"I have taught in comprehensive schools and my experience is that these schools sell the most able pupils short" StephenC

Absolutely.

Canvas - I would suggest that this time it's you that's hanging on to the past in wanting a continuation of the dreadful, lowest common denominator, comprehensive system. Giving appropriate education to the each pupil is not elitist.

And yes, I too had a Grammar School education and it worked for me. I also still believe in single-sex schools but that's another debate.

If there is a shortage of grammar schools in some parts of the country, leading to selection by income as well as ability as the better off parents relocate to more expensive areas close to grammar schools, then surely the fair answer is to CREATE MORE GRAMMAR SCHOOLS.

Setting/streaming in comprehensives will never be as effective at helping the academically able as grammar schools because the problems resulting from mixing children of all abilities together in schools that have to try to cater for them all are just too great.

To properly nurture bright kids you need separate schools where they are not picked on/bullied/derided/sidelined for being bright.

There are no grammar schools in this area so we have had to send our daughter to a private school and incur significant financial hardship as a result. It's not ideal though, as there will always be an element of economic elitism at any private school - however well run - and we have to work hard to mitigate that.

The creation of more grammar schools, on the other hand, would give bright children like my daughter the opportunity to get a good education without having to (literally) "buy into" a decent school that's only decent because it costs money.

I would say that David Willetts’ speech has lost another vote but the environmental policy has probably already pushed me into the why bother there’s no difference camp.
Middle class values are based on the concept of deferred gratification a concept that even the lower middle classes are now becoming disillusioned with when the returns are taken by governments over concerned with the “underprivileged” and hammering the lower middle classes to fund their strategies. Thus we are seeing more disruptive pupils coming from middle class families.
If a firm had two teams one committed to their product and one totally disinterested but funded both equally because it perceived it as being not their fault they are failing to put in even a moderate effort, it is the team’s background it would soon be bankrupt. In education it has become the standard.
Your idea of adjusting the voucher value according to income would have taken more from me for my child’s because, prior to redundancy I had a decent one. After that I got no return from the National Insurance because I saved to boost an inadequate expected pension but now get half of even that, thanks to the Brown theft. That was yet another back door social redistribution. If we are to get them from both parties why bother to vote? If I had known then what I know now my feeling would have been why bother at all and I would have probably been problem child.
I found an American study on the web that said that a family of two in the UK on £24000 pa was only £2000 better off than one on £12000 thanks to the benefit culture that these underprivileged families have learnt to milk so successfully. That’s why they don’t buy into education. I believe that this was verified by a British study trying to disprove it, and so got little publicity.
I would be impressed Mr Willett that you read if it appeared that you also took notice.

It's time we got this "elitism" thing out in the open.

In the London Marathon we don't mix all the competitors up together, we put all the best runners out front and give them a separate start so that they have the best chance to express their talent an fulfil their ambition. And what do we call this group? "Elite runners!" We have no qualms about applying the term to athletes, and nor should we. But when it comes to our brightest kids we suddenly get swamped in all that last-century socialist baggage of class and privilege if we use the term "elite". It's high time we developed the maturity and self-confidence to recognise that if we are to give all our brightest kids the opportunity to develop their special talents without constraint we must have an elite tier in our education system and we need to stop being so mealy-mouthed about it and call it what it is. At the moment, at least as far as the state secondary sector is concerned, grammar schools are the only game in town for this role. Instead of abandoning them because the politics of envy sees them as "elitist" in some pejorative sense, we should be developing them and creating many more of them so that they are accessible to all those who are bright enough to benefit from their unique ethos and environment.

Dumping academically gifted kids in a one-size-fits-all comprehensive, even if you dress it up as an "academy", is a recipe for wasted talent. Setting and streaming won't cut it either, they'll still be dragged down by the peer group.

providor: Yep. Unfortunately, I think the kind of sense and reason with which you are talking has been lost on the New Conservative party, which has taken over from the party that used to say the kind of things you're saying now. The name of the game is winning votes, and if that means radical policy shifts for no reason other than to appeal to (certain) silly people's emotions, then so be it.

