I went to a secondary modern until it came to A levels when I transferred to the Grammar school. It was either that or Wigan tech and I didn't fancy the journey every day into Wigan!

The grammar school Geography teachers were rubbish in comparison to the ones at the secondary modern and not long after I left the schools merged as comprehensive education arrived in the borough. The head of geography from the secondary modern became head of the combined department and I wasn't the least bit surprised. Much to the annoyance of the grammar school geography teachers apparently.



This kind of happened to me at Uni. I was made to study Computer Science as a subsidiary subject (none of this modular degree rubbish back then) and despite not having A levels particularly suited I took to it like a duck to water and have never done anything else since. Would I get into the department today? Maybe as they do take students from all backgrounds but the point is it was very late in my educational career I found something I was really interested in and from then on my rather mediocre academic achievements were consigned to history. It is amazing what being motived and interested can do.

Definitely dumb idea, which as suggested earlier would see children in this position likely go to private school (if it's going to cost £x to go to state school and only a bit more to go to private school, then they'll go to private school) entirely contrary to the stated aim of the idea.

Whilst I did well at school until 16 I got lazy after that and ultimately left a degree course after a year. It didn't stop me doing enough to find myself in what would now be the proposed "pay for school" category, if I had kids.

After all this time the closest I've come to having to show any formal qualifications has been this upcoming move to South Africa, but being an intra-company transfer avoids the need.

Did I ever tell you lot that I had to get up for school half an hour before I went to bed, then lick the streets clean before going to a scummy excuse for a school where I was whipped to within an inch of my life everyday?
And I ended up being the most intelligent person on the planet, well at least on here anyhow.
Relevance? .... well none really, I just like taking about ME!

I'd just like to add - I have a Microsoft accredited qualification in SQL database creation and management which I obtained purely by finding a CD with all the answers on it and hiding the screen underneath the online exam paper when I took it, so good was my ploy that I was the only one in the room of local authority database managers and general IT geeks to get question 7 correct when in fact, after the exam, they all proved to the tutor that the official Microsoft answer was incorrect, and he agreed while I sat staring at the ceiling whistling to myself.

Its the only qualification I have obtained in 41 years.

Come now, your modesty does you an injustice.

The other daft thing about the suggestion is to say that middle-class parents get their kids into the best state schools. Whilst that is true at the margin and especially in big cities like London is it is most cases the case that the "best" (ie higher achieving) state schools are the best in those terms simply because of their catchment areas and their intake (ie of middle class, relatively priveliged kids, with supprtive parents, access to books, computers etc at home. The guy has been living out of that imaginery place - the real world - for too long and it shows.

How about scrapping private education and forcing the rich barstewards to send their kids to the same schools as everyone else. Maybe they would then be happier to pay their taxes knowing that their kids would benefit and thus also help raise the standard of education for everyone.

Do we really want to ban stuff and limit personal freedom further? Doesn't get my vote.

While we are at is let's restrict car sales to one type of car. It can be state-produced and called the Trabant.

If state education needs further funding then either raise income tax or reduce spending elsewhere. But education, like the NHS, should be free for everyone. I would include higher education in that too.

Personally I think state education does need more money. In order to lower class sizes and to provide more class rooms and facilities for schools.
But I think the biggest potential changes lay with the curriculum, OFSTED and the management of schools.
- Cut the curriculum. In my opinion we're attempting to teach kids too much stuff, and the wrong stuff. 12 year old kids shouldn't be going home on a Friday with 8 different pieces of homework to do. Often about things have little or no relevance to their lives in subjects where they haven't been taught the basics properly.
It would also free up teachers to actually teach instead of having to stick rigidly to the curriculum because there's no time for anything else or to explore an issue in more depth.
- OFSTED is far too focused on results (get rid of the league tables while we're at it). It, along with the league tables, encourages teachers to teach to the exam and not the subject, and also encourages things like leaving kids out of taking GCSE's if they don't think they'll pass.
- Management. Very often head teachers have risen through the teaching ranks and have little experience of management, yet find themselves in control of a large budget, hundreds of staff and thousands of pupils.

The extra money should help give greater breadth of education to students by having more facilities be it for sport or vocational subjects rather than purely academic.