Survey comments: Grammar Schools

Later today we'll be inviting you to answer February's set of ConservativeHome Members' Panel questions.  Today and every day this week we'll be printing some of the most interesting comments that respondents made to January's survey.   Today we're printing ten of your anonymous thoughts on Grammar Schools.  Tomorrow they will be about the A list.  On Saturday we'll publish the full one thousand or so comments.

1. I was brought up in a single parent family. My mother worked full time, but we were very poor and living in rented accommodation. Luckily for me I passed the 11 plus and went to a very good grammar school. Unfortunately, because of successive governments neither of my children had the same chance. They had to go to comprehensive schools. Grammar schools are the best chance that poor children have of getting a good education, and I am disgusted that David Cameron has seen fit to ditch the Conservatives support of Grammar schools.

2. I am distraught about Mr Cameron making a U-Turn on our selective education policy. He made very clear commitments to retain selection in his campaign, and has clearly not been truthful in his intention. Selection on ability is a core value of Conservatism, Mr Cameron in moving to the middle ground is prostituting our values in favour of Liberalism.

3. I am amazed, and delighted, as each new policy is announced, how close they are to my own thinking. The exception is the policy on Grammar Schools. Living in a county which has retained many of its Grammar Schools, and being part of a large family most of whom were educated in Grammar Schools may well have coloured my opinion.

4. I am particularly disappointed at Cameron's policy on Grammar Schools. Comprehensive Schools have been (as many of us predicted) a disaster for this country. I want a leader of the Conservative Party who will argue again and again for selection in education and make the case for Grammar Schools, not abandon them. I didn't want Cameron and so far most of his comments have reinforced my negative opinion of him.

5. My son struggled in a state school until he was 13yrs old. He wanted to learn but was told to occupy himself whilst the teacher spent time on disruptive boys who did not want to be in class. He felt so let down as he had hoped that moving from primary to secondary school (one that was ex grammar) his desire to learn would be fuelled - instead it was slowly being dampened. Peer pressure connected learning with being a 'nerd' and during a maths exam he was beaten up and the school had to call me in (the teacher had left the room to attend to a fight outside). At my wits end we approached potential candidates for all the main parties for help. It was the Conservatives who came to the rescue - one who as a young boy had fought and won, against the closing by Labour of his NW grammar school. He understood that the belief that it was wrong to hold back bright pupils for the sake of an imagined equality - this is not elitist but common sense. The academic and bright seek to express themselves and their aspirations through learning - this does not mean that all children will evolve into adults through this route, even for the sake of equality. Other children may have other talents and drives that although disrupt and hold back in the classroom can lead them to success. My son got the chance to attend a brilliant school that encourages learning and in his GCSEs achieved 9 A*s and 1 A - his aim is to read physics at Cambridge. His dad is a manual worker and we live in social housing and yet thanks to the Conservatives my son has been given a fantastic chance to thrive. This makes it all the more disappointing that other children from working class backgrounds who show an eagerness and a capacity to exceed in academia are now being condemned by the same party to rot in the corner of a classroom where even if the teachers wanted they have not the time or resources to stretch a gifted child. I only hope this will evoke such a backlash that Cameron will be forced to reconsider!

6. I am all in favour of Cameron re-engaging the centre ground. But, it seems to me that he may have over-shot slightly and landed us to the left of New Labour. The Grammar schools debacle is what really annoyed me. I am a One Nation Tory and therefore fairly liberal but this policy has been one of the perennial favourites of the grassroots and the electorate. It is, I believe, also fairly centrist. We shouldn't abandon all our principles to take the centre-ground as most of them are centrist already.

7. Grammar schools: I am very pro-grammar but if the idea is to create a sort of grammar school within the comprehensive via full streaming; promoting academic competition but with proper vocational options for the less academic; allowing flexibility in the middle for late developers; and avoiding the stigma of secondary moderns - good!

8. Ansa retired teacher I feel very strongly that David Cameron will alienate vast numbers of grammar-school-educated middle class voters if he attacks the system which has enabled thousands of children to gain a first-class academic education without having to pay exorbitant school fees. I went to Blackpool and admire his energy and enthusiasm but he MUST NOT imitate Blair by appearing to pull up the ladder after he has been well-educated himself.

9. I am very afraid of further diminishing the role of local politics by further centralisation of decision making. Why not allow counties to decide whether to keep or re-introduce grammar schools? Why not move to locally elected heads of police boards? If we then get wide disparities in performance then we can make informed choices about the best way forward.

10. I still think the Conservative Party should be about freedom from the state. Freedom to succeed as well as fail. Freedom to decide one's own priorities about education and health. Grammar schools and the Assisted Places scheme helped my family's social mobility - I wish the same opportunities were now open to others.

Comments

[michael]

"if the idea is to create a sort of grammar school within the comprehensive via full streaming; promoting academic competition but with proper vocational options for the less academic; allowing flexibility in the middle for late developers; and avoiding the stigma of secondary moderns - good!"

I agree with this comment. Let's make comprehensives work for all young people. Opportunity for all!

