You are not currently logged in.
Tuesday, February 07 2012

Canterbury High School head teacher Phil Karnavas attacks 11-plus system

Pupils who sit the 11-plus are placed under such pressure that the system verges on being cruel and could be described as child abuse, according to the head teacher of one of Kent’s leading secondary schools.

Phil Karnavas, the principal of Canterbury High School, one of the county’s best performing non-selective schools, made a forthright denunciation of the system in an article for The Observer.

He said a test was not needed and that the 11-plus was a major reason why results in national tests in Kent were below the national average.

He said: "Putting children through this examination is verging on the cruel. I am surprised that no-one has taken selective authorities to tribunal for child abuse given the unnecessary strain and stress that it causes."

He said there was "sufficient evidence" Year Six schooling was "seriously and detrimentally affected by the Kent test” and becoming worse because the test was now sat in September, much earlier than it used to be.

Pupils who did not take the test were made to feel like "second class citizens".

He added: "Once the test is taken, the rest of Year Six is a bit of a waste of time…it could be argued the rest of the year is basically twiddling your thumbs."

Parents who believed grammar schools were better were putting an incredible strain on children and the process was ridiculously expensive for those who sought out private tutors.

His comments come after another Kent head also criticised the selective system. Vanessa Everett, head of Mascalls School, said absence rates in primary schools were high because parents were increasingly taking children out of school for holidays once they had sat the exam in early September.

What do you think? Join the debate by leaving your comments below.

Monday, October 12 2009

The KM Group does not moderate comments.
Please click here for our house rules.

Comments (21)

Comments closed

  • Phil Karnavas wrote:

    This is what I think


    The press reports (sometimes accurate!) of what I have said seem to have excited some debate. Excellent.


    However, if people are going to take issue with me I would prefer it if they did so on the basis of what I think - not what people think I think. I hope that this contribution will be of some use.


    Let me be clear I do not criticise grammar schools. Kent has many good grammar schools. My concern is not with the schools but with the system. There are two separate but related issues. The first is the system of selection, or rejection, itself; and, the second is the way that the selection, or rejection, is made.


    I am uncomfortable with a system of selection, or rejection, for many reasons.


    The economics of this system are worrying. Grammar schools will always fill and when an area has fewer children then another school must lose out. Inevitably, that school’s numbers will drop, their budget will contract leading to staff cuts and shrinking provision. Ultimately, it will probably ‘fail’. It is no one’s interest to have a ‘failing’ school.


    A selective system damages the concept of community schooling. Students at grammar school are often not from the area. The Kent system is not for Kent since a significant number of students in Kent’s grammar schools do not live in Kent. The selective system divides not only friendship groups but families. It places many parents in an impossible situation, causes many families to suffer anxiety and places children under significant stress.


    Every child is different, every child is good at something and every child walks with genius. There are different types of intelligence. My worry is that selective systems may be seen to value only a certain type of intelligence. Thus, selective systems can create their own, but false, hierarchies of worth.


    In such a system the perceived success of the few depends upon the actual ‘failure’ of the many. In Kent 75% of children are labelled ‘failures’ because they are not entered for the test; or, they are entered for the test and ‘fail’ it; or, they ‘fail’ at appeal. This must damage a young child’s self esteem and confidence. In some cases this damage will linger a life time.


    Kent is more fortunate, possibly, than other areas in the country because it does have many genuinely excellent non selective schools. These schools work exceptionally hard to successfully overcome the damage caused to many children by a selection, or rejection, system; but, the fact that they can, and do, do this should not be used to justify the system which necessitates it.


    All primary schools are comprehensive and a selective system for secondary is unnecessary. There are other, and I would argue better, ways of providing local communities and their children with education. Local schools, each with comprehensive intakes, working together and utilising their specialisms could provide an area with real excellence. In this way all the children of an area would be the responsibility of all the schools in that area. One school’s success would not be at another’s expense. All children would get a better deal.


    However, the decision to have a selective system is a political one made by a democratically elected council and, although I may not agree with it, I accept their right to make it. This brings me to my second concern.


