This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/may/13/the-divisive-issue-of-grammar-schools-returns
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| The divisive issue of grammar schools returns | The divisive issue of grammar schools returns |
| (2 months later) | |
| The government’s decision to expand the provision of grammar schools (Report, 11 May) is consistent with the underlying trend in Britain’s society since the 1970s. British education is not intended to prepare children for life: it is structured to exclude those who don’t really understand what is required of them. The intention is not to reduce inequality, but to reward the existence of inequality. Our economy continues to discard individuals and groups that fail to generate a sustainable personal income. Benefit payments are being withdrawn to encourage people to work more effectively or, alternatively, to reduce their standard of living to match their work contribution. | The government’s decision to expand the provision of grammar schools (Report, 11 May) is consistent with the underlying trend in Britain’s society since the 1970s. British education is not intended to prepare children for life: it is structured to exclude those who don’t really understand what is required of them. The intention is not to reduce inequality, but to reward the existence of inequality. Our economy continues to discard individuals and groups that fail to generate a sustainable personal income. Benefit payments are being withdrawn to encourage people to work more effectively or, alternatively, to reduce their standard of living to match their work contribution. |
| Two thousand years ago, to quell discontent, the Roman emperor, August, decreed that the recipients of the free monthly dole of grain would increase to one fifth of the population. The Tories are currently implementing cuts in free grain, free education and free healthcare. Brexit will mean a cut in benefits. The conclusion will not be pretty.Martin LondonHenllan, Denbighshire | Two thousand years ago, to quell discontent, the Roman emperor, August, decreed that the recipients of the free monthly dole of grain would increase to one fifth of the population. The Tories are currently implementing cuts in free grain, free education and free healthcare. Brexit will mean a cut in benefits. The conclusion will not be pretty.Martin LondonHenllan, Denbighshire |
| • In one sense the proposed expansion of grammar school places represents a failure of nerve. If Damian Hinds really believes in the case he’s presenting (Report, 11 May), he and his government would be seeking to reverse the grammar school ban in the Commons but they know that would be defeated. | • In one sense the proposed expansion of grammar school places represents a failure of nerve. If Damian Hinds really believes in the case he’s presenting (Report, 11 May), he and his government would be seeking to reverse the grammar school ban in the Commons but they know that would be defeated. |
| In a second sense it’s a massive, if misguided, assertion of nerve: how has he the nerve to find extra millions for selective education at a time of a national schools funding crisis.Professor Colin RichardsSpark Bridge, Cumbria | In a second sense it’s a massive, if misguided, assertion of nerve: how has he the nerve to find extra millions for selective education at a time of a national schools funding crisis.Professor Colin RichardsSpark Bridge, Cumbria |
| • So the government is giving money to expand grammar schools for the benefit of “disadvantaged pupils”. These pupils are 11 years old. This is the government that has spent years pulling the rug out from under these same children – from the closure of Sure Start to the welfare changes – with the consequent rise in the numbers of children living in poverty. No child in wealthy Britain should be “disadvantaged” at 11 years old and addressing that from birth is surely the job of government.Alison PierceBuxted, East Sussex | • So the government is giving money to expand grammar schools for the benefit of “disadvantaged pupils”. These pupils are 11 years old. This is the government that has spent years pulling the rug out from under these same children – from the closure of Sure Start to the welfare changes – with the consequent rise in the numbers of children living in poverty. No child in wealthy Britain should be “disadvantaged” at 11 years old and addressing that from birth is surely the job of government.Alison PierceBuxted, East Sussex |
| • Your headline “Make working-class education a priority” (10 May) should read “make higher education a priority for the working class”. If we had a better thought-out education system where the process of learning enthused all children, there would be no need for this patronising headline. I would like to see a process of learning, and a choice of content, being developed for the 50% that cannot obtain a place, nor wish to take up a place, in a university. What we need is a system of learning where an individual, at any point in their lives, can gain qualifications, or just improve their education, with the necessary support. This safety net was provided by a nationwide adult education service that no longer exists in any kind of meaningful way, and its erstwhile partner the Open University now also appears to be under threat. The present government appears to be aligning itself with the first Education Act in the late 19th century, which required workers to be literate in order to feed the economic machine. Not much different from promoting the degrees that businesses say they need.David SelbyWinchester, Hampshire | • Your headline “Make working-class education a priority” (10 May) should read “make higher education a priority for the working class”. If we had a better thought-out education system where the process of learning enthused all children, there would be no need for this patronising headline. I would like to see a process of learning, and a choice of content, being developed for the 50% that cannot obtain a place, nor wish to take up a place, in a university. What we need is a system of learning where an individual, at any point in their lives, can gain qualifications, or just improve their education, with the necessary support. This safety net was provided by a nationwide adult education service that no longer exists in any kind of meaningful way, and its erstwhile partner the Open University now also appears to be under threat. The present government appears to be aligning itself with the first Education Act in the late 19th century, which required workers to be literate in order to feed the economic machine. Not much different from promoting the degrees that businesses say they need.David SelbyWinchester, Hampshire |
