James,

As you know, I agree with you wholeheartedly on this. There is little evidence that a state imposed grammar/secondary modern system is any better overall than a state imposed comprehensive system. Why should anyone have a centrally organised system imposed on them?

Those that focus on the opportunities for the most academic pupils that grammar schools give/gave miss this point entirely.

All schools should be independent (I prefer this term to private) and should attract pupils as best they can by responding to market demand. However the funding is organised it should not come directly from the government.

Posted by: HJHJ at June 16, 2006 11:34 AM

Second that HJHJ. It's wrong to assume that any one person, or party, can design a system that will respond to all the different needs of society around the country. Set the schools free and see what works.

Posted by: Bishop Hill at June 16, 2006 04:28 PM

I think HJHJ has to accept that the Government has a role in re-distributing tax revenue to ensure all children are equally funded. (And some unequally if they have genuine "special needs".)

Ideally, this would be through a grant or voucher given by central government worth 60-80% of a notional national figure, with local authorities making a similar grant funded from local taxes. This then allows for local variation in cost of living, property costs etc.

The state can then adopt a disinterested position in terms of school ownership and management, all schools would be independent and reliant on resources from parents, who would choose schools suitable for their children. Whether they were academically selective or not would be up to parents.

If, as many on the left claim, parents don't want academic selection, then there will be few academically selective schools, if they are wrong - and I suspect they are - we will see many more selective schools, but selctive probably on the basis of individual aptitude for different things.

This way we get many more schools, which will be smaller and more varied. Because parents will have a sense of "ownership" because the funding is going through them and as such will be more likely to pressure the establishment they are giving what they now see as "their money" to, better performing schools.

Posted by: John Moss at June 17, 2006 08:13 AM

Bringing back the grammar schools is not the answer because bringing them back is near impossible.

Sure we could recreate the structures, and put up the sign "Grammar School" over the entrance, but how do we recreate the ethos and the discipline, restore the external infrastructure such as taxing examinations and non-politicised teacher training. Maybe some of these could be re-established, maybe all of them given time and the repeal of a lot of liberal legislation, but it would be extremely difficult.

Posted by: John East at June 18, 2006 11:29 PM

There are private schools in Indian slums where parents pay full fees. Siblings get reductions. These schools also offer scholarships to children whose parents cannot pay fees. British workers have immensely higher incomes. But they can't find the fees for their children's education -- ? What about tax _deductions_ for educational expenses? This used to happen in Australia. Why keep an entire bureaucracy going reshuffling funds?

Posted by: Sudha Shenoy at June 19, 2006 02:51 AM

John Moss,

I deliberately avoided the issue of government involvement in distributing tax revenue to parents for education as it is a complex issue. The point I was making is that the government shouldn't run or directly fund schools, not should it prescribe a 'system'.

Although I appreciate the case you make, government distribution of funding also has drawbacks. Provision of funding tends to make the government seek control, it doesn't allow for the market to decide what proportion of wealth should be spent on education, it discourages price competition, it discourages parental responsibility, etc..

Posted by: HJHJ at June 21, 2006 10:33 PM