As the youngest of seven, all of whom attended Grammar School in the 40's - 50's and, children of a poor family, I agree whole heartedly.
Between us we have six degrees, (Durham, Liverpool) two with honours and all reached our limits in the work place (we all more or less hit the "old school tie" ceiling)..which still exists in the UK due to the demise of the Grammar Schools.

Francis, Portland, USA

Chris Woodhead states that access to "top universities" was higher for pupils fom "disadvantaged backgrounds" in the grammar school era of the 1940s and 50s.
However Office of National Staistics data published in 2004 provide a more general and rather different overall picture. In the ONS data students are subdivided according to whether they come form a non-manual or manual [not necessarily disadvantaged] backgrounds. The conclusions: in 1960 27% of pupils from a non -manual background and 4% of pupils from a manual background gained access to Higher Education[ not just "top universities".] By 2001 the relevant figures are 50% and 19% respectively, a significant improved for both social groups although the background gap in access to HE was higher in 2001 than in 1960.
Be that as it may I do not think that these data support Mr Woodhead's overall argument surrounding the relationships between availability ofgrammar schools and trends in social mobility

russell haggar, Norwich, England

I've had it with the Tories now. I voted for them in the local elections, but not again. In the last week they have shown their true colours: contempt for grammar schools and their MPs voting for the disgraceful 'pigs with their heads in the trough' bill.

I overheard a House of Commons Tory say on the train from London to Ipswich 'Politicians only care about ideas, they just care about power, tt's the activists who care about ideas.'

I am perhaps unique in that I attended a Secondary Modern, then a Private and after that a Grammar school. Lessons at the Secondary Modern were totally boring academically and there was a general air of its not fair our kids can't take O' Levels, but the practical lessons were good and less academically able kids really enjoyed and felt empowered by them. The Private school was lovely and wonderfully safe with NO bullying but not very academic. But the Grammar school was wonderful, with the sense of order of the Private school but brilliant lessons.

Jane, London, England

An excellent article by Chris Woodhead. I could not agree more. Scrapping grammar schools will contribute to a decrease in social mobility. What happens to the bright students in comprehensives in disadvantaged areas with a high percentage of students on free school meals? Of course there are a few success stories, but generally it is incredibly difficult for academically gifted students to thrive in these difficult environments.

James Victor, Melbourne, Australia

The issue, as with all of the great British public services, is simply choice and compulsion. As with the BBC and the NHS (and Council waste collection...and a whole lot more....), the guiding principle is that you shall be forced to subscribe or pay to services which are run by the State, and only by the State

You will then be offered a service which is free at the point of use, which may or may not be fit for purpose, mostly isn't. Or, you can pay again. IN the case of education, you will mostly be offered schools which actively try to stop your children learning anything.

There are two things that are wrong. One is, there is no reason to take peoples money and force them to spend it on service industries whose products they do not need or cannot want.
The second is creating a state monopoly to receive these compulsory funds.
Stop all this, give people education vouchers to spend wherever they want, and you will soon see education, literacy and numeracy improve in Britain.

George Johnson, London, England

We have to face facts. Britain is a busted flush. There is only one direction and that is downwards for education, law and order, social cohesion, the armed services, the countrside, the cities and any other of the worthwhile characteristics that go to make a nation. It was just possible that an incoming Conservative government could do a repeat of Mrs Thatcher's rescue of our economy after the depredations of Wilson and the unions but the present Conservative leaders will simply speed the collapse of our society on its way. The grammar school debacle is just a sign of Cameron's unsuitability as a leader (as was his sacking of Mercer), A country is only as good as its elites and since the British have decided that they can dispense with anyone of high academic ability we can look forward in due course to taking our rightful place alongside one of the central African republics.

Anthony Back, Wellington, Telford, England

Ted Coffin expresses my views precisely.
The worst thing that happened to our education system was the introduction of Comprehensive schools. They created hooligans in the classrooms, destruction to the school grounds, impolite behaviour and students leaving school without any qualifications whatsoever.
I say introduce more Grammar schools thorughout the country so that more children, gifted or not, can benefit with a better education and brighter future.