[Robbo]

As a school governor of a local Comprehensive I would very much favour much greater streaming. Although a Grammar school boy myself I do not believe we need to go back to full selection and am sure it will not be acceptable to the majority of voters today. Proper vocational options for the less academic would be a grat way forward in improving the overall standard of education.

[Margaret]

Abolishing Grammar Schools has deprived bright children from poor backgrounds of a first class education.

The Conservatives started this when they were in power, we cannot just blame NL.

[Simon C]

Michael,

My best guess is that this is the long-term aim, & that the proposed trust schools are seen as a vehicle to help bring that about. But if that is the plan, it needs to be communicated in a clear and compelling way.

At the moment, the only clear message out there is "no more grammar schools". As the bulk of the posts above demonstrate, that is causing widespread unease. I live in Lincolnshire, a grammar school county. At two recent gatherings in our association, the 100% enthusiasm for the new leadership that everyone wants to feel was a little diluted by concern for the future of the grammar schools, and uncertainty about what the replacement strategy will be. That could be dispelled if people understand what we will do instead.

[James Hellyer]

I don't think that is the aim, Simon. Willetts and Cameron have spoken about setting and not streaming. The two are quite distinct.

I also fail to see how "more setting" can ever be a compelling message. And I thought "school discipline" was feeble...

[michael]

making Comprehensives work, should be the message. Unfortunately, many Conservatives seem to obsess about Grammar Schools.

"bright children from poor backgrounds" type comments I find patronising and misleading.

[john Skinner]

Absolutely right Michael (and the correspondent you quoted).
No party could bring back the grammar schools. What do you say to the 75% of children who don't get in? And don't get a chance to move up as a late developer?
No, the only way is to have proper streaming within the local comprehensive system.
Re misbehaviour: the rot sets in much earlier in primary schools. Parents have no idea of the amount of time-wasting that goes on in mixed-ability classes, where children, more often than not, are arranged in groups facing each other.Hence much giggling and fooling around.
And don't be fooled by ever-improving SAT scores at aged 11. These are produced by spending the final primary year cramming and doing old test papers.
One last depressing thought: children's reports in primary schools are often a pack of well-meaning lies. No teacher is going to tell a parent: "Your child is a lazy,time-wasting idiot who has done very little work this year."

[Rob Largan]

"it will not be acceptable to the majority of voters today"

Why does 48% of voters think that getting rid of a selective system was a bad idea compared with 31% who still think it was a good idea. Why do a total of 48% agree that schools should base their entry more on academic selection compared with 41% who disagree.

And this is without any major party actively making the case for selection. The arguments for a selective system are so compelling and already have significant sympathy with many voters, gaining mass support for a policy shouldnt be particularly hard, especially with such a great communicator as Cameron leading the way. More than that, it is without doubt the right thing to do.

The current system is an utter failure. Thanks to the so called 'comprehensive' system which is anything but comprehensive, failing to teach things which many want to learn, ignoring those of practical ability, it has caused nothing but despair and frustration, leading to indiscipline and truancy. Of my friends at my comprehensive, those who werent lucky enough to get to uni, they have ended up on minimum wage jobs, living at home, hanging around doing nothing, or falling into drugs and crime and getting sent down.

"What do you say to the 75% of children who don't get in?"

As I have just said, the current system fails most of these children as well. The old system was flawed as the secondary modern and technical schools weren't developed further or funded fairly. This time round there we could change that and create a truly universal selective education.

[Michael McGowan]

The slogan about making comprehensives work is another meaningless mantra. We have heard much the same waffle from both major parties for the last 40 years....and its has moved us backwards not forwards. People like me don't "obsess" about grammar schools. We actually care about social mobility which the advocates of comprehensive education don't....or they wouldn't back it.

No-one on this site is claiming that grammar schools were perfect. In particular, some German Lander use a much less abrupt selection procedure than the 11 plus for identifying bright children for their grammar schools. It is much better at picking up late developers. We would do well to learn from them.

[malcolm]

I think you have summed up my thoughts too Rob.BUT we have to consider the 75% and have detailed answers on how we would run secondary education in its entirety BEFORE we can advocate a return to Grammar Schools.

[michael]

Let's turn ever Comprehensive into a Grammar School! i.e. let selection occur within schools.

There's a lot of social benefit to be gained from mixing with children of all abilities, and this doesn't prevent education on ability within schools.

For goodness sake, our society is divided enough without returning to a winner/loser education system. If as a Party, we are still talking about 'Grammar schools, bright children and poor backgrounds', then we are lightyears from being a relevant modern Party of government.

[Derek]

Parents choose schools for both academic success and to have better discipline and behaviour. Streaming or setting [can someone explain the difference?] can help with the former, but only a good separate school can lead to the latter. Those with the money can have the choice, regardless of the ability of the child. On the other hand the less well-off parent has no choice for their child, even if he is a bright child.

