Regarding Adrian Kibbler’s Focus piece (Advertiser Thursday October 3), I make no claim to an infallible memory but feel reasonably confident that school-leaving age in 1963 was not, as written, at the age of 14. The leaving age had risen from 14 to 15 at the end of the 1940s and had then risen again to 16, I believe, in the mid fifties*.

The 11-plus exam was not as claimed, a pernicious examination.

It was not, in the meaning of that word, wicked, malicious or deadly. The article goes on to question whether social mobility has improved much since 1963; one important reason for which the 11-plus system was initially designed.

It is widely accepted amongst social commentators and educationalists, that despite criticism of any perceived divisiveness created by entry to grammar schools at the age of eleven and again at thirteen, the grammar school eleven-plus entry system was the best means of creating social mobility ever tried in this country.

The truth behind the unsuitability of our education system is the lack of any sincere desire to ensure that each child reaches his/her potential. The class-ridden society of which Mr Kibbler complains, is indeed the reason behind what is a national failing.

However, vilifying grammar schools is a myopic approach to what was a genuine attempt to improve the lot of many thousands of scholars and with it, a raising of achievement both individually and nationally, and to create an improvement in social mobility. A worthy attempt all too soon snuffed out on the altar of blinkered socialism, however well-meant.

RON HILL

Leominster