I always took it as a given that the 11+ exam was a thinly disguised intelligence test. I think it was generally understood that if you passed the 11+ you were a little smarter than average.
There were times that I must admit to feeling not too clever at the side of some of my classmates, as we progressed through the years. I often had difficulty in understanding what was being "taught" and felt quite stupid. (It took some years for me to realize that the presentation was deficient, and not my ability to understand it).
I wonder if anyone else had similar problems?

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 52-57

Current location (optional) USA

Upon reflection, obviously the 11+ WAS an intelligence test. I don't think it was a very good one though.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 52-57

Current location (optional) USA

As far as I can rememember the 11+ exam came in 3 parts, one of which was indeed called "Intelligence" (unless that was just an informal label)

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 58-65

Does anyone know where copies of the 11 Plus exam papers can be found. I would like to find the one I took in 1943 ,no doubt I would fail it now !

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 43-46

Current location (optional) Tasmania

I did not come from a home where Shakespeare, Milton, Wordsworth or any such were subjects of household discussion, in the same way, Algebra, Geometry and Trigonometry were new realms of understanding for me and none in the home to guide me. This is no way made me feel superior to other members of my family nor to my more fortunate street pals who had no need to study any of these things but got to play out when the sun shone. I did feel a certain sense of privilege, I seem to recall, that I was being initiated into these ancient rites, but the sense of privilege ended there. I was gob struck in a most wonderful way at what I was being taught on a day to day basis. My first theorem, my first logical proof, the impact on writing in my first Chemistry jotter 'Matter can neither be created nor destroyed'. Did no one else feel a sense of awe at being assured of this truth?
I will treasure always my time there not for the facts learned but for the way of thinking that I learned and for the scales that were thrown from my eyes.
I was not special. I won no prizes. No one regretted my leaving the place. No one bullied me or badgered me into behaving, indeed I did as much detention as anyone else, yet I value beyond the telling of it the time I spent there.
There may have been bad teachers, Bernard, but I did not know of any, but then I was too callow to judge good teachers from bad.
I was one of those 'sick' people who actually liked learning something new, ( I even enjoyed exams, opening the paper held as much excitement for as opening parcels on Christmas morning held for others).
This has got to be one person's take on KBGS but I offer it as a valid one.
By the way I had to sit three scholarship exams before I passed and still.......

>>'Matter can neither be created nor destroyed'

Actually it can...at least it can be converted to energy. Hence the shining sun.

Conversion of matter into energy is not necessarily 'destroying' it. It depends on what you consider to be 'matter'

"We don't really know what 'matter' is. A child thinks of matter as being like clay. A particle physicist might tell you that 'matter' is a 'bunching up of a field'...'matter' is little more than one of the concepts that allows us to deal with what our senses report of what we call the external world". (quote from The Ascent of Science - Brian L. Silver).

The energy formed from the atomic fusion in the sun can behave as either a particle (matter?) or a wave and indeed is re-converted back into life giving molecules back here on Earth (or elsewhere too I guess!).

A lot hinges on how one defines a "bad" teacher. Let me define what I consider to be "good". A good teacher presents the subject matter in such a way as to capture the interest of the pupil and instil, if not wonder, at least a sense of curiosity. A sense of humour goes a long way also. Enlivening the subject with real life comparisons in human failings and achievements (as in the case of history), or modern day, commonplace usage of the science and technology (as in the case of science)is good. Being able to make every kid in the class feel that "Wow, this isn't so hard after all!". Making it a mantra "there is no such thing as a stupid question!" Having the wisdom and humility to realize that if a kid doesn't understand what you are teaching, then, YOU HAVE NOT EXPLAINED IT IN A WAY THAT HE UNDERSTANDS. "By rote" teaching is not good. Reading out of a textbook is not good. Making a subject as dry as dust is not good. I can't think of one teacher at KBGS who could qualify as good.
I teach remedial math to adults at my local library, and the first thing I say to them is "You are going to wonder why you ever found this difficult! If at any point you start having difficulty, let me know, because then I need to explain it to you a DIFFERENT way". I instil confidence and a sense of self worth, and these adults leave my ministrations with a deep understanding of what I have taught. I can't say the same for any teacher I had at KBGS.
The scales fell my eyes when I entered the real world. It was FUN learning, and, in the working world I could apply my new found knowledge and EARN A LIVING WITH IT! The same thing applied to the arts and literature...........I had FUN learning.
I respect your "take" on the KBGS experience Arthur, we are all different, of course. This is my take.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 52-57

Current location (optional) USA

Re. creation of matter.......if one subscribes to the "big bang" theory, then everything in the universe was created from a singularity.........

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 52-57

Current location (optional) USA

Bernard...you're having a laugh....I hope.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 58-66

Regarding which post?