    The system of testing is seriously flawed.


    Children develop at different rates and times. Intelligence is not fixed and to pretend to be able to measure it accurately at 10 or 11 is a nonsense.


    Moreover, everyone knows that 'on any given day' a child may perform better or worse than expected. Thus, even if the test were valid it would still suffer from this element of randomness. The appeals process, intended to ameliorate this, is risible.


    The test damages Key Stage 2 in a variety of ways. The test is too early. There is a concentration on those children taking the test. Those who pass it then have little left to aim for. Those who fail it, may switch off. Key Stage 2 results probably suffer.

    In reality, the testing system tends to reward parental affluence as well as, if not more than, a child’s innate ability. It is not up for argument: grammar schools serve a relatively privileged socio economic group. Looked after children, children who have free school meals, students with English as an additional language, certain ethnic groups, students with Special Needs and so on are under represented in grammar schools.


    A significant number of year 7 pupils at grammar school will have had private education, private tuition or parents with the time and resources to coach their children. These children are not necessarily more able; they are just better prepared. What then is any selective system actually selecting ?


    Some children have private tuition at a ridiculously young age, some are tutored very early in the morning, some are tutored late at night, some spend the summer holiday being crammed, some are offered cash incentives for ‘passing’ and some are placed under major strain.


    Some children, who are put through all this, will ‘fail’, and the damage to their self esteem could be profound. It was this that led to a KCC official remarking to me that some may see this as being pretty close to the emotional abuse of children


    I am afraid that I cannot change my view that to some extent success in the test now depends in part upon a parent's ability and willingness to pay for it. This is a difficult area. All parents want their children to do well and so I would not presume to say that they are wrong. What I do say is that it is wrong to place them in a position where they feel they have to make this choice.

    22 Oct 2009 10:51 AM

    Report Abuse

  • Nikki wrote:

    11 Plus

    I have lived in Kent all my life and went to a grammar school myself as did my sister and our parents before us. It was all I knew of the selective system in Kent and I thought it was just peachy! As a parent now I despise the system. I can't imagine moving and so have to live and educate my children within the constraints of the system. I can't quote all the facts and figures that some of the previous posters have mentioned but I can speak from the heart about the impact it's had on us. Having had one child "fail" and one child "pass" it is impossible not to notice the massive disparity in the education they have received and 6 years on I still feel sick to the stomach when I look back on how I let my first son down. I naively bought into the belief that so many pc primary school heads champion that a child can do just as well in a non-selective school as a grammar, it's better to be a bright kid in a secondary modern than struggle in a grammar - how could I have been so stupid? A boy who actually only just missed the pass mark - but by then I had already put the "best" option non-selective as first choice to ensure we got in (the head had already told me he had no chance of passing), so we could not appeal for the grammar as it was a lower choice than the school given. Within weeks I could see how bad things were. He sat for the grammar school yearly test a few months in but by then his work was already going backwards - I swear he would have got better results for his GCSE's as he left his primary school than he did by year 11. I can absolutely see why the non-selectives are so bad, for a start 75% of the kids and parents couldn't care less whether they learn anything. For a boy who was desperate not to stand out in a crowd it was heaven - he happily blended in to where he was most comfortable, about half way down the class - do you know what, he'd have aimed for half way down the class in a grammar school too but oh how diffent the end result would have been. I watch his brother go off to his grammar school every morning and I know he's going to be stimulated, challenged, stretched and educated. The older boy is at college now, they thankfully recognised his potential even though he didn't have the entry requirement for his chosen course and he is doing well but it is always going to be such a struggle for him. My daughter is 4 and just started primary school, she is the youngest in the year. As much as I hate the system, it is the only one we have and she will pass her 11 plus in 6 years time if it is still going - I will leave no stone unturned and no amount of tutoring will be too much to ensure that she does get a decent education. I'm sure I sound like a psycho but I don't ever want another child of mine to fall the wrong side of the line again. It shouldn't be like this, all our children should get an equal chance but it just isn't possible in Kent today.

