30, Reply)
I bet it was fun being the new girl lots of times...
(, Tue 23 Nov 2010, 14:34, Reply)
and I went to Grammar school.
I think some education authorites dropped it in the early eighties but as long as there was still a grammar school around, and there were plenty until grant-maintained status kicked it, you could take it if you asked.
(, Tue 23 Nov 2010, 14:34, Reply)
I could have gone to any school I liked, as long as it was the local comp.
(, Tue 23 Nov 2010, 14:35, Reply)
I was only 10 when I went to secondary school, and the comp made an arbitrary decision (without speaking to me or my parents) that I wouldn't be mature enough. My primary school flat refused to teach me for another year, said they didn't have the resources and I'd done everything they had, so I took the 11+ as a last resort and basically got 100%, more or less.
(, Tue 23 Nov 2010, 14:47, Reply)
(, Tue 23 Nov 2010, 14:35, Reply)
and then went and became an accountant? Doesn't exactly qualify as undereducated...
(, Tue 23 Nov 2010, 14:39, Reply)
(I really have no idea what i'm talking about)
(, Tue 23 Nov 2010, 14:43, Reply)
[it was a fee paying grammar but it wasn't that posh]
(, Tue 23 Nov 2010, 14:45, Reply)
The whole point of being selective is that you take across the ability range, rather than the economic, so you generally get a wide range of people. It tends to be middle classish usually- the pushy parents, but upper class send their children to private schools anyway.
Edit: as berk points out, whether they're feepaying or not makes a difference but not a huge one. It's pretty much like being in a school in a really good economic catchment area
(, Tue 23 Nov 2010, 14:45, Reply)
Alright, so my school has pretty good results because it's selective about whom it lets in - but equally, there are other schools in the area whose results are better and the parents richer, simply because of the catchment areas they serve.
(, Tue 23 Nov 2010, 14:49, Reply)
including mine. Just intellectually selective. Luckily successive governments have sorted that out in the public education system, god forbid we allow intelligent children to use their intelligence, after all.
(, Tue 23 Nov 2010, 14:49, Reply)
I firmly believe that above average intelligence children are just as entitled to the extra support that below average intelligence children get. After all, it's the bright ones that are likely to make a difference, but if you don't challenge them at school they just get bored and disillusioned and then they don't achieve anything like what they're capable of.
(, Tue 23 Nov 2010, 14:53, Reply)
to focus all your support on dragging up below average children just so they can pass a standardized test and prove to the government your results are going up. It's not fair and it's not right to value any child over another, but that's what happens when you abandon the average and better than average.
(, Tue 23 Nov 2010, 14:58, Reply)
even if you spend all the possible time in the world nurturing the below average, the most they're ever likely to be is...average.
Why not spend that time nurturing the above average ones who could be brilliant, instead of abandoning them?
*belms hard*
(, Tue 23 Nov 2010, 15:02, Reply)
found this during their school days. The one thing I can tell you is I never won anything during school, because most places had switched to giving prizes for 'effort' rather than achievement, which meant the thickest kids got stuff for scribbling with a crayon.
(, Tue 23 Nov 2010, 15:08, Reply)
I genuinely think I'd have struggled. My parents were brilliant, but I just think it would have been to easy to succumb to the social stigma of being clever in a shit school. And jesus, my local comp was shit.
I really, completely, don't see the problem in streaming. But the people in charge of education policy need a fucking good kicking. They are so petrified of seeing one stupid child fail that they will willingly let hundreds of bright ones fail to fulfill their potential.
Mind you, it's no better here. I'm actively discouraged from marking ... sorry, "giving feedback" using red pen because of "negative connotations" and I can't be negatively critical. This is to, allegedly, adults. and intelligent adults at that.
(, Tue 23 Nov 2010, 14:58, Reply)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread