Meanwhile in another attempt by the government to divert responsibility for failing schools they think handing control to Universities is the answer. Fortunately the VC of Oxford Uni is a bit wiser “There are many wonderful teachers and head teachers throughout the country and I think it’s frankly insulting to them to suggest that a university can come in and do what they are working very hard to do and in many cases doing it exceptionally well.”

Not muddled at all.



Do you think that "the state" should be deciding very early in a persons development, whether they are worthy of a "privileged" place in the education system or, should the "state" provide a decent education for all young people ?



It's quite ridiculous to talk about children failing within the education system and then say that we should remove the "top" and give them something better.



Surely this is to completely admit defeat and consign an element of society to a second rate existence.



Ironically, the same people that want to do this are the very same people who then complain about poorly educated people not being well enough trained to improve their employ-ability.



For me it's simple.



The state should provide a decent education for ALL and if people want something better/different then, they should go down a different route, either pay and go private or maybe home educate but, let's not lose all of the best teachers into grammar schools and further reduce the quality of education for the masses.



I realise that you may be trying to be deliberately provocative and if so, that's your prerogative but, it really is time that politicians stopped pi$$ing about with the education system and just made sure that it is adequately funded and of a decent standard for ALL.

This is crazy. Surely the state should give people with an academic leaning the opportunity to pursue excellence, which will benefit all of society in many cases? The less academic youngsters can still be given good education but with less emphasis on rapid academic advancement.



In comprehensive schools kids are still streamed,so it's no secret which are the best at particular things and which are not. Much better in my opinion to be honest and allow all the mist able from a particular area to be able to reach their potentials. Other kids can reach there's in equally good schools with different emphases.



Really cannot understand any objection.

I always thought " separate development " was something practiced in South Africa.

Seems that some want the same here with little chance of progress.

Just an observation.

Under the old Grammar School system, the kids that weren't lucky enough to pass their 11+ left school without any qualifications.

Is this a fair system ?



There is no need for a return to the 11+ or for state funded Grammar Schools



A properly funded state education SHOULD provide a decent education for ALL and not just a fortunate few.

And of course these days, it's an open secret that wealthy, middle class parents will engage a private tutor to train their kids to pass the entrance exam for a particular grammar school - so the selection by income starts early; those kids then benefit from a grammar school education and lo and behold, turn out to be high achievers. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that perpetuates the unfair advantage afforded the well off.

I was not proposing a return to some "old" system. Those y=who failed selection should still have access to the same qualifications.

The whole point of May's suggestion is that wealthier neighbourhoods and so called excellent comprehensive schools go hand in hand. Were they don't initially the parents buy into the catchment area and house prices go up, making access for the less well off impossible. At least a merit based entrance system goes along way to addressing that. If tests were not of the same type each year then there would be nothing to tutor towards. For a species that put men on the moon, dealing with these trivial objections should not be beyond our collective wits.

It shouldn't be beyond "our collective wits" to provide a top quality education for all and to allow those with a more academic mind to prosper and to allow those who are better suited to more vocational work to prosper also.

However, so far, probably due to education so often being used as a political football, this clearly hasn't happened.



Your comment about house prices rising is impossible to overcome.



All state schools operate within a catchment area and sadly, it's a fact of life that, if a particular school is deemed excellent people will want to send their kids there and those with higher incomes will (over time) move into the area and accelerate house prices.



Also, you must remember that kids from poorer families don't usually have parents who can afford or are willing to ferry their kids to and from school, therefore, if the better schools are not on "the doorstep", poor little <insert name> has to make do with their nearest school, whether it's good, bad, grammar, comp etc.



Some private schools try and pretend that they "care" and offer a very small amount of scholarships but, the reality of this is that they are desperate to retain their "charity" statusa nd as such have to be seen to have value within their local community.

Most so called good schools are nothing if the sort. The point is they tend to have a middle class, motivated intake. I have seen it with our first child. Started in a roughing primary in London and moved to a 'beacon' primary in Home Counties. The former was much better organised (it had to be) but the latter got good results despite being shambolic in comparison.

The reality is schools can do only so much. Ultimately it's a combination of genetics and parental input pre-school which counts more than anything.

I agree with your comments about genetics and parental input but, surely we should be trying to help kids that dont have as much help from their parents ?



If there was some way to allow under privileged kid's some of the benefits afforded to the better off, many of them would vastly improve their life chances.