| • Keen to highlight that his new policy “provides access to world-class education”, Damian Hinds glosses over the UK’s geography, the many counties with no such provision, the vast majority of schools conveniently concentrated in the most affluent areas of the UK. Only those who indulge in Tory spin would agree this benefits families of all backgrounds and locations. What is apparent is that this government is not living up to Hinds’ promise of “helping all schools grow”. Children in mainstream primary and secondary education have seen £2.8bn of cuts since 2015, with further cuts planned by 2020 – cuts that will have a profound effect on an entire generation. There is nothing world class about that.Bridget JamesSwaffham, Norfolk | • Keen to highlight that his new policy “provides access to world-class education”, Damian Hinds glosses over the UK’s geography, the many counties with no such provision, the vast majority of schools conveniently concentrated in the most affluent areas of the UK. Only those who indulge in Tory spin would agree this benefits families of all backgrounds and locations. What is apparent is that this government is not living up to Hinds’ promise of “helping all schools grow”. Children in mainstream primary and secondary education have seen £2.8bn of cuts since 2015, with further cuts planned by 2020 – cuts that will have a profound effect on an entire generation. There is nothing world class about that.Bridget JamesSwaffham, Norfolk |
| • Your brief five lines on the government’s retention of the 50% cap on religious selection at free schools does scant justice to this humiliating retreat from an ill-considered commitment. Both main parties persist in favouring faith schools despite their wide unpopularity – a poll a year ago showed that 80% of the public wanted to keep the cap (including 67% of Catholics) and an earlier poll for the Westminster Faith Debates found 45% against and only 32% in favour of any government funding of faith schools. | • Your brief five lines on the government’s retention of the 50% cap on religious selection at free schools does scant justice to this humiliating retreat from an ill-considered commitment. Both main parties persist in favouring faith schools despite their wide unpopularity – a poll a year ago showed that 80% of the public wanted to keep the cap (including 67% of Catholics) and an earlier poll for the Westminster Faith Debates found 45% against and only 32% in favour of any government funding of faith schools. |
| No doubt the parties reckon the Church of England and the Roman Catholic church are too powerful to be tangled with. This unlikely victory for cohesion and inclusiveness, following a sustained and widely supported campaign led by Humanists UK, may bring politicians at last to realise that the churches’ historic control of one-third of our schools is not unchallengeable after all. The case against faith schools has been made time and again – they are religiously, socially and ethnically divisive, owe their marginally better academic results solely to their selective admissions practices, and too often deny pupils a balanced education in sensitive areas. Yet almost every penny they spend is provided by the public.All the arguments are there for the courageous party that dares to call the churches’ bluff – as the bluff has now been called of a notably deceptive and self-interested campaign by the Catholic Education Service.David PollockLondon | No doubt the parties reckon the Church of England and the Roman Catholic church are too powerful to be tangled with. This unlikely victory for cohesion and inclusiveness, following a sustained and widely supported campaign led by Humanists UK, may bring politicians at last to realise that the churches’ historic control of one-third of our schools is not unchallengeable after all. The case against faith schools has been made time and again – they are religiously, socially and ethnically divisive, owe their marginally better academic results solely to their selective admissions practices, and too often deny pupils a balanced education in sensitive areas. Yet almost every penny they spend is provided by the public.All the arguments are there for the courageous party that dares to call the churches’ bluff – as the bluff has now been called of a notably deceptive and self-interested campaign by the Catholic Education Service.David PollockLondon |
| • It would have been interesting in the interview with Dominic Grieve (Journal, 12 May) if he had been asked how his original proposal to remove the 50% cap for faith schools (now to remain in place) and the allowing of free schools who can have 100% faith-based admissions square with the government’s aim to encourage community cohesion. Am I missing something?Tony HicksNottingham | • It would have been interesting in the interview with Dominic Grieve (Journal, 12 May) if he had been asked how his original proposal to remove the 50% cap for faith schools (now to remain in place) and the allowing of free schools who can have 100% faith-based admissions square with the government’s aim to encourage community cohesion. Am I missing something?Tony HicksNottingham |
| • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com | • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com |
| • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters | • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters |
| Grammar schools | Grammar schools |
| Schools | Schools |
| Secondary schools | Secondary schools |
| Conservatives | Conservatives |
| Dominic Grieve | Dominic Grieve |
| Damian Hinds | Damian Hinds |
| Primary schools | Primary schools |
| letters | letters |
| Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
| Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
| Share via Email | Share via Email |
| Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
| Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
| Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
| Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
| Reuse this content | Reuse this content |