SELECTION OR INJUSTICE?
Posted: 17 May 2026, 01:30
SELECTION OR JUSTICE?
29 January 2006
I heard Roy Hattersley giving some very sensible opinions on the subject of the new Education Bill this morning. One thing he said struck me particularly, he was giving an explanation of what it was that had driven Neil Kinnock to be so vocal against the concept of allowing overt or covert selection of pupils by schools under the guise of ‘parental choice’. Neil was born in the hard mining area of South Wales, in Tredegar. He once described the atmosphere in his village on the day when the results of the ‘Eleven Plus’ examinations were made public. (The Eleven Plus was a universal examination which was applied to children in their last year of primary education in the UK. It is still used in a number of counties and boroughs in England and more widely in Northern Ireland. Originally intended to assess the educational status of a scholar the exam came to be seen as determining whether he or she went to a grammar school or a secondary modern.) In very crude terms, grammar school was the preserve of the middle class and could lead to higher academic qualification, the secondary moderns were geared to producing factory fodder and most qualifications gained in the system were vocational. So the day of the results was crucial, a pass to grammar school could mean escape from the pits, secondary modern was in effect a sentence of hard labour.
What struck me about this was that many younger people will think that this is an exaggeration, how could a simple thing like a primary school test be so important? The same sceptics might consider my title an exaggeration. Believe me, it isn’t. This could be an occasion for a small history lesson straight from the horse’s mouth.
If you look at the interviews in the Lancashire Textile Project (LTP) one topic which crops up over and over again is reminiscence by someone who reached a high enough standard in the Eleven Plus examination to be considered for transfer to the local grammar school. Time and time again pupils were blocked either by the local school governors or by the simple financial penalty of parents being unable to afford the travel costs and the obligatory uniform and sports gear. This was educational selection at the local level.
By the time I took the Eleven Plus in 1947 in Stockport the system was slightly better implemented. A level was set at which parents were given choices, the child who failed marginally for Stockport Grammar School could be allocated a chance to attend Mile End School, a superior secondary modern school with grammar school aspirations and a cut above the bog standard secondary school. I say ‘allocated a chance’ because this was not automatic, more students were given the chance than there were places available. The reason for this was that there was another avenue open to parents. Given a high enough standard in the Eleven Plus they could apply for an entrance examination for a free place at an even better school, in my case there were three choices, William Hulme Grammar School, Manchester Grammar School and Stockport Grammar School. If you had enough money and the child failed this examination you could still go as a fee-paying student if the school agreed.
So, in addition to sitting the Eleven Plus I sat three other examinations and had to attend for a day at each school for that purpose. All I can remember about it is that it was gruelling. I failed all the scholarship examinations but, as it turned out, by a very slim margin. As I remember it I failed completely for MGS and wasn’t even offered a fee-paying place. William Hulme offered me a place as a fee-payer but Stockport Grammar, after initially failing me, offered me a free place because they had received a cancellation and I was the next candidate in the order of results. So we all lived happily ever after, I got a superb education from masters who would normally have been retired but because of the war had stayed in post. Capped and gowned, these latter-day ‘Mr Chips’ wielded chalk and cane and turned out old-fashioned scholars. I’m certain that the effects of this served me well.
The question that arises is how would things have been for me if it hadn’t been for that last minute chance? How many children were there who, like me, had enough intelligence to profit from a good education but were condemned by the system to a lower level of schooling and starting life on the bottom rung of the industrial ladder? Is what we report selection or injustice? Is there any difference between the two?
In an ideal world every primary school scholar should have the same opportunity of the best schooling available. After two or three years better assessment could be made of capability based on performance and advice given on streaming and concentration on whatever subjects seemed most suited to the child. There should be no distinction between academic and vocational aptitudes, to often ‘vocational’ becomes a pejorative word.
So where do I stand on the present Education Bill? I think that the present system is working as well as can be expected and the improvements that can be afforded should be targeted on abolishing all selection, whether academic, social or religious and raising the standards of the bottom layers of the system even if it means proportionately reducing support to the higher levels.
Even more important, the investment in Primary Education should be doubled. If a proper cost-benefit analysis was made I am convinced that this would produce enough dividends in better educated and more effective children and reduced levels of crime to pay for even more investment in the higher levels of education. We have tinkered around the edges of education for far too long. Myriads of ‘new initiatives’ and reductions in the wages and status of teachers have taken their toll. Our education system is in a mess and it is high time it was seen as a matter of natural justice that every child should be given the opportunity to maximise their potential. Give the responsibility of deciding priorities back to the teachers inside a properly funded structure that achieves this object. It will not be achieved by shuffling deck chairs or seeking short term political advantage and the results will not be seen for at least twenty years.