    19 Oct 2009 11:39 PM

    Report Abuse

  • stella wrote:

    11plus exam

    11plus exam is a cockup. It says 11+ but it is not because some children are barely turning 10 when they take this exam and yet they are graded equally as those children that are 11 and possibly 12 yrs of age. Is that fair? No, because these 10 year old do not have equal ability and experience as the older ones. My son sat of the 11+ this year September and missed the cut off mark by ten points(209) the cut off mark was 219,he is only 10 years and three months is that fair. No,because most of the children that take this exam are older. How come there is no age criteria for children taking these exam, the exam is purposed to be 11+ and yet age 10, 11 and 12 all take the same exam. so what chance do the 10 years olds if the cut of mark is the same for all ages? Zelch chance that's what the 10 year old have. they take exactly the same exam and are marked the same. WHY dont schools 10, 11, 12 years olds in the same class if this is the case.But no because there is the age criteria schools for those ( children that are late beginners and those that are early starters). There is no thought out there for children as young as 10yrs competiting with children of 11 & 12 years old. Well I'd say if an 11 - 12yr old child were to fail the 11+ exam by 10 points when competiting with children as younger as 10 years , they are the failures because I don't see them passing if they were 10 years. These 11+ exam is crap because it does not give all children equal start in terms of their age and marking. If the same 10yr old child that scored 209/280 with a cut off mark of 219 was to take this same exam a year later, do you think he would not get above the cut off mark?. Of course he would because he/she would have gain more Knowledge and lets not forget that this is their first exams ever. Please when judging these children,put the ages of these individual children into account because it does not tally. There are talented children out there not getting into the Grammar school probably because of their age and simply because of 10 points less. These children's potential are been wasted.There intelligence and potential and full ability are been tossed aside simply because of oversubcription in the Grammar schools. Is this the childrens' faulty our that of the person that initiated this 11+. It just goes to show that more spaces are required in these Grammar schools as there are more intelligent children out there. Do not minimise these spaces as potiential children are been made to feel worthless simply because the government does not want to do something regarding this issue, their children dont have to go through this issue. If the government will allow grammar schools to continue which I believe they will, then they might as well make more spaces in more good schools rather then wasting money building more prisons for this potential children to end up in.

    18 Oct 2009 3:46 AM

    Report Abuse

  • S A Hollands wrote:

    11 plus

    The three main political parties agree that selection at 11 should not be part of future education

    plans but selection remains a strong infl uence on the English education system. A major focus of

    Government policy is on children’s well being, yet thousands of children and families experience

    the misery of rejection at 11.


    Comprehensive Future believes that ( See Website http://www.comprehensivefuture.org.uk/ )
    Labelling children as failures at eleven is wrong.

    The majority of children who sit 11-plus examinations are rejected. This can have profound, longterm

    effects on their self-confi dence and aspirations. Able and talented youngsters are given the

    message that they should lower their sights and expect less of themselves. For them, transfer

    to secondary school does not start with excitement and optimism but with demoralisation. This

    should not happen in a society which values its children and wants all to achieve their best.

    Prejudging children’s potential at eleven makes no sense.

    Neither parents nor teachers nor tests can predict with certainty how a child will develop

    between eleven and sixteen, what they will enjoy learning or what they will excel at. Children

    differ in their abilities and achievements at eleven but do not divide neatly into two groups, the

    ‘clever’ and the ‘not clever’. Some develop later than average and others have yet to encounter

    the subject which will become their strength at secondary school. Every child should have the

    chance to develop their potential to the full without prejudgement of what that might be.

    Selection damages schools which don’t select.

    Comprehensive schools which take in children of all abilities and admit signifi cant numbers

    of pupils who learn easily are well-placed to encourage high standards and aspirations for all.

    Selection distorts the intake of non-selective schools and make their educational task much

    more diffi cult, particularly where children have lost confi dence after failing the 11-plus. Excellent

    all-ability schools with balanced intakes are the best way of ensuring that every child receives a

    fi rst-rate education.

