The duty to prepare our children for life

From Jack Worrall, former headmaster, Hautlieu.

A RECENTLY published article on education referred to a consultation paper to be published shortly suggesting that the question of the 14+ transfer system for entry to Hautlieu would again be raised.

At a time when the examination results reached yet higher levels of success one wonders why. It seems like a classic case of; ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’. During the last 20 years or so, the continuous improvement achieved in national examinations has been rightly the cause for congratulation.

The fact that last year the 11-16 schools did less well surely justifies an investigation but since the other results have in no (apparent) way deteriorated, the reasons for this bucking of the trend should be sought in 11-16 schools.

The (in the British education world almost unique) 14+ transfer system into Hautlieu was introduced in 1978. The onus of deciding which pupils would be most likely to benefit from a four-year course of study to university entry standard, (with 16+ examinations a halfway staging post on the way to GCE A-levels) changed from an 11+ selection procedure to a fully co-operative procedure between Hautlieu and the four 11-16 schools.

The basis and single most important document in this is the individual pupil’s profile document built up during the first three years of secondary education. It is a lengthy and time-consuming exercise as befits the importance of ensuring that the oft-quoted (and frequently exaggerated) failures of the 11+ procedure (not an examination it should be stressed) are avoided.

A fail-safe provision for a second quite major entry at 16+ exists to cater for the late development of some pupils and full consultation with parents at both these stages take place. Provision for the transfer from the fee-paying secondary at both 14+ and 16+ is also made.

It has been suggested that pupils remaining in the 16+ schools are disadvantaged by the loss of the transferees. No reference is made to the much more serious impairment to the likely under-achievement of the full educational potential of the transferees themselves if they were deprived of the competition with their academic peers brought about by the grouping together in one school and the resultant interaction in sufficient numbers of high ability pupils.

This grouping together in one school of sufficient numbers of high ability pupils also enables the provision in the curriculum of such subjects as second and third languages and individual science subjects as well as the teaching of these subjects by highly qualified specialist teachers who will also be responsible for preparing the pupils for the more rigorous A-level examinations.

That the (comparatively) less good examination results in the 11-16 schools coincided with the continued improvement in Hautlieu and the fee-paying secondary schools is what it is important to note. Assuming the proportion of 14+ transferees has remained the same and that there has been no major change in the teaching staffs I would have expected trends in examination results to have remained constant. Here is the need for inquiry.

In the days when grammar and secondary modern co-existed side by side there were many examples of the pupils in the latter thriving in the absence of their high-flying contemporaries. Rather than suffering from the absence of the high-fliers they were able to flourish in their own right, becoming the top dogs. With the wide-spread introduction of comprehensive schools, contrary to the hopes of their proponents, it was not uncommon to note a decline in the overall standards in examinations.

The introduction of the Certificate of Secondary Education (CSE) and its eventual amalgamation with the General Certificate of Education (GCE ‘O’ level) led to the existing GCSE which in turn probably marks the beginning of the accusations of devaluations of examination grades.

I know that a (hopefully small) number of educational thinkers deplore competition of any sort in the mistaken belief that if there are no winners there can be no losers. These people conveniently forget that life is one long competition – for jobs, girlfriends/wives, money to buy clothes, a house a car, whatever – and school should be the place where children learn to accept that we do not all share the same gifts.

Let us therefore prepare children for life by encouraging them, not to accept failure – they themselves know the pecking order in their class just as they know who will win the 100 metres sprint on sports day (do they still exist) or who will score the goals for the football team – but to make the most of their own God-given abilities.

It is the role of the teacher to draw out these abilities so that each child strives to achieve the best result commensurate with his/her ability. A child only goes through the education system once and it is the teacher’s privilege and responsibility to play the second most important role (after the parent) in making the whole experience a happy and successful one.