Just watching Dispatches and it just shows how much of a hypocrite David Cameron is. If it wasn't enough him cycling in front of his chauffeur driven car pretending to be green, it seems he is fleecing tax payers by making us pay the interest payments on his second house. Parliament must be run like a business, expenses need receipts, perks have to have limits. Is any UK politician not fleecing the UK tax payer?

Eilin, London, London

I am fascinated by the debate on Grammar Schools, living in the Irish Republic where our old public schools are more popular than ever, many are supported by the Irish Government to maintain the Minority and Protestant Ethos. These schools are highly successful with no selection policy, except the affordability of moderate fees. However I believe the Ethos is the most important factor in the success of these schools. In an increasingly secular Irish society Roman Catholic secondary school boards of management are worried about the dilution of their ethos. This happened recently when the Irish Government tried to redeploy teachers across the educational sectors. The Ethos belongs to the school and is wider than the particular Faith which sustains the school community. Every student and their Parents irrespective of their own religios background or none can benefit in a positive and inclusive way from the particular Ethos of their chosen school. www.compasspa.ie

Alan Gilbert, Carlow, Ireland

As Chairman of our local branch I have come to the conclusion that Cameron is an electoral liability and needs to be replaced. I hope someone in the party will call a leadership election. The man is as ignorant and naive as Blair . Tory supporters want Conservative policies not Blue Labour. It is for the Labour party (not us) to fine tune their failed policies. Conservatives should be putting forward their own policies.
Cameron seems to think that his core supporters have nowhere else to go. Wrong again. They can stay at home or vote UKIP. In Kent, UKIP deprived the Tories of about 5 seats at the last election.
The grammar school issue won't go away here. Paul Carter ( the Leader of Kent County Council) has thankfully already rejected the current Cameron policy. 180,000 new houses due in the Thames Gateway by 2016 will mean at least 10 new grammar schools. Rather than refusing to build new grammars, he should first abolish public schools which are far more elitist.

Peter, Maidstone, Kent

Why do we need another experimental education system? We know grammer schools work so why change?

Chris Skyrme, Doha, Qatar

The issue of Grammar Schools will been seen to be pivotal when analysis is done on why you lost the next election. Its called disregarding the punters and you do so at your peril.

Gerard, Mortagne, France

One idea that i think would make a marked improvement in students performance is the introduction of a "mind" lesson. In this, people could be taught how to maximise their brain power. For example they could be taught the different methods of memorisation, methods of abstract thinking ,about nutrition that boosts brain activity etc.
Rather than just concentrating on the delivery of information we should improve the way we receive/interpret it.
Also i agree that children should be taught more skill based subjects as opposed to theoretical subjects with no practical relevance outside it s own field.

Tony C, leigh on sea, England

The problem is not funding, or the structure of schools, it is the quality of teaching, and the material that is taught. Excessive emphasis on 'self esteem' at the expense of teraching facts, too many subjects where there is no right/wrong answer (media studies, miscellaneous 'arts' subjects), where anyone's opinion is as good as anyone elses. Kids need to be told what to study until the age of 16, and required to learn the correct answers. We absolutely need more science and mathematics - but given the choice, most kids will go for easy subjects where they cannot be wrong. Grade teachers on the improvement the kids sho, and have independent grading of kids. It will take a decade or more to restore the standards of the past - see recent articles on how easy school maths has become - but it is too important to be left to politicians.

Nick, Rotherham, UK

David Cameron is totally confused and he hasn't arrived at no 10 yet.,carrying on as a Blair clone, it is unlikely he ever will. In order to improve the standards the lower income groups, the country needs both Academies, yet unproven, and Grammar schools for those of potential academic ability. If publicly funded new Grammar schools are too costly, then the Comprehensives should be upgraded with flexible streaming, to achieve Grammar school standards at the top levels.

The middle class may be able to send their children to fee paying Grammar schools, albeit at great personal sacrifice, the rest of the country can learn from them and when the education culture of this country radically changes, starting with every parent caring and giving total support to teachers, then the educational standards at all levels will automatically be raised. As a beneficiary of a publicly funded Grammar school education, I and my peers have been there and we are eternally grateful.

M.Fishman, London UK,

Mr Cameron has not given one single reason to abolish grammar schools in this article. Sound bites about rising tides lifting all boats are totally meaningless. Where are the facts?

If Mr Cameron was asked to write an essay about why we should get rid of grammar schools he'd have got a D- for this poor effort.

David Rothwell, Brighton,

The problem here is not with grammar schools it is with the British notion of intelligence. The British education system lets down the most academically able and the least. Intelligence is now only measured in terms of academic performance.

This system is ludicrous as many will never reach GCSE standards in some subjects and this knowledge hinders their personal development and leads to misbehaviour in the classroom. This distracts those who are more academically able and therefore lets them down as well.