Perhaps the 11+ should be spread over several weeks and several tests to make sure that a pupil doesn't unfairly get turned down for a grammar school place if they had an 'off-day'; but I do believe that the 11+ system provides a reasonable indicator of a child's intelligence and capacity to learn at the age of 11, and what exactly is the problem with that? By saying it's a bad system, people seem to be arguing that a kid's intelligence might suddenly change half way through secondary school, which I don't think is likely to happen. If they're smart at 11, they'll be smart for the next few years, and vice versa. I do agree with you that it's much more of an emotional argument that grammar schools should be scrapped than a rational one; socialists have long demonized grammar schools for no good reason. They're very selfish.

I'm not even sure we need the 11+ any more. Nowadays all primary schools are required to identify their gifted and talented pupils at an early stage and provide for their special needs, and the kids are tested so regularly one way and another we could probably select the elite on the basis of existing assessments. NAGTY ( http://www.nagty.ac.uk ) have a variety of ways of defining "gifted and talented" to determine eligibility for membership, which do not include passing the 11+. There also needs to be a way of allowing early- and late-developers to access the elite tier, so maybe we need to think beyond the 11+ as the primary means of selection and come up with something fairer, smarter and more flexible.

The important points are that the number of places in the elite tier must match the number of eligible pupils, that all pupils are automatically assesed for eligibility and that all eligible pupils are given whatever support and encouragement is needed to enable them to access the elite tier. Then we will have a prejudice-free, class-free, stigma-free system which really will promote social mobility in the way that grammar schools should and would if we hadn't killed most of them off in the name of the great failed socialist experiment that is comprehensive education.

Interesting response: however reading on from my original statements I think its fair to say that the issue of there being a class divide of some form is not really in question, as to whether I have a fixation with it is missing the point of my response and frankly those of others which have been subsequently posted

On the mater of "plebs" I'm sure you’re aware that this was often used in Ancient Rome to describe the common people. If you refer to your current dictionaries you will still find it refers to the general populace. As one tread suggests the average Sun reader if you require a less non pc description.

Canvas - from your responses so far I feel that you are convinced that the conservative party "must" change and "move with the times" if it has any hopes of getting back into power. Further that policies of this nature will help that process, if we all use a bit for "forward" thinking and stop being so..... So what "backward" I assume.

Well I’m sorry I think you’re wrong, personally I think it time that the conservatives distance themselves from the overcrowded middle ground, which will be difficult I am sure but often difficult things bring the best rewards.

I have no chip that I am aware of perhaps I should see a specialist (I may have to pay for that too). My own education was at Boarding School; pay enough money and they will accept anyone even kids like I was. I would not have passed the 11 plus because I was not able to read at 11, in fact I couldn’t really read until I was at University which is when I completed reading my first novel. However this has not stopped me enjoying relative success later in life. If anything I would be a proof of why we should scrap exam entry system grammar schools and other such systems.

But that was never my point, my point centred more on the degradation of conservative core values and what affect this has on the general voting populous, and their voting apathy.

In my view the only way that “new labour” could become vote wining was to become more conservative and win the middle ground (oh and a photogenic leader), given a backdrop of a long period of one government party being in power this shift ensured a win. Right now a similar backdrop exists; with the right approach wining the next race should be a relatively simple exercise.

Unless there is so little between the parties that large amounts of us “plebs” decide not to bother voting.

Why would we what’s the point!

Urbanpig


well said.

UrbanPig says:

I think Cameron and Willetts are about to push for more 'Special Needs' schools to be opened - and to stop the closure of any existing ones. I applaud them for their efforts.

A right wing government will never get into power in the UK. David Cameron is, I think, doing a very good job. It was only two short years ago that the word 'Tory' made people run for their lives - shaking in their boots! Look what Cameron has achieved since he became leader - he is going to modernise the Conservative Party whether you like it or not.

Good luck to him.