    Selection at eleven makes social mobility less likely.

    Grammar schools are sometimes perceived as ladders of opportunity for poor children. In reality,

    grammar schools admit few pupils from low-income families. Statistics show that their intake is

    skewed towards the better-off, some of whom receive expensive private coaching to help them

    pass the 11-plus. Poor children are more likely to attend schools which are struggling with an

    unbalanced intake because of selection and with pupils who feel the system has rejected them.

    Selection divides children, parents and communities.

    Primary schools tend to be at the heart of local communities. Children make friends from the

    local area, parents meet at the school gates and some may help to organise activities which

    support the school. Where children move on together to the same secondary school, this web

    of informal relationships remains even if parental involvement is less. The school benefi ts and so

    does the community. Selection disrupts relationships, lengthens travel and makes it diffi cult, if

    not impossible, to develop a pattern of strong local schools.

    The three main political parties agree that selection at 11 should not be part of future education

    plans but selection remains a strong infl uence on the English education system. A major focus of

    Government policy is on children’s well being, yet thousands of children and families experience

    the misery of rejection at 11.

    SAH Maidstone

    16 Oct 2009 8:19 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Alex Perkins wrote:

    11 Plus

    I would happily sell my house and all it's contents to help Phil Karnavas!

    15 Oct 2009 11:00 PM

    Report Abuse

  • D.I. wrote:

    Why is Kent scared of Comprehensive Education?

    I agree with much that Phil Karnavas says. Moving in to Kent from a non selective area, I was not even aware that the 11+ still existed. At the Primary School my children went to, year 5 parents were called to meetings with the head teacher to be told whether or not the school recommended that their child sit the 11+. There were very often in tears in the playground after these meetings from children and their parents. Then the children who were going to sit the 11+ were given extra lessons in order to help them pass the test – many of these children were already receiving extra tuition at tuition centres or with individual tutors or both. The children who were not sitting the 11+ were aware that they were ‘the not clever ones’ and in some way already failures. What message are we giving to the majority of our children if we send them off to a secondary school which is seen in the community as serving those children who aren’t as bright and have already ‘failed’ before they even begin their secondary school career?
    One argument seems to be that if we send all children to the same secondary school, i.e. a Comprehensive School, the brighter children will be disadvantaged and standards will fall. The statistics do not support this. Grammar Schools will obviously get good results, but in a selective system, these good results are at the expense of the High Schools, where teachers are having to work even harder and will never win the league table battle. This is why Kent has some of the worst performing schools in the country. In areas (most of the country) where the 11+ system was abandoned long ago, the bright children still do well and my guess is those children who at the age of 10, would not have been recommended for the 11+ will do better, as they do not have to battle against the label of being a failure.
    In the Kent Messenger a few weeks ago there was an article about (possibly) Maidstone’s Cleverest Family, where all 4 children had achieved incredibly impressive exam results. It may come as a surprise to those vehement supporters of Grammar Schools, but these children do not go to one of the local Grammar Schools – they go to St. Simon Stock Catholic School – probably the nearest thing we have to a Comprehensive School. Comprehensive schools all over the country are achieving amazing results, why is it then that Kent is so terrified of leaving the selective system behind?

    15 Oct 2009 8:07 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Martin Frey wrote:

    A sensible, impartial and relevant commentary

    I agree with almost all Ed says bar point 3. Grammar schools do not get more funding per pupil - but what they do get goes further. It is easier to teach children who are keen to learn - so they tend to be in larger classes. The children at grammar schools are, by and large, keener to learn and have more family support than those who fail the test. Grammar school classes tend to be larger as can be seen from budget data - grammar schools spend less per pupil on teachers. So, even where they start out with less they have more to spend on books and musical instruments and nicely mown lawns. No, Ed, the reason grammar schools do well is that they start out with children who were doing very well at school when they were 10. Some fall by the wayside, just as some begin to shine at High School. And I agree with those who say life is selective - the question is should we be making life changing decisions at 10? They're not even allowed to select their MP until they're 18!