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 52-57

Current location (optional) USA

After re-reading my previous post I see that I am indeed guilty of somewhat sweeping statements, to wit "I can't think of one teacher at KBGS who could qualify as good." I should have made it clear that none of the teachers that I had, met ALL of MY definitions of "good". I am sure every teacher did his best with the teaching skills that he had, it was just unfortunate for me that the methodology used didn't make a connection with me.
To be fair, there were the occasional attempts at humour, (plays on people's names, polly gone etc.) There were the occasional examples of real life uses of scientific discoveries, the expansion and contraction of gases (refrigeration), the Liebig condenser (wine to brandy), conversion of work to electricity (generators in a railway carriage). I was grateful for these interjections but they were all too few.
So, I have to say that every teacher I had was good to the best of his ability, and if I couldn't relate to the accepted method of teaching, then it was my problem and not theirs. Teaching is a very difficult profession, especially with recalcitrant kids like I was.
Arthur, I hope this makes amends.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 52-57

Current location (optional) USA

You raise a lot of interesting points Bernard. However, it is a little unfair to say that all the teachers at KBGS were not 'good' teachers and I will try to explain why. First of all the way we were taught, or at least I was taught, back at the tail end of the war, was the accepted way of teaching, the child was an empty vessel designed to have 'education' poured into them. That 'education was defined by the examinations they would be required to pass at the end of the filling process. The level of passes, credits and distinctions was the measure, not of the child, but of the quality of teaching. Pedagogy has moved on somewhat since then. Ok so you had an unfortunate time and that is a sadness shared by many I imagine, but there were many for whom it did work, the method and the pedagogy, was sufficient.
I see that you teach remedial maths to adults. You are to be praised for that but you must remember that those adults have come to you willingly and ask to be taught, they wish to learn. All those teachers at KBGS had no such luxury, it would be fair to say that a majority of those arrayed in ranks before them simmered with bubbling testosterone and had other things on their mind than Pythagoras or the refractive index of glass. Good Lord, I played noughts and crosses through most of my geography lessons.
You are right though to insist that the onus is upon the teacher to find alternative explanations if the explanation offered initially fails to catch the students mind. It was a dictum that I always impressed upon student teachers when I taught at the Teacher Training College as was, always count to ten when you have asked a question and give the student time to think of the answer, if at ten no answer comes then count to another ten. I also insist that there are rarely wrong answers, a child can in fact be answering the question he thought you had asked and a child's 'wrong' answer should be analysed by the teacher to see where the child's thinking is.
You should also remember, although I am unsure if this applies to yourself, that a lot of teachers went off to war and some did not come back.
I think that given the time and the circumstances under which I was taught at KBGS they did a terrific job under difficult circumstances,mind you Ithink the lads did a good job too and under the same circumstances prevailing at the time.

"However, it is a little unfair to say that all the teachers at KBGS were not 'good' teachers"...Arthur I thought I had made it clear that I had been a little unfair...........I quote..........
"So, I have to say that every teacher I had was good to the best of his ability"

"Ok so you had an unfortunate time and that is a sadness shared by many I imagine, but there were many for whom it did work, the method and the pedagogy, was sufficient.".....I agree on both points.

"a majority of those arrayed in ranks before them simmered with bubbling testosterone and had other things on their mind"
Again I quote myself......."Teaching is a very difficult profession, especially with recalcitrant kids like I was."

I think we are pretty much in agreement, and you make some further points that I had not considered (but do agree with).

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 52-57

Current location (optional) USA

Hi Bernard. I did not think I was arguing with you in my last reponse, merely expanding, commenting or supporting some of the points you made.
I have taught all age ranges from nursery to adults and I have to say that, of them all, give me nursery every time. Not because it is easy but because it is so hard. Strangely I found it the most intellectually challenging time of my life because I have to understand what it is I understand, how I understand it and how I can frame my understanding to suit an infant and the language I must use and how I can overcome the difficulties they are experiencing that are not difficuties to me at all. I still get an intellectual buzz, even at my advanced years, from teaching/talking to four and five year olds. I am chair of governors at Parkwood Primary School and get the chance to go in and sit with a group every so often.
I also watch teaching taking place, observe and comment, always kindly,and I have to say I have enormous respect and admiration for the teachers and staff I have been instrumental in choosing, for the job they do so well with children from a catchment that would challenge any teacher. We are one of the best in Bradford for 'Value Added'.

I would support everything Arthur says. Having also taught all age ranges from pre-school to adults, I am also firmly of the opinion that pre-school is the most demanding (and adults a relative doddle).
When Arthur celebrates the achievements of the school of which he is a governor he, quite properly in my view, keeps the words “value added” in quotation marks. I admire him for keeping up the battle to pursue what is best for children rather than acquiesce to the prevailing agenda. What is of value about our children as they develop is not simply, or rather not principally, the added “value” of their increased attainment. It is the added value of their developing personal qualities which will enable them to contribute fully to society.
More power to your elbow.
In the dark/rosy days back at kbgs I’m sure there were some staff who felt the same.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 58-65

Current location (optional) Leeds

In my experience, the teachers who established a "good" relationship with the majority of the class were the most successful. The teaching styles employed came at least second to that. The "relationship" would have many aspects and a "good" relationship differed in make-up and style from teacher to teacher and, from the "good" teacher's point of view,from class to class. I suppose they flew by the seat of their pants - and either soared or were ditched. I see comparisons with the public speaker or the stand-up entertainer. Matching your manner to the mob was as important as matching the presentation of your material.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 52-60

Current location (optional) Lincoln