Thanks for calling me special:-]

However at the time my parents were offered a special school.

My comprehensive school told them that I was in essence thick and that I would need a speical school, well I was not thick just dyslexic. This was established at the fee paying school within 2 months, from then on I had extra lessons in English again at extra cost.

The reason I didn't pass my exams when I was at school was because I did no work for them, not because I could not read.

Special Schools is another poxy liberal idea, its pandering to polical correctness, we need more of them - interesting - seems to me that anyone with a "special" child wants them to go through the main stream system, so why bother having more. If all schools can take special needs children and get more funding by doing so and the parents want them to go through mainstream, then why bother to try and win another sound bite.

Regards the rest: being right wing, and that a right wing government will never get back into power.

Well I think your wrong again, over time public opinion has changed many times throughout history. - back to plebs...

It may seem inconceivable to you that any party who is not in the middle can win a general election.

However I would like to point out that I did say distance itself from the middle ground.

I feel it’s important for them to stand out in a crowd.

David and David should not, I repeat NOT consider ignoring Grammar schools and favouring City Academies in their place. They are a failing Labour gimmick. So far, David this is the only step I feel you have made a real error in judgement on. Please be careful!
What David must be praised on (after 4 days as a TA) is that there is a ray of hope for re-establish/creating special schools again as this was one of the biggest educational mistakes that Labour made, and David and his team need to rectify this. In the TES this week, teachers reflected on the Blair Years. Their verdict? "Could have done better!" I hope Cameron can and does do better!

urbanPig:

You are, I think, SO SO SO wrong on that one. I don't know where to begin. In fact, I won't.

WRONG! SO WRONG!

:)

I have no wish to cast doubt over your astrological knowledge, astrocat, but Margaret Thatcher is a Libra too - she doesn't fit into this description.
Just give David due time - after the next election we'll see if he has backbone. PATIENCE :)

Hi Dave,

Mrs. Thatcher is a Libra yes and can be equally charming but she doesn't have Cupido conjunct her Sun. Moreover, Mrs. Thatcher has Saturn on her Ascendant which gives her endurance and an iron will. Queen Elizabeth 1 asked John Dee to time her coronation to place Saturn on the Ascendant for precisely that reason.

David Cameron's Saturn is on his Descendant (directly opposite the Ascendant) Saturn in this position describes what we draw towards us not what we eminate.

On David Cameron's Ascendant is Vesta which represents the house and home and Astraea, the goddess of justice. Justice is ruled by Libra so he would always seek to balance.

He is likely to draw towards him people who are disciplined, patient and responsible but also it can bring obstruction to change as his Saturn is opposed by Uranus which may leave him feeling frustrated and impatient.

As for me, I've got all the patience in the world, I have Saturn in Capricorn trine my South Node.

I'm glad you did, it's always nice when people take an interest

I know yes I'm very wrong.

Its also a subject for another thread: i.e. Special Schools v's Inclusion in mainstream, how many we should have and the posible concequences of the Governments commitment to provide inclusion where possible as per the disablity act 2001. By this I particularly refer to the longer term.

This issue is a genuine one, however there is a danger that debate is stifled by the the PC mob..... Anyway subject for another tread.

I'd like to know what the current policy is on private schools.

We have no grammar schools in our area so have had to take the considerable financial hit of sending our daughter to a private school.

A few years ago it seemed as if the "passport" idea might be of some use to us, but then it was revealed it could only be used for private schools that didn't charge more than the value of the passport - is that any? - and now it seems it is being backed off even further.

Why can't the Tories recognise that private schools are an excellent resource for improving educational standards and come up with a policy that allows parents in areas without grammar schools to "opt out" and go private with a subsidy from the state? This could be in the form of a voucher for the full value of a year's state education, or perhaps by making school fees completely tax deductible.

If this were done and all children in private schools were effectively being paid for at least in part by the state, then there would be no reason not to include the excellent results obtained by those children in the state figures, improving the overall "standard" of the state education system massively overnight!