Grammar schools do offer that opportunity for a bright child. I had that opportunity and I believe it should be available for those who can take advantage of it today. It need not be a once only opportunity at 11, children could take an assessment exam at any age. All that nonsense about labelling a child a failure at 11 is simply emotive rubbish. Children are only too aware of their ability, and it is sentimental nonsense to pretend that we can protect children from the reality of life - that some are more able than others.

[John Hustings]

"Let's turn ever Comprehensive into a Grammar School!"

Do you *really* believe this nonsense??

"i.e. let selection occur within schools."

Oh yes, of course, because that's all it takes to make every school as good as a grammar school.

In which case you must think every school is *already* a grammar school since selection already does occur within schools.

[James Hellyer]

Selection already occurs in secondary schools for some 60% of the lessons. The remainder comprise subjects like P.E. and Home Economics. Does anyone really think that setting these subjects will raise eductionals standards?

[Rob Largan]

"There's a lot of social benefit to be gained from mixing with children of all abilities"

Like what? Surely there is more social benefit from having children in the same schools from different backgrounds, something that a Comprehensive does not always provide. A selective system ensures that the academically talented children from more prosperous areas mix with the more acadmeically talented children from the council estates, while the same goes for children of practical talents.

"For goodness sake, our society is divided enough without returning to a winner/loser education system. If as a Party, we are still talking about 'Grammar schools, bright children and poor backgrounds', then we are lightyears from being a relevant modern Party of government."

Nobody is saying that, a selective system is not about selecting winners and losers, it is about recognising the individual talents of every child, when a child has practical talent, education is focused on practical subjects, when a child has academic talent, education is focused on academic subjects.

If you really think Comprehensives can be turned into a Grammar school internally then you are deluded.

Our education system is simply not working, it is failing to produce social mobility, failing many children from all backgrounds, but those from poorest backgrounds are affected worst of all and the current system has created a whole load of social problems, that no amount of tax payers money or social taskforces will fully solve.

[michael]

John H, You slightly miss my point; I believe that the good things people like you see in a Grammar Schools, should be the debate Conservatives have about improving Comprehensive education.

How do we raise educational standards for all, without reintroducing a winner/loser system.

I think most of us would agree that Grammar Schools aren't a magic wand for education. If that is the case, why are Conservatives so obsessed by them? The debate is too narrow and is making us sound exclusive.

[michael]

There's a lot of social benefit to be gained from mixing with children of all abilities"

"Like what?"

At my Comp, I sat next to people who weren't of the same academic ability as me, but I learned how to help them, how to communicate my thoughts and ideas and I suppose greater compassion and an early knowledge that not everyone starts from the same point. It was probably a more valuable lesson than that on the curriculum.

[Rob Largan]

I think the vast amount of evidence shows that having students of higher ability, inspires them to work harder and achieve more, while when there is mixed ability, increasingly thanks to children beign frustrated by a system which fails to teach what they want, and what they a good at, causes them to be disruptive bringing down the rest of the class.

Hardly a compelling defense of the comprehensive system.

[Mark Fulford]

Forget selective schools – they only ever benefited a small fraction of the top 10%. I want selective parents!

For my children I want to select a school that provides a good learning environment and a curriculum and teaching approach that suits their abilities and interests. That requires mobility, variety and greater school autonomy. Call me a convert to vouchers.

[Rob Largan]

"Call me a convert to vouchers."

I think most of us would like to see a voucher scheme, together with a broad selective system. I belive the two can be made to work together.

[Ted]

Rob

Education isn't just about how we educate the pupils of higher ability it's about how we best educate the middle and low ability as well.

Banging on about Grammar schools focusses on the better able - yes it does benefit the clever poor as well as the clever middle classes, does help with some social mobility - but the failures in our current systems aren't just about failing those of higher ability.

I fully support the dropping of grammar schools from the centre of our debate on a conservative approach to education. I think (hope) setting is a holding strategy while a more inclusive set of policies are thought through. Central to these should be parental choice, preferably backed up with budget following pupils (vouchers being one way of doing this but not the only way). Whether popular schools then have to bring in selection by ability, by postcode, by religion, by aptitude for woodworking should become the decision of the schools - and if parents then don't like that they can take their kids (and accompanying budget) to schools they prefer.

[michael]

I'm don't agree with Derek's point that you can only achieve discipline and good behaviour through selection and separate schools.

I think that where there is a culture of good behaviour; teamwork and purpose - there is a good headteacher. irrespective of Comp or Grammar.

And again, I go back to my point that a good education isn't just about academic achievement; an importanat part being the social values we learn, which I believe is enhanced through the Comprehensive system.

[Derek]

Providing a high standard of education for our most able children is not only of benefit to them, but also of great benefit to the country. We also need to improve the system for the average and the low ability, but that does not need to be done at the expense of our most gifted children. By championing selection on academic ability, we would be providing opportunities for talented children from all backgrounds.

It is only by having competition that standards will rise. This is true in education as in all walks of life.

Of course the well-off will always get the best, because in a free country they can afford to pay for it.

