This focus on the brightest pupils is misguided

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/mar/17/focus-on-bright-pupils-misguided

Version 0 of 1.

While I agree with Sally Weale that the underperformance of bright poorer children at A-level is a worry (Report, 17 March), I remain bemused by our continued focus only on the brightest. This is similar to the sham argument for grammar schools – that they provide an “escape” for the brightest working-class children. Is it our impression that the big issues in society lie with our brightest children? Do we feel the least able and poorest are doing just fine? Or do we feel that they are either not worth, or past, saving?

Through a range of policies, from the better resourcing of grammar schools to the higher funding of A-level pupils to the obsession with league tables, we constantly concentrate our support on those who already have most going for them. Why only offer enrichment to the brightest? Shouldn’t we be trying to help our most disadvantaged, including intellectually, to make more of their lives? They are the most likely to live dependent and unfulfilled lives, at great cost both to their own well being and ours.Jill WallisAston Clinton, Buckinghamshire

• I would like to endorse Laura McInerney’s article (Labour’s focus on the bright all wrong, 17 March) that we have paid scant attention to the needs of those who do not, and will not, achieve five A-Cs at GCSE. In over 10 years as a youth offender volunteer I have only come across two young offenders with an A-level and only a few more with the A-C grades. Previously, having worked with schools to implement the national curriculum, I soon felt it was too academic to engage the less able, and the number of truants I meet through youth offending seems to bear this out.

Both Labour and Conservative parties have talked about “choice”, which in reality has a very narrow compass and enables middle-class parents to get their children into the “better” schools. There is very little choice for the less able and the children of poorer parents. There should be more choice for children at 14, to either stay on at school for the A-C grades or transfer to a further education college to sample a range of courses, leading to vocational qualifications.

As for the prisons, there was no testing of prisoners for literacy during their induction programmes before the 1980s and if they did opt for literacy courses they lost the opportunity to earn money. I hope that has now changed.David SelbyWinchester, Hampshire