Equally, if we reduce their opportunities further, which I believe the Grammar school system does (due to the fact that they will find it difficult or impossible to get into these "better" schools), their chances will reduce further, as the brighter kids (from better off families) will desert the regular schools and find their way into the new Grammar schools, leaving the old comp./academies with an even larger proportion of poorer kids.



The new government policy is directly aimed at the better off Tory voters, who now see a chance for them to send their kids to a state run Grammar school for free, rather than paying for their education privately. They will pay for extra tuition in order to make sure their offspring pass the entrance exam which is something that the less well off just cannot afford to do..



For this reason, I am strongly against the proposed change and as stated in my previous posts, we should be trying to improve our education system for everyone and not trying to win votes by "butttering up" the middle class wannabes.

Everyone employs a tutor. Our school recommended our son apply and that he got a tutor. We sent him to our local comp instead. I think you've missed the whole point of education, but you're not alone. The point of education is to educate everyone to as high a standard as possible, that's what the state has responsibility for. With limited resource the biggest gains available are not at the top but at the bottom. Squeezing an extra A* out of a few kids is the marginal advantage a grammar school offers, applying resource at the lower end would dramatically improve the grades of large numbers of pupils and ultimately the economy and social structure of your country as a whole. All this nonsense comparing education to elite sport are ridiculous.

May is useless. She is trying to define herself as "not Cameron" but she's just one more sneaky little $h!t off the Tory production line, just like he was.

All absolutely true - but set against the full knowledge that improving the life opportunities of larger numbers of pupils is not in any way the aim of a Tory government.

Resources are a red herring. My grammar school had less overt resources than the local secondary moderns (as they were in those days). Nobody is disagreeing about educating as many as possible to the best standard. The fact is not all have potential for high academic attainment, just as not all have the potential to be top musicians, artists, footballers, entrepreneurs, etc. it is about maximising people's potential for the benefit of both them and society as a whole.

And 11 is the best age to decide this?



If there was an argument against Grammar schools you're it.

Why can't that include an outlet for the brighter kids such as Grammar schools, as well as secondary type education to allow kids with less academic skills to fulfil there potential?

I would suggest aged 7 assessments to form the basis of post 11 transfer, subject to chances to move for later developers.

Why do we need separate schools. We have streamed sets to put those better at different subjects together.



What Grammar schools are are picking the best at certain subjects at a certain age and saying you, and only you, are worth educating properly.



Everyone should get the same attention from the system, not just some. As such, there is no need whatsoever for separate schools. All that does is segregate people.



Should the comprehensive system be teaching different things and in a different manner? Absolutely. But the principle of comprehensive education has to be maintained.

Well said, sir

No what it's saying is that this group have the most academic potential so we will focus on fulfilling their potential whilst 'the rest' go to good schools which offer a mix of academic and skill based education based upon each child's individual potential

No - it isn't saying that at all; a combination of Tory bias for the middle classes and successive governments meddling with an education system they are ill-qualified to understand, means that what it's actually saying is, let's select at 11 based on a flawed and exploitable system, and consign everyone who doesn't have the resources to exploit it, or develops at a later age, to an educational scrapheap. And while we're at it, let's allow the selective schools to fraudulently claim charitable status, so that the additional resources they already have go even further.



It's a divisive, class-based system designed to appease the traditional Tory supporter base; thankfully, the House of Lords will boot it out, so the whole argument is most likely moot.

The repeated testing & judging of children is repugnant. My daughter is at University & has been annually tested in some way since before high school. The pressure it places on growing children is disgusting. We should be concentrating on developing mature, rounded, moral young people, not turning them into robots at schools whose sole purpose is to get exam passes.

No that's what you are saying. They have said(accepted) what we had in the 60/70s wasn't correct but the principal is a good one. based on that they will introduce a modernised approach. Why not give it a chance.

Can someone explain exactly how the introduction will improve the level of education across the spectrum which is the nonsense being spouted by Mrs May.

The best that can happen is that a lucky few obtain a/b grades instead of b/c grades (paid for by the tax payer) but, there is a fair chance that, a likely "brain drain" of teachers will leave their posts at the local comp/academy to take up positions at these new schools, leaving the existing academies with fewer bright children and fewer decent teachers.

A competent opposition would rip them to pieces over this but, Labour, are politically impotent at present, leaving the Tories (even with a small majority) to do just as the please, it's depressing.