[malcolm]

But Derek,Rob and others what do you do with the (vast) majority who will not make it into Grammar Schools?
The experience of many people in the '50's and '60's was very bad indeed and it is these people that we should think about too.

[Paul Bavill]

Excluding pupils from schools based on academic ability is the propaganda that NuLab is throwing against grammar schools. So let's commit to not making any more at the moment.

Assigning your classes according to academic ability is perfectly acceptable. The current system is placing everybody together and giving them exactly the same education and that is wrong. Different children require different educations - this is the angle we should, and I believe will, take.

Grammar schools were great, I was a grammar school boy myself. But currently committing to grammar schools is not going to get us elected and while we're not in power we can't do a thing about education.

[Rob Largan]

"But Derek,Rob and others what do you do with the (vast) majority who will not make it into Grammar Schools?
The experience of many people in the '50's and '60's was very bad indeed and it is these people that we should think about too."

As I said earlier on this thread, the problem in the 1950s and 1960s was that Technical Schools and Secondary moderns, wer underdeveloped and underfunded. If these schools are developed and funded more effectively and with equal, if not more, importance than grammar schools.

"Education isn't just about how we educate the pupils of higher ability it's about how we best educate the middle and low ability as well."

If you read my posts fully, they will show that a selective education system is exactly the opposite. The current system totally negelects all studetns of practical talents. My support for a selective system is largely due to the utter failure of the comprehensive system to provide a decent education to those of less academic ability while at the same time not providing the best education possible to those of academically talented students.

"I think that where there is a culture of good behaviour; teamwork and purpose - there is a good headteacher. irrespective of Comp or Grammar."

Indeed there are many very good head teachers and other teachers in the current system, this is despite the current system not because of it.

"I go back to my point that a good education isn't just about academic achievement"

I agree with you there, however the current comprehensive system focuses almost entirely on academic subjects, and neglects practical ability.

[DavidB]

I am in my last year at a grammar school in Kent and defend them with every fibre of my being. I was miserable at primary school and missed much of my last year as it was a waste of time and so very depressing; it was constant disruption and I along with a few others were seriously held back for the sake of placating a few disruptive others. The focus was on lifting a few who couldn't be bothered up to a below-average but adequate SAT level, and everyone else was ignored.

I passed the 11-plus and suddenly my life was great at grammar. I had friends who wanted to learn as much as I did, friends who wanted to achieve. Although I have missed much school due to serious illness they have helped me and I have returned to school encouraged and supported; getting projected A at A-level. I am now planning on going to university to study politics and economics, the first in my family. None of this would have happened without my grammar school. My Father is a builder and we are not from a well off background, grammar gave me the chance of a near-to-private school quality education we could never have afforded. Few if any in my class could have in fact, grammars helped us all.

If you look at statistics, since grammars largely were abolished the percentage of privately educated people in top jobs has rocketed both in politics and outside; all three main parties if Huhne wins and much of the Conservative cabinet too. Once it was quipped "there were more Estonians than Etonians". This is because comprehensives have failed the brightest and best unable to pay private fees, the people who would be today's MPs, doctors, lawyers and top scientists. There's no knowing how much and how many greats we have lost through their abolition.

You cannot create grammars within comprehensives by streaming; the school's pupil ethos created by the non-grammar majority will be anti-learning and they will affect the grammar stream, they share playgrounds and facilities after all. Grammars work because pupils are in an environment that promotes learning and surrounded by pupils keen to learn who respect the A* student- not resent him/her and beat them up. Having grammar streams makes the rest resent the top stream and opens the top stream up to abuse, bullying and the 'cool to be a fool' mentality. I have a friend who was in the grammar stream at a comprehensive, and it was a sharp turn downwards, he left at 16 with nothing above a C grade at GCSE.

Selective education can work for all. We need to create schools for all levels, not just grammars, but not comprehensives. Bring back tech schools, and good secondary moderns, and have regular exams for pupils to move between the systems [maybe a 13+ and 16+ as well as the 11+]. Secondary moderns get better results than comps when you remove the 'grammar sets' from comps according to most research not conducted by the Guardian, so it's better for everyone.

Education is about everyone, but everyone is different, and needs teaching differently in different environments. The less able will resent the best if always around them and bully them, damaging both. The brightest and best must be stretched as they will progress science, society and commerce. Tomorrow's brain surgeons and nobel prize winners. Bring back grammars!

[michael]

"I go back to my point that a good education isn't just about academic achievement; an importanat part being the social values we learn, which I believe is enhanced through the Comprehensive system."

Was my full quote Rob.

[Rob G]

I don't follow the argument that selection based on academic ability is essential to raising standards in schools. In his article in the Telegraph on 20.1.06, David Green of Civitas highlighted the benefits of the voucher scheme in Sweden and the charter schools in the USA. In both cases the schools were not allowed to select pupils by ability or on the basis of admission tests.

My vote is with those who think the priority is to raise standards in all secondary schools, and schools which are free at the point of use but not run by LEAs seem like a good way of setting a higher standard which can provide other schools with the incentive to improve.