This is why grammar schools are neccessary, isolating the most intelligent is egalitarian. It ensures that those most able are able to excel academically without distractions; and coupled with greater focus on vocational skills in comprehensive schools provides equality of opportunity for those less academically able as well. It would provide vital skills and improve their motivation and desire to learn as their goals do not seem out of reach.

Becky Brearley, London, UK

Most clever children have pushy parents who will find a way of getting them into good state schools with viable academic top streams. The number of poor but bright children who would benefit from grammars is fairly small, whilst the number of children going to non-grammar schools would be large.

The real problem is the breakdown of family life, which has all sorts of insidious effects on schools. The effect is most obvious in sink comprehensives, but it goes all the way through the system. Able children arrive at university with three or four failed relationships behind them. They have no real interest in Chaucer after that. Cynicism and a utiltarian attitude to learning are destroying education. Tinkering with exclusion policies won't make any real difference.

Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK

I look forward to seeing how they fare when Cameron begins carrying out his experiment on his own children. I am sure they will thrive in their "grammar streams" in schools where half the "children" carry knives and have never experienced parental authority of discipline in their lives. Mrs Cameron is no doubt looking forward to her coffee mornings spent with mothers like some of those I see pushing prams around the the town where I live while David should find plenty of be-hooded fathers to hug, assuming the children and their mothers know who they are.

Marion Morrison, Cheltenham,

I write as an Englishman abroad: since Mr Cameron mentions "some states" in the United States, heaven forbid that he take this as a sign of a superior educational system. If the chaff cannot be separated from the wheat at 11+, why bother when it comes to university admission? Why not let every young person have the chance to receive a BA applying American standards? One such with whom I was working recently told me she was studying for her BA at a local "university", formally a state college and that on her vacation she was visiting Europe. I enquired as to where she was flying - "London-Paris" came the reply. I explained that it must be one or the other, but she did not know that London was the British capital or that Paris was in France. And she was about to sit for her degree! Is that really what Mr Cameron wants?

David Cunard, Los Angeles, United States

in response to Gan in London.
I'm a (comprehensive) teacher and streaming in school whilst fluid in theory, in practice isn't, or at least not much.
Streaming is a way of seperating the less able or disruptive and putting them into a sink group from which they are unlikely ever to emerge.

I also disagree that the 11+ is 'once and for all' selection. Kids in comps are not taught less well than in grammars, but more suitable techniques are used. Many kids (myself included way back when) outperform their grammar school peers at 16 and 18 even though they failed the 11+.

All kids are not the same and therefore should not be taught in the same way.

Jeremy, London,

What difference is there between academic selection by setting and by school?

What is wrong with academic selection anyway? It clearly works for those who are selected - hence the success of Grammar schools.

Surelty the problem is that insufficient effort was made to cater for those who were not - and a lack of flexibility in the system to enable late developers to move from one type of school to the other?

David, Shrewsbury, UK

I have to say I am a little puzzled by the skirmishes that have broken out in the Tory party over grammar schools. If I remember rightly - and my apologies if I am wrong - more Grammar schools were closed down under Margaret Thatcher than under the previous Labour administration, and even where grammar schools survive today today - as in Kent- they are no longer part of the old tripartite system. Why should a Tory commitment not to establish any more grammar scools now cause such a fuss when it has, in effect, been the reality in recent years? Is the Tory party going back to its good old ways of internecine warfare? if so, they'd better beware - see where that got them last time.

MDA, London,

I think that where David gets it wrong is in his misunderstanding of the basic ethos of schools. I do not suppose that in his life he has met the sort of characters who think that doing well at school is somewhat risible, and offence against manhood, effete, class orientated; something that should be opposed and knocked down. I do not suppose David saw one of those grammar schools that was converted to Comprehensive on the day of the changeover, how the former pupils had to hide from the new children like the after effects of a siege and now the reckoning. I cannot doubt Mr Cameron's sincerity,. I cannot doubt that there is something horribly wrong with the current system. But, as they say in Ireland, 'If you want to go there I would not be starting from here’: Our education problem is a parent orientated; it is a problem with starting kids, especially boys, to school too early in life and therefore also a Government problem. If the parents were more engaged the children would be too.

Malcolm Turner, Alsager, England

The key thing, looking back at my seven years at a North East comprehensive, is to provide different kids with things that suit them, whether that's a grammar school system or not. Even with streaming it felt like a 'one size fits all' solution. I felt unstimulated, while at the other end kids who weren't suited to academic study were unable to really get what they needed for their adult lives.
The key is twofold - recognising what skills this country needs for our flattened world, and a recognition that the academic side of things is not the only route of value. At present we're failing to address the first, in part by failing to address the second.
Shoving thousands of kids into unsuitable (and often worthless) degree courses not only teaches that Uni is the only valuable option, it fails to address the very real technical skills shortages that the UK will face.
More vocational skills are a must, more Media Studies degrees are not.
Elitism is NOT a dirty word. Equality can be.