Chips Westwood, Sarlat La Caneda, France

Grammar schools did and do promote a worthwhile degree of social mobility. Anyone (even David Willetts) who says otherwise simply has not looked at the quite small amount of relevant research.

The trouble with grammar schools has always been that they waste ability. Many of the moderately able who find themselves in grammar schools C streams lose self-confidence and do worse than theri equivalents in good comprehensive schools. Further, many of those rejected at admission to grammar school let their potential go to waste.

David Heigham, Madrid, Spain

An excellent article , Mr Woodhead!

I fail to see how we can have Comprehensive schools, when we do not have comprehensive catchment areas!

Unlike Physics, in Human Society , Like tends to Like!

In affluent middle-class areas, so-called Comprehensives achieve good results, but I taught for years in an EPA school , where the few academically gifted children, coming to us at eleven, were inevitably dragged down by the pressure of their peer- group and under-achieved at 'O' level!

Unless one has experienced it, one cannot begin to understand the misery and constant playground harassment these few children suffered!

They came to us, as bright as buttons, but after five years of secondary education, their shining was dimmed .

If they were lucky enough or resilient enough to carry on to 'A' level, then their true potential became apparent , since all their class-mates had the same aspirations. They blossomed and succeeded as God intended them!

We're not all the same!

windmill, brierley hill, ENGLAND

Although there are only 164 Grammar Schools in the UK the number who aspire to and sit their examinations has been growing year on year since Blair has been in power. What a surprise!
In most other circumstances if there is an expanding market for something it makes sense to encourage and supply it. The parents of these children have votes and are not going to be too pleased with a party which has always protected Grammar Schools in the past attempting to turn itself into New Conservative and supporting the Academies.
I do not believe that the Conservative party can afford to lose these votes if they are to have any hope of defeating Labour in the next election. This decision is sure to open up doubts in voters minds about their true intention in other important areas too. I am certain that this decision will be seen as a critical turning point.

Gerard, Floirac, France

I have always been puzzled by the British politicians' dislike for the grammar school and academic selection by fostering the erroneous belief that it favours the privileged to the detriment of those from poorer backgrounds.

Despite my parents hardly belonging to the academic or economic elite (a builder and secretary respectively) I was able to gain admission to an excellent Belfast Grammar through academic selection, which charged no fees; with the examination results of its pupils being equivalent to any comparable (astronomical) fee-paying school.

Having graduated with First Class Honours in Law and now training to become a solicitor, I freely acknowledge the inconceivability of my being able to accomplish this without the grammar school.

The Comprehensive System breeds mediocrity in all, stifling the intelligent pupils whose parents can not afford to rescue their child while boosting the elite public school sector.

To argue otherwise is an example of idiocy.

Daniel, Belfast,

If grammar schools “entrenche advantage' and 'do not spread it', how about private (independent) schools? Surely 'financial selection' is even worse.

Phil, Outer Asia,

"The truth is that grammar schools have contributed more to social mobility than any other institution this country has known.
Possibly, I doubt it. But I fail to see the point of a school which selects the most able children to educate properly and then consigns the remainder to less good schools. Was no one ever bothered by the incredible social division caused by the 11-plus?
The hidden scandal of education in this country is the appalling level of primary education. If we can't get the basics right why tinker with the top few percent?
If we are to do something useful about the declining social mobility in this country I suggest we look to European countries our models and stop this ridiculous class-ridden nostalgia-fest about grammar schools.