[michael]

"None of this would have happened without my grammar school."

Why not David B? Students can take some of the responsibility for their own learning too you know. I managed to do ok in a Comp, where many of the cultural/ethos issues you point to existed there too. I think being part of a school where different cultures existed (pro learning and anti learning) helped me to develop emotionally and socially - to be sure of myself and my direction. One culture schools are not necessarily the best thing.

[spagbob]

i personally agree with keeping grammar schools. they helped me to get a very good education.

however, if cameron is gonna keep on with this "anti-grammar school" stance then he needs to come up with some decent imaginative proposals to replace them. he wont increase standards in state schools by just streaming (most already do). they need to bring in the education vouchers and independence for all schools. then comeptition will drive up standards. that is the way forward!

[Mark Fulford]

Cameron is more pragmatic than simply anti-grammar. Despite its majority, the last Conservative government created very few (if any) new grammar schools. If they're controversial and not something we can implement, why hang ourselves on vapour-policy?

[Rob Largan]

"One culture schools are not necessarily the best thing."

Yes, but why would comprehensives be more multicultural than a selective system?

Surely in comprehensives, where selection is purely based on where people live, there is less likely to be cultural diversity than a selective system where entry is based upon the individual talents of students.

""I go back to my point that a good education isn't just about academic achievement; an importanat part being the social values we learn, which I believe is enhanced through the Comprehensive system."

Was my full quote Rob."

That doesnt change my point that comprehensives focus too much on academic subjects at the expense of practical subjects. And give me one good reason why social values are enhanced at comprehensive schools compared with a selective system?

[Margaret]

Well said David, and good luck at University.

[Annabel Herriott]

being sort of dyslexic,(number blindness) I would never have passed the 11 plus. My parents yanked me out of the system and sent me to boarding school, where I flourished. O levels passed, but not math! So For the average kid with the usual amount of genetic difference in ability, CAREFUL setting in an ordinary school is the way to go. Folk with the rose tinted specs should give pause to remember the kids for whom the 11 plus is disaster. My folks had the funds. I would have ended up in a dead end job instead of being a health visitor for 40 years, if I had been left in the system. The only way round the Grammar school divide, is to have NOT secondary Mods, but Technical schools, and damn good ones at that. They would cover anything to do with wires, pipes, bricks, engines,sheets of metal, welding etc ,you get the idea.I believe the truancy rates among the dissafected would drop, as they would know that what they were learning would mean a future.

[Ted]

Rob,

It's not about the the Government deciding on Comp or Grammar and secondary modern - it's about choice.

I think the state sector should offer the same variety of education that is available in the private sector. We should recognise parents should be the people who select the schools they want for their children.

So if your kid is the kind that loves tinkering with vehicles find the school that delivers the best technical education, if its sports choose the one with best sports coaching. Lets have lots of different schools.

Lets not fall into the statist solution of Govt decides on one model or another.

[Matt wright]

I do not beleive in going back to the past and full selection as per 11 plus etc and I think it would damage our party if we did. I support Camerons position on this. Fixing a young childs future on the basis of a test at a ceratin age is wrong for many reasons and it would be a fact that those that for all sorts of reasons did not match that test at that point in their lives would get second class treatment. We all develop at different speeds in different ways. The answer is a form of on-going setting and streaming. The simple fact is that voters just want to have a decent local school for their children NOT an idealogical battle about the past and grammar schools,

Cllr Matt Wright

[Richard]

One only has to look at the higher GCSE results of Northern Ireland to see that Grammar Schools are superior to the comprehensive system.

However, an ideal system would be one in which the state withdrew from education and schools were allowed to run themselves, setting their own admissions criteria free from government interference,

[Michael Turvey]

I chose to attend a comprehensive school in favour of a grammar school despite having passed the necessary exams to attend the grammar school. Looking back, it is clear to me that I would have achieved higher grades and developed a better work ethic had I attended a Grammar school.

At my school it was indeed 'cool to be a fool' and that culture was rather infectious. Classes were disrupted and people were bullied for being clever or keen to learn. To avoid being bullied, I always felt that I had to compensate for my keeness in the lessons by indulging in disruptive behaviour.

However, despite all of this I do feel that I left school a more well-rounded individual and that comprehensive education endowed me with a level of tolerance and understanding that I might not otherwise have had.

Whether the top 25% go to grammar schools or not, the challenge remains the same: how to break down the prevailing culture among pupils which encourages laziness and disruptive behaviour.

A good first step would be to restore the dignity of the teaching profession by increasing wages to recruit better candidates and getting rid of those underperforming teachers who are only there because they couldn't get another job. There is nothing more demoralising and uninspiring than a poor teacher.

[Rob Largan]

Ted and Richard, I could not agree more that choice is a vital ingrediant to ensure education improves and responds to the wishes of parents and pupils. However I also think that a school voucher system can work alongside a system of selection. This may be difficult, but surely thats what the policy groups are for?

The worst thing anyone can do at this stage is blindly rule out any major structural change for short term electoral gain.