    14 Oct 2009 8:37 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Ed wrote:

    A sensible, impartial and relevant commentary

    1. The head teacher of the best performing non-selective school has nothing to gain from promoting the elimination of the Kent Test (he is not- as was suggested by the last comment- promoting the boycotting of it).

    2. As an ex-student of a Kent grammar school, I can honestly say that, not only do I support the abolition of the 11 plus, but I would not send my child to a grammar school. They are socially divisive, unfair, elitist. The entire process of the Kent test can be extortionately expensive and unfairly stressful; both intrinsically and as part of the over examination of children.

    3. To those who believe that Kent test allows schools to provide the differentiated standards which will help "less intelligent" children, you are ignorant; look at league tables- the reason grammar schools do better is because they attract higher funding and higher quality teachers- exactly the kind of resources which should surely be going towards the "more challenged".

    4. To those who were questioning the perhaps gratuitous use of quotation marks in point 3.; the entire process of dividing children at the age of 11 enforces a self-fulfilling prophecy. Labeling children at this age on the basis of how they performed on one day (yes, this is a problem with all exams)is a demoralising thing to do; you are literally telling children they are less intelligent than the peers they are sharing a classroom with for the next 6 months, peers which are going to go on to to greener pastures whilst you wallow in the mires of a self-perpetuating cycle of class stagnation.

    14 Oct 2009 11:50 AM

    Report Abuse

  • jo wrote:

    child abuse wot ever next?

    wot a load of rubbish why is it child abuse ? years ago we all done the trest wotever your ability there was no harm in it.Todays headteachers just want brighter kids in there schools to make there grades look good if your child has it they have it grammer schools should not be scrapped your child has a better education better class of children and ability to all work not be put into classes with naughty behaved children who dont want to learn .

    13 Oct 2009 5:29 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Steph Jarrett wrote:

    I agree with Deborah Allen, also...

    I went to CHS itself and was taught by the now 'Principal' Mr Karnavas. I also went to Barton Court for a subject in 6th Form. I did not do as well as I would have done going to a grammar school from the start because the attitudes and values are different. CHS's 'motto' when I went there was Every Young Person is Special. Special indeed. However much of a toe rag you were. I have no idea about Barton Courts but It was not a good experience. The people were different and by that I mean snobbish to be frank, they believed that I knew far less because I went to a high school. I didn't. School is not there solely for education, my parents knew this and sent me to high school, fully aware that in the real world, grades do not matter and that I would learn a wider range of skills. Saying that, I fully support grammar schools and the choice to use them, it definitely is social. Also cp, underfunded! Where did that come from? Canterbury High and other so called Academies have had eleventy billion spent on it in ten years or so. (Apologies that I carnt cownt, I is won of the 70% that r failed.)

    13 Oct 2009 6:25 AM

    Report Abuse

  • Sam Wolff wrote:

    Grammer?

    @Dan B. I do hope the spelling of the word "grammar"as "grammer" is meant as an ironic one...otherwise I'd be concerned Dan might have inadvertently made the argument to get rid of selection...

    12 Oct 2009 7:20 PM

    Report Abuse

  • chris pannell wrote:

    stretch is good, stress is bad

    When I took my 11 plus I did not really get stressed. Perhaps I was to thick to notice that one year it was "special" and not just another Kent test. It was not stressful, at least, one expected to be slightly "stretched" by these tests, is that bad? "No pain no gain applies" to exercises of the head as well as the body, research proves now that the connectivity of the brain cannot be improved, and it cannot be re-wired by staying in your "comfort zone". The re-wiring is about learning facts, and the connectivity is to do with cognitive abilities or intelligence. Both can be improved, but it hurts a little, or both can be caused to stagnate, by growing up in a cosy noncompetitive nanny school system and then being tossed out into a nanny state. To have a trained educational professional equate the process of stretching and testing with child abuse, knowing the emotive connotations of this term, beggars belief.

