The debate over selection rages on
John Crace (Have we given up on getting rid of grammar schools?, May 3) wonders why the comprehensive revolution ran out of steam. Surely it's because it never had nor could have any genuine philosophy except the vague idea that ending selection would open up opportunities. For many children the reverse has occurred, and schools have neither aided social mobility nor improved standards. Comps have produced universal mediocrity and worse.
A truly "egalitarian" schools system would require a very careful grading followed up by a deliberate mixing-up of pupils. No one contemplates doing this. So the "ideal" becomes negative: no 11-plus, no differences or diversities, no streaming.
"Comprehensiveness" will never work because it denies the obvious fact that human talents are not equally distributed. Any workable system of education must take account of this fact. Far from abolishing selection at 11, we should continue it, but refine it by making a further assessment at 13-14. This would allow time for potential, or the lack of it, to show up.
Nigel Probert
Porthmadog
· Your article contained a key error about the effect of selection in Kent. We do not have six schools getting poorer results than the lowest performer in Hackney. The true figure is 25.
Sandy Bruce Lockhart tries to explain this by saying he presides over one of the most deprived areas of England, a major shock to anyone who has ever set foot in Kent and Hackney. Common sense and every deprivation index contradict him. If selection provides the best opportunity for all to reach their academic potential, why does Kent have the worst-qualified workforce in the south-east? Kent is a beautiful county hamstrung by an absurd education system, preserved in aspic by New Labour's broken promises.
Martin Frey
Appledore, Kent
· The article mentioned the "rights and wrongs" of grammar schools, but the rights were never discussed, only the same old arguments against. I went to a grammar in Kent and, under the selective system, I may well have ended up at Montgomery school, mentioned in the article, as this was the nearest school to me. If this had happened, I would have been denied all the opportunities I received - a brilliant education, including the opportunity to take Latin at A-level (which almost no comprehensives offer), which led to a place at University College London to study philosophy.
Homewood school shows that comprehensives are not automatically disadvantaged by the system. Making me and other grammar school children attend Montgomery would not suddenly raise standards there. I do not believe 75% of pupils should be made to feel like failures, but neither do I believe the top 25% should miss out on opportunities to excel.
Anna McNally
London
A programme for the vulnerable
I am working with a group of excluded pupils as a home tutor. Some colleagues and I have been thinking our way around some constructive alternatives for such children here in Suffolk. A few years ago we had an award-winning programme we'd designed for some of the most vulnerable boys in our local prison. We decided to get together to build a programme this side of the fence. The work of Samantha Hibbs (Back on course, May 3) sounds just the sort of thing we need to look at.
Jennie Fontana
Woodbridge
Values v chaos
David Perks suggests pupils would behave well if they were taught interesting material by teachers with years of experience who knew them (Chaos theory, May 3). Hardly practical, but not as worrying as his claim that an obsession with behaviour is dumbing down education. Surely generations of value-free schooling have so undermined the authority of parents and teachers that the young can barely be disciplined within society? Now even some parents are unruly!
George Talbot
Watford
The end of deprivation? Hardly
Rona Kiley of the Academy Sponsors Trust claims (Letters, May 3) that city academies are at the frontline in the battle against deprivation. This flies in the face of research, such as the critical PricewaterhouseCoopers report that had to be dragged into the light. She doesn't explain why only city academies are addressing the issues on her list, although having up to twice the amount being spent to set them up than allowed for other schools might account for some of it. Is she suggesting that the two-tier system that will inevitably result from this social experiment will mean the end of deprivation? I think she needs to share her secrets with us.
Bill Anderson
Birmingham NUT
Strike for democracy
I am pleased to see Natfhe leader Paul Mackney is not letting down his fellow beard-wearers and voted for an anti-war Labour candidate. He might have mentioned that since the Lib Dems are for a strike ban in the public sector, voting for them would have been somewhat masochistic.
Keith Flett
London
· Send your letters to: EducationGuardian, 119 Farringdon Road, London EC1R 3ER. Fax: 020-7239 9933 Email: education.letters@guardian.co.uk Please include a full postal address