The current system is a failure and something must be done. I fear we will go into the next election with the only thing we have to say on education being 'School Discipline' and 'More Setting'.

[Mark Fulford]

Lets not fall into the statist solution of Govt decides on one model or another.

Exactly. The National Curriculum and Ofsted have crippled state schools.

It should be up to head teachers and governors to decide the what and how for each school, and it should be up to parents to decide the school for each child. The government's job should be to distribute our tax to schools - end of story.

[a-tracy]

Michael T: Good post we must tackle poor teachers. My son is in a similar situation to the one you explained (although I hope he's behaving himself).

Spagbol - I don't know about the majority of state schools, and as you didn't go to one I'm sure you don't either. The High School my children attend didn't stream from year 7 and only set Maths after a full term and English after a full year so the able children coast. Subjects like Information Technology and History aren't set or streamed either and my son lost interest in IT because the pace of the work was too slow for him.

Excelling is hard for boys in State schools I could show you blog entries dissing my son for going on a Math's course organised by the school (in the school holiday) he should have kept his mouth shut about it. That sort of thing does toughen you up for the real world though, as well as constantly working in poorly performing teams who get good grades through your efforts.

[A Teacher]

"Selection already occurs in secondary schools for some 60% of the lessons. The remainder comprise subjects like P.E. and Home Economics. Does anyone really think that setting these subjects will raise eductionals standards?"

This really is naive nonsense, James. I am a grammar school teacher, with much Sec Mod experience, and non-grammar schools DO NOT put 60% of subjects into sets. At GCSE, subjects like RE, History, and Geography are not always setted, and these manifestly DO contribute to the raising of standards.

Mr Willetts seems oblivious to the fact that if the party is simply to support setting in every subject, then the 20 who opt for GCSE geography would needs setting into (say) 13 in the lower set and 7 in the upper. If this is repeated for every GCSE option, it will require TWICE the teaching capacity, and TWICE the rooming capacity, and that is if we set for simply an 'upper' and a 'lower' level. If setting is more nuanced, the proprtionate increase on staffing and rooming becomes impossible. In fact, it doesn't take a genius to work out that it would be cheaper to build more grammar schools.

[James Hellyer]

This really is naive nonsense, James.

No it isn't. The core of the curriculum - languages, English, Maths, sciences - are already set or streamed in the majority of secondary schools, and these comprise 60% of the timetable.

The remaining 40% of the timetable - not the subjects as you disingeneously parse - comprise the likes of PE, Home Economics, CDT, the Humanities, etcetera. The only subjects there where I can see that setting would offer a benefit are in the Humatities and, as you note, these are already self-set as they become optional subjects. So patronise someone else.

I agree with your final paragraph though.

[Ian Wood]

No way should we help to destroy the last-
remaining Grammar Schools. But lets not harp on about education we must ATTACK on
ALL fronts. This week it should be about
Health. The NHS has failed. Lets say so!
Lets give them hell about wards closing and
staff being laid off and the sick being
turned away and refused treatment.

[A Teacher]

"The only subjects there where I can see that setting would offer a benefit are in the Humatities and, as you note, these are already self-set as they become optional subjects. So patronise someone else."

Apart from your last comment, James, which is unnecessarily defensive, and rather demeans your contribution, you may observe (though not concede) that in this sentence you clearly depart from your previous narrow assertion that "the remainder comprise subjects like PE and Home Economics".

Quite clearly, History , RE and Geography are nothing 'like' these subjects.

My point encourages you to acknowledge the Humanities (and a curious 'etc'), which you have done. This is, however, not a singular subject, as your entry implies, but plural. Setting at GCSE does not always occur in these subjects. Options do not create sets; the two are not mutually inclusive. It is observable that students opt for subjects for a variety of reasons, and academic ability in that subject is not the sole determinant (others being favoured teachers, box restrictions in the timetable, or simply that students enjoy it even if they're not that good at it). So such options do not 'self-set'. The practice of education in the real world rarely conforms to the political theory, about which you appear to know a very great deal.

[James Hellyer]

Apart from your last comment, James, which is unnecessarily defensive, and rather demeans your contribution...

Says the person who says it's naive to say that 60% of the timetabe isn't already subject to selection...

... in this sentence you clearly depart from your previous narrow assertion that "the remainder comprise subjects like PE and Home Economics".

That's not "a narrow assertion". That's picking two non-core subjects (that incidentally are among the most obvious cases of why "more setting" is a nonsense policy), and the humanities are other non-core subjects.

"(and a curious 'etc')"

Would "the Arts" suffice?

"Setting at GCSE does not always occur in these subjects."

I never said it did.

Options do not create sets

They do, but not narrowly based on ability. Interest (even if it is in the easy option, or where one's friends are) also plays a part. Either way, the pupils choose to do that subject, and group themselves even if it's not by ability.

The practice of education in the real world rarely conforms to the political theory, about which you appear to know a very great deal.

Then I shall stick to type: voucher schemes please!

