11+ being scrapped

[musu]

At one school in Essex here

Interesting development which follows on from Bucks CC overhauling their 11+ and trying to make it tutor proof (although everyone I know in Bucks is still employing tutors).

Labour introduced the 1944 Education act that introduced Grammar Schools to all kids who could pass. before that the Grammar schools were fee taking or scholarship schools.

LOOK AT SOME OF THE TRAFFORD SCHOOL STATISTCS! The good thing in trafford is that kids can cross from Grammar to High school in 6th form and the other way depending on what the right course is for them.THAT IS VERY TRUE, if this does not happen in Kent it is a sad fact that Kent Education Commitee are not very good,and need to take some lessons from their northen cousins.

beatback - Labour didn't introduce anything back in 1944. It was the wartime coalition which did so. This was a genuine coalition made up of Covservative, Labour and Liberal MPs.

Anyone can apply to any 6th form if they have the right grades.

Are you saying that children regularly go to Russell Group Universities from Trafford secondary Moderns or from Trafford 6th forms?

I KNOW IT WAS A GRAND COALITION. BUT CLEM ATLEE DID NOT SCRAP IT IN 1946 DID HE. It was part of the new deal for ordinary people who had suffered, so badly during the war and probaly the only Labour Goverment that brought anything to the table in history.

BOTH SEEKER . If you look on DFE PERFORMANCE TABLES FOR SOME NON SELECTIVE SCHOOLS IN TRAFFORD. You will see that some of them get 1 to 2 percent 3 A LEVELS At AAB which is the general reqirement for russell group universities. So in a year of 150 they might get 2 a year through to a russell group uni, but they would get a few more to other universities.

Ah. They get AAB- but you don't actually know what those A levels are, or what university the student goes to? So the "regularly go to Russell Group Universities" actually means "a very few get the minimum requirements for a RGU"?

Sorry beatback, I think you are trying to rewrite history. Who in 1944 knew that the war would definitely be over in 1945? Or that Labour would win a landslide victory in the 1945 elections held shortly after VE day, (not 1946)?

I HAVE ONLY JUST COME BACK IN SO DONT THINK I WAS HIDING. I was talking about Labours New deal of 1946 which on Education states the same policy as 1944,I.E a commitment to Grammar Schools. Atlee"S goverment came in to office on the 26th july 1945 and left office on 26th october 1951.

beatback

Have sent you a pm. x

beatback why not just ditch all the capitals and converse normally, like everyone else?

The 1944 Education Act, didn't specify grammar schools. It promoted education which was to be 'appropriate' and specified primary, secondary and further education.

Labour did fail to take this to a more radical conclusion when it came to power and scrap private education and direct grant schools, and yes the Atlee Government did promote Secondary Modern Schools. The Technical schools that they also promoted hardly got off the ground.

For an interesting history read the following, which is a good summary:www.educationengland.org.uk/history/chapter05.html

MORE THAN POTATO PRINTS. As you can cleary see i say the new deal in my words nothing about a general election. THANKS FOR THE ENCOURAGEMENT. You can check new deal 1946 on the internet if you like. You see people try to trip you up, and when they end up tripping themselves up its funny

Backbeat- please could you drop the capital letters? I find it very difficult to follow.

And please believe that nobody is trying to trip you up- this is a discussion. People may not agree with you- but that does not mean that they are "out to get you"

WELL since there is a commitment to secondary moderns there most be a commitment to selective education. I have said we should have technical schools,look at my posting about the J.C.B Academy.

Who is committed to secondary moderns? As far as I can see, only the people who are committed to grammar schools!

ok just a bit of fun seeker. i actually like talking to educated people,because it helps me develop as a person. When i was at School i just wanted people to listen to me, they didnt so i can get a bit "SHOUTY" sorry.

So you were joking about supporting secondary moderns? Oh, and you didn't get round to answering my question about pupils from secondary moderns regularly going to Russell Group Universities......

Seeker it was about the new deal 1946 not about current policy. when i said in a early post that clem atlee, did not scrap his commitment to grammar schools from 1944. and la volcan thought i meant the general election had taken place in1946 not 1945.

Those committed to secondary moderns are those who want them for other people's children - assuming that their DCs will be in the grammar school.

I don't think that you would have the numbers going to RG universities from secondary moderns because they will have gone via a grammar school 6th form or 6th form college.

Ah.

[none the wiser emoticon]

And these Secondary Modern to Russell Group students?

no i am not joking about supporting secondary moderns, because as i have explained, they can be excellent schools with the right teachers.I probaly would have got a better education at a modern than i got at my comprehensive,i really mean that maybe they could have taught me Maths or to read when i left my comprehensive i was barely literate, it has taken me 30 years of self teaching to be confident in my abilty.

Sorry, beatback - what are you on about? Where do you get the year 1946 from? Late 1945 and then 47 are the key years.

I would argue that the Attlee Labour Government was committed to Secondary Moderns, but the first Minister for Education, Ellen Wilkinson, was committed to Grammar schools because she had done well out of the system. I would certainly see it as a lack of vision on their behalf.

By the 1960s the system of Secondary Moderns was loathed by a good many,(even though there were some good secondary moderns), because children felt that they had been labelled as failures.

I suspect that in the 1960s an alternative could have been to implement a real push to build the missing technical schools that a lot more would have been satisfied - they would have taken the 60% of children in the middle. My SIL was one of the few to go to one, and she was perfectly happy there. She knew the academic curriculum of the grammar school wasn't for her. Sadly the family moved house when she was 14 and the new town only had secondary moderns, not technical schools, which was where she had to go to. I don't think she ever fulfilled her potential as a result.

Then, as now, there is no real attempt to value technical education, despite a number of good proposals being put forward over the years.

EXOTIC FRUITS. Some secondary moderns have excellent 6th forms with quite high entry requirements say 4B"s +2C"s and with some of these secondary schools getting up to 80% 5A to C Maths and English you can see there is potential there. One secondary school i know got 8 kids who got 10AS at G.C.S.E last year and so on.