    12 Oct 2009 5:33 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Linda Casey wrote:

    11 plus

    I totally agree with Mr Karnavas. At last, a professional prepared to put their head above the parapet and denounce the ‘Emperor’s new clothes.’
    The test is not a test of innate intelligence. It is a test of prior experience – children who are coached perform better. The ‘pass’ mark varies year on year. Roughly 25% will pass the test because that is the allocation rate to grammars. A child who might fail this year might have passed next year. I know of undersubscribed grammars who contact primary schools looking for ‘suitable’ children who failed the test to fill up the seats. The appeals process and the primary head involvement does not bear even looking at. It can be very subjective.
    We know that children develop at different rates. A child behind their peers in Year 6 might outstrip them by Year 9. In Kent the test is now taken in September, instead of January. The same number of children will pass, but it will be different children in many cases. Children who fail in September might have outstripped their peers by January.
    So the test is flawed and lacks reliability. What else does the test do? It divides friends, families and communities. It gives children a label which sticks with them for the rest of their lives. It demotivates children. Some children can feel they have failed their parents, particularly if they have paid for tutoring.
    All teachers have heard of the self-fulfilling prophecy.
    There was a story in Education Guardian last week – a short quotation: I heard tell last week of a teacher from a secondary modern who, on being introduced to a 10 year old about to the take the 11+ exam, was asked by the child whether she taught at a ‘pass’ school or a ‘fail’ school.
    The educational outcomes are certainly not better than national average in Kent and Medway for GCSE and at Key Stage 5 (6th form years and the route to HE) outcomes are a good deal worse than the national average. Because it is so demonstrably unnecessary, I would agree that it is a cruel process doing a great deal of disservice to 10 year olds.

    12 Oct 2009 5:26 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Dan B wrote:

    11 Plus

    What a load of crap.

    I did the 11 plus and passed it 13 years ago. Wasn't easy but I studied hard...however there was no pressure.

    It would turn out however that I would go into the 'grammer' stream at a local comprehensive (My parent's believed in the comp system).

    It was here that the G stream where pretty much ignored by the school as we would already get c's at least in our gcses, so they concentrated on the other students.

    Half the G stream completed 2 gcses a year early and we got no help, but anyone in the other streams that managed to spell their name right were treated like nobel prize winners.

    I left school with higher than average qualifications but my former pals at primary school, who achieved lower marks than me in year 6 but went on to the Grammer school, mostly achieved A*s in all their subjects.

    'I' am the result of Phil Karnavas' opinion that people should not be encouraged to perform to their limits.

    Religious indoctrination? Abuse.
    Leaving your child to turn feral? Abuse.
    Trying to help your child achieve their potential is NOT abuse.

    12 Oct 2009 4:33 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Deborah Allen wrote:

    11 plus

    So, "putting children through this exam is verging on the cruel". What a load of hogwash, Phil Karnavas. The real cruelty is sending a bright child to an under-performing school (re-launched in a fanfare of publicity as an acadamey... it sounds so much better) only to be surrounded by kids who couldn't care less and whose only aim in life is to have a free ride, courtesy of the great British tax payer. If you want to screw up your kid's life, that's how to do it. It's no coincidence that the level of NEETs in Kent (kids who are not in employment, education or training) is on the rise. Yes, of course there will be kids who do well DESPITE the system - not because of it. But why would any parent not want the very best education they can get for their child?
    Grammar schools are not perfect - but when I see that on a CV, it actually means something.

    12 Oct 2009 3:58 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Martin Frey wrote:

    11 plus

    Peter Walton notes that selection is not just on ability but also on "desire" or aspiration. A problem is that children change between 10 and 18 - and the grammar school system hampers that change. There is a lot of talk about peer pressure helping children succeed at grammar schools - not so much about peer pressure dragging children down at non-selective schools. If ability and aspiration were more evenly spread among Kent schools, the effects of the downward pressure would be greatly diminished and the able still have the wit to take advantage of upward pressure. Let's hear no more tosh like "he (Phil Karnavas) is a subscriber that all children are equal with totally equal levels of ability." No teacher believes or has ever believed this and no school pretends it is true.