[matt wright]

I agree with those who point to the importance of good head teachers. I think this is probably the single most important factor. I am a governor of a primary school and the headteacher is superb. the pervious one was poor I am told. The school is excellent now, the positive atmosphere hits you as soon as you walk in. I think that we should get away from old arguments about 11-plus/grammar schools and onto giving heateachers the freedom to run their shools. The ability to get rid of bad headtaeachers is also important. I agree also with the choice argument mentioned in some posts ie choice of different good schools rather than test kids merely to stream them into academic or vocational which is an old fashioned view of things.

Matt

[a-tracy]

A year is a long time for a child not to be set for English, German and Science, the four key topics (inc Maths) take up 42% of my year 7's Timetable, a further 20% is taken up by the Integrated curriculum.

A Teacher - it's the first time that I've actually thought about the large options selection available in state schools causing many of the setting problems. (I knew I should have forced mine down a narrow academic path - but then he wouldn't have enjoyed doing the topics as much as he does now).

The assumption musn't be made that a child is either academically capable or creative, I have two that are both.

[Richard]

A radical Conservative education policy:

Funding of schools to be paid for by the state via a voucher system

The state to have nothing else to do with education. It will not own schools, set admissions policies or proscribe teaching methods.

The result would effectively be a free market in education where schools would have to attract parents by maintaining high standards. If exam boards produced dumbed down curriculums to get better results, businesses and universities would be less like to recruit from schools that make use of those curiculums. Suffice to say this would discourage parents from sending their children to those schools, thus driving up standards further.

Out of this some form of selective system would probably emerge, but with more diversity than a simple grammar-secondary modern system.

[A Teacher]

"Says the person who says it's naive to say that 60% of the timetabe isn't already subject to selection..."

No I didn't. You seem concerned with mathematical absolutes; I simply wanted you to be aware that your dogmatic 60/40 split varies from school to school, especially where there is a commitment in KS3 to the classics.

"That's not "a narrow assertion". That's picking two non-core subjects (that incidentally are among the most obvious cases of why "more setting" is a nonsense policy), and the humanities are other non-core subjects."

You omit the obvious anomoly. RE, for example, is 'non-core', but taught under compulsion and the force of law. If that doesn't constitute 'core', I don't know what does.

"Would "the Arts" suffice?"

Of course. I just wondered why it became an unspecified 'etc'.

"Setting at GCSE does not always occur in these subjects."..."I never said it did."

Umm.. what about: "The only subjects there where I can see that setting would offer a benefit are in the Humatities and, as you note, these are already self-set as they become optional subjects"

Your clear inference is that optional subjects become 'self-setting'.

"Options do not create sets" - "They do, but not narrowly based on ability."

? Isn't that Willetts' sole determinant? Sets based on ability? 'Grouping' isn't the same as setting. I hardly consider a peer group's 'love' of a subject to equate with one set by abilty.

"Then I shall stick to type: voucher schemes please!"

Unfortunately, that is evidently off the agenda, as much as I may agree with you.

[James Maskell]

I disagree with the new Conservative policy of no more Grammar Schools. I am a product of one. Isnt it a little hypocritical for David Cameron to tell Blair to be as radical as he wants to be in giving freedom to schools, if he has declared that there will be no more Grammar Schools under a Conservative Government?

[Patsy Sergeant]

I was educated at a convent, a fairly small one - with several branches, my mother had gone to it as well, and I believe managed to get the fees reduced because of that. It was wartime so not all the disciplines, such as Science were taught (shortage of teachers), but the nuns and teachers were, without exception passionate about their subjects, and conveying that knowledge to us - I still remember today what I learned about the Partition of India!

My parents may have been so-called middle class, but they had to scimp and scrape in order to get us a better education, and my mother worked making artistic ornaments and toys in the home (which I had to help with in the holidays), all to pay for the school fees. Later, there was no money to send me to university, and although Mrs. Blair says the only alternative to university is the supermarket checkout, there is a more worthwhile job - in fact a job which is more worthwhile then hers, but much less well paid, and that is a nurse, which is what I did.

Nowadays it seems to me that this government says that all children must go to university, but doesn't in anyway concern themselves about how they are all going to find jobs afterwards. Its a typical example of soundbites which will 'sound good to the masses'.

Its just like comprehensive education which hasn't worked for years and years, but hey presto it IS going to work, and work NOW, just because it sounds so much more politically correct than grammar school education.

[Derek]

Patsy - you would need a degree to have a good career in nursing today.

"A Teacher" is right when he says that setting is not a practical option in a smaller comprehensive, for the reasons he gives - insufficient numbers.

Although I believe we should allow more grammar schools, I understand why our leader thinks it is politically unacceptable. I only hope that having ruled it out now, we will reconsider the matter in our second term.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Derek - Yes I know, and I think that is one of the reasons why nurses and nursing can have the wrong emphasis these days. We started our nursing on the ward, looking after the patients, giving them bedpans and washing them, and took time off to do our lectures and exams - we did have to take exams to qualify even then. I realise that today is a much more technical world, and that applies to education as well, but as far as nursing goes one should still 'care' for the patient - I think anyway.

