Stigmatised at 11
Sir: Why is the grammar school debate so heavily focused on the few who pass rather than on the great majority who fail the selection and go to secondary modern schools? As the mother of four grammar school pupils, I was fortunate and so were they. As a governor for many years of the concomitant secondary modern, I watched as children who had happily learnt alongside mine in primary school were gradually deprived of chances after failing the 11-plus. French (and of course other languages) disappeared, then history. Teachers of academic subjects lost heart; pupils could pursue them only if they later found a place at sixth-form college. The school, excellently equipped for sport, woodwork, cookery and other skills, had no provision for over-16s. I listened to agonised parents who had hoped their child might take up law or architecture and were told it was out of the question.
As a parliamentary candidate (Labour) in 1974, I campaigned for comprehensives. They have not been very successful, but at least they do not label a child at 11. Setting does allow sudden interests and talents to be encouraged, and teachers can spot late developers. Grammar schools are fine but even Tories need to offer hope to the other 75 per cent of children in selective areas.
Marigold Johnson London W2
Previous page