Nicholas, Newcastle,

The only people in my opinion who are against grammar schools are those who failed their 11+ and have used that as an excuse for their subsiquent academic failure. Ultimately, if you are bright and willing to work hard you can succeed in any environment. Blaming the grammar school system for your personal flaws is unfair and unnecessary.

I do not understand the difference between having a tier system based on academic selection within every school subject, in every school, and grammar schools.
You cannot deny that putting people of similar ability in the same calsses makes teaching people much more efficient and ultimately easier for the teacher and pupils concerned. Why not have grammar schools that select the best academic pupils? This is effectively the same as having a "top" set in a comprehensive school.

Emily Green, bradford,

Grammar schools are another institution for the few....I rember failing my 11 plus and being deemed a failure and relegated to a secondary modern! For every Grammar School you create more sink schools for the majority. Forget about the talented few, they will find their own way forward - what about the majority?

Peter, Marlborough,

Assuming that the above comment from Miss Cottrell was not submitted in jest, it provides powerful support for the argument for more grammar schools .

If she had attended a half-decent grammar school, at least she would have learned how to write a proper English sentence.

A response riddled with grammatical errors and lazy spelling mistakes cannot be taken as a serious contribution to this debate.

Michael Spriggs, London, UK

I applaud your determination to thoroughly reform education. From the fact that in my limited reading I haven’t seen a mention of DVDs, videoconferencing and the internet, it must need it. I submit that if there were a bifurcation of schooling it would appropriately be done by the level of parental income. If children of parents with an income below a certain level went to one type of school and those above that level another, then resources could be more effectively deployed to assist children with the handicap of a limited domestic environment. That is the big disadvantage. It would maintain the spread of ability in the schools, and if those schools were inherently better equipped than the upper income stream there would be no sense of subordination. This would make much more sense in terms of social equilibration than achievement-based schools. After all, public schools are merely another form of this type of division.

Henry Percy, London, UK

Are specialised academies not discriminating on geographical grounds? Why can we not raise standards by putting the extra money into teacher recruitment and renumeration. Well educated and enthusiatic teachers are the key, sourced from industry and "real life". Streaming within existing schools and creating a competitive environment helps restore pupils self esteem, pride in their schools and is a minimal cost. As long as each pupil is rewarded for their personal achievments and pushed in the direction of their strengths I see no problem with streaming.
Inspiration and guidance are not set in bricks mortar or sound bites. I have not heared a person recall there most important educational memory being a building or a government target reached, more often it is that one teacher that has made the difference through whatever method. This is being lost in modern educational thinking.

Adam, staffordshire, england

I have been a conservative voter since 1983, when I realised only they had the practical, if tough, solutions for our problems. Since then,working in a university, I have witnessed the serious dumbing down of our education system and I firmly believe that the abandonment of selection in schools is responsible. I always hoped that the Tories would reverse this trend by reintroducing more selection in schools and the easiest and most obvious way of doing this is by returning to a grammar system. This decision of Cameron's will result in them losing my vote until they produce detailed proposals about introducing internal setting and streaming in every school, which will be difficult, as it will be unpopular wth the educational establishment. Only then will they get my vote back. However the problem will still remain in some inner city schools (sink comps), where the number of gifted and motivated pupils could be insufficient to make a difference.

Bill Logan, Paisley, Scotland

I am pleased to see Cameron now wants to bring the public schools into the State Sector. The idea of Eton College becoming an Academy is inspired and the Conservatives are to be congratulated for proposing to end fee-paying education.

Buying privilege is an insult to Modern Britain and Cameron must have sufferered because his parents would not let him go to a normal school but one whose fees equalled the average household income in Britain.

A new era of open access schools without the arbitrary social distinction of fee-paying privilege like Eton or Marlborough will make the Conservative Party truly the exemplar of radical social change

Observer, Oxford, England

Zero Tolerance just does not work.

In fairly short order, you'll have organizations coming at you about the 'disproportionate' impact on their young men.

Any number of troubled students excluded will raise the issue of what you do with them and how can they get an education being excluded.

An insane merry-go-round.

Public education seems almost incapable of dealing with the minority of troubled or mentally disturbed students dumped there, even though they deprive the majority of their right to a peaceful, constructive education.

When you come up with an answer, Mr Cameron, the whole world will want to know it.

But I promise it won't be zero tolerance.

John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada

Grammar Schools appear not to add value simply because of spurious statistical adjustments in what is a highly skewed situation. The figures are as trustworthy as those that claimed that 3 year olds at nursery did better than others, emphasis on spelling did not matter also the real book scheme was supposed to promote learning. Forget the statistics in this area they definitely are untrustworthy.