    12 Oct 2009 3:07 PM

    Report Abuse

  • cp wrote:

    11 plus

    Wholeheartedly agree with Mr Karnavas and Ms Everett! There are possibly social reasons for Grammar SChools, but no educational ones - provided all schools are adequately funded.
    One of the reasons that Grammar Schools do so well is that they are disproportionately funded!!
    The current 'targets system', which penalises High Schools for not reaching the targets set for comprehensives that do not have the top 30% or so 'creamed off' is also totally ridiculous!
    But in the end the thing to remember about the current system is that it is set up to fail 70% of children - whatever the high schools valiantly ( and most of them are superb!) achieve!!

    12 Oct 2009 1:28 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Tina Smith wrote:

    no pressure

    Both my boys sat and passed the 11 plus and went on to get straight A grades at both GCSE and A level.
    They were never put under any pressure by the school or us as parents, but I did note that there were some parents whose children were in lower sets still forced their children to do the test. This only sets them up for a fall.
    It should be an informed choice between the teacher, the parents and the child.

    12 Oct 2009 1:16 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Peter Walton wrote:

    11 Plus

    The negative statements depicted in this article identify what is wrong with a large proportion of our educational leaders. I suggest that Phil Karnavas needs commending for his level of performance but also that he is a subscriber that all children are equal with totally equal levels of ability.
    As a former grammar school student I sat the 11 Plus in Lancashire. I fully understood that passing would lead to an academic education and failing would lead to a more vocational education. My ability to pass wasn't simply a measure of my ability but also of my desire and a multitude of influencing factors, not least of all my peer group.
    There is a distinct need for young acedemics to be identified and supported from an early age right through their schooling which is a significant beneficial function of a grammar school. It is also an important feature to recognise that children also have choices, not just a future and streams imposed by individuals such as Mr Karnavas. Life is testing. Our achievement from many tests leave us with many choices, the impact of which are often not evidient for many years. If the school system were better at highlighting this aspect and recognised that children were not only different in ability but also in aspirations the we would be promoting excellence in a huge number of fields in our current adult population and wouldn't be seeing such high levels of failed literacy and numeracy from adults managed and protected by like minded teaching professionals such as Mr. Karnavas.
    Also, if individuals like Phil Karnavas promoted all skills and trades with the same fervour that was put on University entrance then the result would be a much better balanced society.

    12 Oct 2009 12:54 PM

    Report Abuse

  • nick wrote:

    11plus

    What a load of tosh! We need some sort of exam to determine what kids are good at before they start secondary school. Education is all about lowest common denominator at present. Surely the system should be geared more towards deciding the kind of help youngsters need. The bright ones get the right help and the not so bright ones get the help they need as well. A logical way of doing that is having smaller classes in schools specialising in giving the right kind of education, close to home. Too many schools are being closed down because of falling numbers. Surely this is an ideal chance to make classes smaller until the child population rises again - as it surely will.

    12 Oct 2009 12:24 PM

    Report Abuse

  • S wrote:

    11 plus

    Any head of a non-selective school will say that because obviously the more children that dont take it after reading similar articles to the above will mean that there are a lot more bright pupils that are likely to end up at his or simllar schools.
    To compare it to child abuse is ridiculous

    12 Oct 2009 11:24 AM

    Report Abuse

Terms of Comments
We do not actively moderate, monitor or edit contributions to the reader comments but we may intervene and take such action as we think necessary, please click here for our house rules.. If you have any concerns over the contents on our site, please either register those concerns using the report abuse button, contact us here, email multimediadesk@thekmgroup.co.uk or call 01634 227834.

Copyright: You may not copy, reproduce, republish, download, post, broadcast, transmit or otherwise use content on this site in any way except for your own personal, non-commercial use. You also agree not to adapt, alter or create a derivative work from any content on this site except for your own personal, non-commercial use. Any other use of content requires the prior written permission of the KM GROUP. Read full terms and conditions.