[James Hellyer]

No I didn't.

Yes you did!

I simply wanted you to be aware that your dogmatic 60/40 split varies from school to school

Which you strangely didn't say. And the 60/40 split was never presented as an absolute, but rather a guide becuase timetabling varies from school to school.

You omit the obvious anomoly.

No I don't, I use the same division that the DfES uses. By contrast your attempt at hair splitting would see PE deemed a core subject because it's compulsory.

Of course. I just wondered why it became an unspecified 'etc'.

Because "The Arts" doesn't cover the range of technical subjects too?

Your clear inference is that optional subjects become 'self-setting'.

As in the pupils put themselves into formal groups, not as in they are grouped by their schools on ability. If I'd meant the latter, I would have said "set".

'Grouping' isn't the same as setting.

Indeed, although the vastly reduced class sizes these subjects then enjoy is itself an argument against formal setting for them, as that already confers benefits in terms of teacher attention.

In any case, the call for "more sets" in this area is hardly inspriational.

[michael]

"One culture schools are not necessarily the best thing." Michael

"Yes, but why would comprehensives be more multicultural than a selective system?" Rob L.

You misunderstand me Rob - It was a reference to work/ethos cultures within the school. Not race.

[DavidB]

As has been said, we need different schools for different people. Grammars, where the academic pupils can be sheltered from the 'cool to be a fool' mentality and mentally challenged are the best way ahead for them. But this style is not right for all, that's why it's got to be selective, it was right for me, but would be wrong for say my cousins who are more technical. Pick out the academic pupils, then we can help the rest by creating schools/lessons suited to them.

Tech schools should come back, but being well funded and innovative. They should have a very radically different curriculum; applied maths and sciences plus real practical skills teaching with real paid apprenticeships for older pupils in a skill of their choice. NOT like these daft GNVQs and so called vocational subjects which are too academic and theoretical, as well as being in odd subjects like pottery or flower arranging- not that I am against those areas as hobbies or shops. I did 'wood technology' in years 7-8 and went to the workshop less than once a month. I drove people may by calling it woodwork or carpentry endlessly. My friend at comprehensive did sewing, sorry- fabric technology, instead [he learnt to make bean bags but not sew a button back on]. Good hands-on tech subjects like carpentry, mechanics etc would engage young people, reduce bad behaviour, reduce truancy greatly and reduce youth unemployment/dependency.

As for social mixing, there is a far wider mix at my grammar school than our local comprehensives; one entirely council estate the other entirely leafy middle class suburbs- the school adding thousands to property nearby. We have people from both areas and from miles around at my school, a huge social mix. The 'cool to be a fool' mindset is no-where to be seen, and pupils are very individual [especially us sixth formers]; there's no gang mentality or follow the crowd 'got to be cool' ethos. Generally far more socially developed than the comprehensive brigade as people are themselves not what they think they ought to be [my comp friend explained you have to be something like goth or a grunger or some other 'gang type', not at my school].

School selection based on ability could be called selection on personal strength to look less win/lose, especially with more sorts of schools created catering for all different types of IQ. Schools for all, but suited to each.

A voucher and parental choice scheme fits well with this. Full parental choice but all should take a test at 11 to gain extra choices such as grammar school. There must be the option of doing it again later, and maybe all doing so at 13 and 16 for more mobility and to encourage hard work.

Finally, I'd not have done well without grammar schools because I'd have left at 16- the comprehensive mentality is too restrictive and suffocating for academic pupils. Year 6 at primary drove me mad enough.

[TomW]

I am a 18 year old student at a grammar School in the North. I am also a Conservative. I believe the two go hand-in-hand.

Grammar Schools should always be supported by our party because of the chances they give to people throughout the country, whatever their income. Grammar Schools allow pupils to succeed on merit and effort, rather than parental income - therefore allowing anyone to aspire to succeed. It is absolute rubbish that they are populated by the "middle-classes" - tutoring is a very rare thing for applicants to my school.

I believe it is politically dangorous for a politician who had the benefit of a Public School education to be opposed to Grammar Schools. My Grammar allows hundreds of pupils, many of whoms' families have never seen tertiary education, go to university.

David Cameron must think hard before he states the "Modern" Conservatives new stance on Grammar Schools.

However, the most important objective party is this. The Conservative Party must remain in favour of the 300 or so Grammar Schools. For if Labour sense that there is no political opposition it may try to pass a bill to abolish them once and for all. If this time comes, its the time for our party to oppose Labour.

[DavidB]

I agree with TomW that it's dangerous for a publically educated politician to be seen as opposing grammar schools, a great ladder of opportunity to bright children normal backgrounds. It is seen as 'pulling up the ladder' really, and it is. This DC policy has pursuaded BOTH my parents not to vote Conservative UNLESS something very good is offered up AND guarantee the last grammars will stay. Otherwise they feel there will be no difference and they may as well wait for a Conservative party worth voting for. If DC does win in 2009/2010 and his government allows closures he really will be the new Edward Heath.