29 January 2006
29 January 2006
I heard Roy Hattersley giving some very sensible opinions on the subject of the new Education Bill this morning. One thing he said struck me particularly, he was giving an explanation of what it was that had driven Neil Kinnock to be so vocal against the concept of allowing overt or covert selection of pupils by schools under the guise of ‘parental choice’. Neil was born in the hard mining area of South Wales, in Tredegar. He once described the atmosphere in his village on the day when the results of the ‘Eleven Plus’ examinations were made public. (The Eleven Plus was a universal examination which was applied to children in their last year of primary education in the UK. It is still used in a number of counties and boroughs in England and more widely in Northern Ireland. Originally intended to assess the educational status of a scholar the exam came to be seen as determining whether he or she went to a grammar school or a secondary modern.) In very crude terms, grammar school was the preserve of the middle class and could lead to higher academic qualification, the secondary moderns were geared to producing factory fodder and most qualifications gained in the system were vocational. So the day of the results was crucial, a pass to grammar school could mean escape from the pits, secondary modern was in effect a sentence of hard labour.
What struck me about this was that many younger people will think that this is an exaggeration, how could a simple thing like a primary school test be so important? The same sceptics might consider my title an exaggeration. Believe me, it isn’t. This could be an occasion for a small history lesson straight from the horse’s mouth.
If you look at the interviews in the Lancashire Textile Project (LTP) one topic which crops up over and over again is reminiscence by someone who reached a high enough standard in the Eleven Plus examination to be considered for transfer to the local grammar school. Time and time again pupils were blocked either by the local school governors or by the simple financial penalty of parents being unable to afford the travel costs and the obligatory uniform and sports gear. This was educational selection at the local level.
By the time I took the Eleven Plus in 1947 in Stockport the system was slightly better implemented. A level was set at which parents were given choices, the child who failed marginally for Stockport Grammar School could be allocated a chance to attend Mile End School, a superior secondary modern school with grammar school aspirations and a cut above the bog standard secondary school. I say ‘allocated a chance’ because this was not automatic, more students were given the chance than there were places available. The reason for this was that there was another avenue open to parents. Given a high enough standard in the Eleven Plus they could apply for an entrance examination for a free place at an even better school, in my case there were three choices, William Hulme Grammar School, Manchester Grammar School and Stockport Grammar School. If you had enough money and the child failed this examination you could still go as a fee-paying student if the school agreed.
So, in addition to sitting the Eleven Plus I sat three other examinations and had to attend for a day at each school for that purpose. All I can remember about it is that it was gruelling. I failed all the scholarship examinations but, as it turned out, by a very slim margin. As I remember it I failed completely for MGS and wasn’t even offered a fee-paying place. William Hulme offered me a place as a fee-payer but Stockport Grammar, after initially failing me, offered me a free place because they had received a cancellation and I was the next candidate in the order of results. So we all lived happily ever after, I got a superb education from masters who would normally have been retired but because of the war had stayed in post. Capped and gowned, these latter-day ‘Mr Chips’ wielded chalk and cane and turned out old-fashioned scholars. I’m certain that the effects of this served me well.
The question that arises is how would things have been for me if it hadn’t been for that last minute chance? How many children were there who, like me, had enough intelligence to profit from a good education but were condemned by the system to a lower level of schooling and starting life on the bottom rung of the industrial ladder? Is what we report selection or injustice? Is there any difference between the two?
In an ideal world every primary school scholar should have the same opportunity of the best schooling available. After two or three years better assessment could be made of capability based on performance and advice given on streaming and concentration on whatever subjects seemed most suited to the child. There should be no distinction between academic and vocational aptitudes, to often ‘vocational’ becomes a pejorative word.
So where do I stand on the present Education Bill? I think that the present system is working as well as can be expected and the improvements that can be afforded should be targeted on abolishing all selection, whether academic, social or religious and raising the standards of the bottom layers of the system even if it means proportionately reducing support to the higher levels.
Even more important, the investment in Primary Education should be doubled. If a proper cost-benefit analysis was made I am convinced that this would produce enough dividends in better educated and more effective children and reduced levels of crime to pay for even more investment in the higher levels of education. We have tinkered around the edges of education for far too long. Myriads of ‘new initiatives’ and reductions in the wages and status of teachers have taken their toll. Our education system is in a mess and it is high time it was seen as a matter of natural justice that every child should be given the opportunity to maximise their potential. Give the responsibility of deciding priorities back to the teachers inside a properly funded structure that achieves this object. It will not be achieved by shuffling deck chairs or seeking short term political advantage and the results will not be seen for at least twenty years.
29 January 2006