Sarah N., London, UK

I totally support grammar schools and the fact that they encourage upward mobility. I came from a basically working class family as did most of my fellow pupils in the three classes of my year. I left school in 1960 to work and to continue further studies at night school. I have wonderful memories of my grammar school and its´teachers who were not only of a high standard, academically, but were also upright human beings who taught us values. Many of the students went on to higher studies and obtained university degrees, some from Oxford and Cambridge. We recently celebrated our fiftieth anniversary since entering the school with the presence of one of our teachers, who is in her nineties, fondly remembered by all age groups.
My granddaughter now attends a private school to obtain the kind of education that my son and I had. Bring back the grammar schools before it is too late and the present educational system deteriorates beyond any chance of recovery.

heather randall, Madrid,

Politics should be taken right out of Education except as a possible subject. Over the years there has been so much tinkering to satisfy the particular bias of the party in office that the actual needs of the individual child have been completely overlooked. A seperate body of trained educationalists should be established to run the whole scholastic business with a mandate to give the best possible general education to all children but with a democratic selective process to identify and promote talent wherever it exists. Government should be responsible only for funding and legal requirements but not the specialist techniques which need to be employed.

David, Cheltenham, United Kingdom

My grandson has been granted an assisted place at one of the best public schools here in Bristol. We live on a council estate and have spent many a sleepless night worrying about his future as the state secondary schools in our catchment area are by reputation, not the sort of places to send a bright, sensitive, decent boy. He may have ended up in one of Tony Blair's academies not far away but in my opinion, million pound improvements to a school building does not a better school make. His mum is determined to find the money to give him this wonderful opportunity which will be a first in our family. I think that David Cameron is making a huge mistake!

O. wiles, bristol, bristol

I am one of three siblings: an older sister, who was not initially very academic; a younger brother who was both reasonably academic and technically gifted; and myself, the boring academic.

We all grew up in an era, and in the British colonial system, where all pupils received the same academic education.

My older sister went on to qualify as a teacher; my younger brother became a highly gifted IT consultant; I studied law.

If we were being educated in this country today, we would in turn have benefited from: a disciplined comprehensive school (with setting and/or streaming); an Academy (dedicated to IT); and a grammar school (dedicated to academic nerds like myself).

There is very clearly room in the system for all three types of school.

Maureen, London, England

No, conservatism does not sacrifice grammar schools. The pinkies currently running the once proud party sacrifices grammar schools.

Cameron is speeding up his downfall.

jorgen, London,

As a Conservative, I am desperately disappointed by Cameron and Willetts on this issue. It seems to suggest that courageous leadership where something is right, is a thing of the past in UK politics. I will still vote Conservative at the next general election, simply because we have to get the current bunch of wreckers out of office. But I won't be voting Conservative with joy in my heart. This is a terrible error of judgement by Cameron.

Richard Marriott, Kidderminster, England

CW's argument to build more grammar schools is fallacious as the standards would drop to allow more 11+ passes yet would not increase the percentage of working class kids attending such schools. Haven't they tried all this with universities, letting more people in to boost the %age of working classes and it hasn't worked.

Where my sister-in-law lives in Bucks where they still have 11 plus and grammars, and all the middle class kids at primary school start having private tuition a good 2 years before the exam so that very few if any working class kids get into grammar schools.

So it's a complete myth that grammar schools are an escape route for working-class kids (which may have been the case in the 1960's and 70's when nobody did any pre 11+ cramming and all kids went to their local primary school irrespective of the quality). Rather they benefit children of middle-class households who don't have to fork out for private education or send them to a comprehensive school.

Nigel Ford, Eastbourne, UK

With personal experience as a former grammar school pupil and former teacher, I think I am justified in confirming that:
a) grammars tend to help social mobility and
b) maximise pupils' academic growth
not least because
c) comprehensives tend to slow talented pupils down to the speed of the average and offer limited academic scope.
No new labels for the same types of school will change these facts.

Nev, Rudkøbing, Denmark

The social mobility in the late 40's and in the fifties probably had more to do with the introduction of free secondary education, agreed particularly free entrance to Grammars, than with the grammar schools per se.
The argument on grammars is that social mobility is entirely dependent on academic ability, that the oportunity should be limited to those who at 11 show that ability and that we should concentrate our education policy on those rather than raise the educational ability of the many who wouldn't get into a grammar.
Building a diversity of schools and enforcing greater rigour in teaching and examinations, providing for aspiration is what the Conservatives and Blair desire - the dead hand of LEAs & the educational establishment supported by the dinosaurs of the Labour and Lib Dems has stymied this.

Ted Coffin, East Knoyle,