What we do know is that Grammar Schools stand for values that everyone appreciates, they have done this hundreds of years. We are not Wisconsin. Inventing yet new structures simply gives politicians another 5 years of wait and see as an argument. Cameron becomes Blair, very disappointing indeed.

Roland Fox, Manchester, UK

Michael Spriggs, London ...Your 'superior' attitude towards Julie Cottrell's contribution speaks volumes about why this country has so much difficulty in moving forward in so many fields, in so many ways. Interestingly, she has raised many more points worthy of consideration than you have.

Mr Gee, Harrogate, UK

Nice Words, but if given the choice I still think most parents would prefer their children to go to a grammar school. Severely disruptive children can have an influence outside of the 'grammar streamed' classroom, the social influences within the school environment could hamper the progress of our brightest children. How do you reconcile the fact that grammar schools are oversubscribed by parents who want their children to go there and then say that you're giving us a choice when you've decided to back away from building more grammar schools? Haven't we already decided? Give us back choice Mr. Cameron.

Phil, Epsom, Surrey

I believe that the UK does need a "radical" rethink on secondary education, but not just more academies of the type being instituted today.

1. More real choice of types of school, or of learning paths within schools. Children have widely different abilities and interests -- for sport, the arts or academically. Academies should be more focused than they are now (when most only select 10% of their pupils based on their ability in music, say). This will enable them to have the resources and the teaching staff to focus on developing skills in those subjects. Or have schools that have two focal subjects to obtain a better mix and cross-fertilisation of ideas. Then you might be able to have a "grammar stream" that would justify a Latin teacher.
2. 11 is too early to decide where some children's aptitudes lie. Why not be really radical and have "high schools" starting at 13 or 14 plus as in the private sector?

Janet Cohen, London,

May be Dave isn't bovvered about selection in British schools because we've got plenty of well-educated East Europeans coming in.

Dave, Chester,

This attack on Grammar Schools is compounded in our area by Lancashire County Council's proposal to abolish free school transport to Clitheroe Royal Grammar School. Parents wil be forced to pay the cost of transport to the Grammar school,even though it is currently the same as the fare that is charged to reach the council preferred comprehensive.
Is this the next step in depriving our brighter children the right to a decent education?
Just how does this promote parental choice?

Maggy Howells, Clitheoe, Ribble Valley

I have two children , one fortunate enough to attend Grammar School and the other unfortunate enough to attend the local comprehensive which has yet again just received an outstanding Ofsted report. Both children are I feel of similar academic ability but there the comparison ends. My child at the Grammar school receives an excellent education whereas the child at the secondary school receives the sort of education which I feel falls well short of the mark. I shudder to think what schools with a satisfactory Ofsted report are like. My net family income is just over £20,000. Without a Grammar school system there would be little chance of one of my children getting the education which would be available only to the rich who could afford private education. It is true that educational standards should be raised across the board but in my experience despite the spin this is not the case. Keep the Grammar schools and keep alive the hope for the less advantaged in society.

Graham, Manchester,

And does Mr. Cameron think that it is a coincidence that so many of the state school pupils who have managed to break into the traditional public school areas of success (such as politics and business) are from grammar schools?
Grammar schools were among the biggest aids to social mobility in the country but I suppose that is a bad thing?

Abioye A Oyetunji, London, UK

David,
All you have to do to win the next election is set your policies to reverse the failures of the current governement. As you seem to be having some dificulty in doing this and look like snatching defeat from the jaws of success you may want to adopt the following.

Reduce taxes, reduce paperwork for small business
No road pricing (over a million people took the time to sign a petition against it …..the people have spoken!) or ID card lunacy

Take control of imigration and scrap all ridiculous PC policies………look after the silent majority and they’ll look after you, pander to imigrant minorities and you’ll loose out to the far right

Withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan……we have no business getting involved, just walk out and leave the natives to tear themselves apart in petty disputes as they have for thousands of years.......

And don't forget charity should start and stop at home :-)

Andrew W, Chester, Cheesehire

Mr. Cameron would win more support if he stuck to traditional Conservative policies.
New Labour is a thing of the past and new conservatism based on it will be still born.
Palmerston was the last person to change the party at The Tamworth Manifesto in 1834 when he changed the name from The Tory Party to The Conservative Party.
Perhaps Mr. Cameron should change the name again if he wishes to abandon traditional policies and ideals.

Bernard Parke, GUILDFORD,

PS
"Combined with our commitment to stop the closure of special schools,"

As far as I am aware this commitment has yet to have any money attached to it. Without this, the promise is empty.

Chris Gillibrand, Brussels in Exile, "Democratic" Belgium/ Europe

Miss Cottrell actually raises a good point. Selection works in Southern Germany as well as in Switzerland. The secret is that pupils are not rejected at 13, but are steered into more appropriate schools offering vocational training. The system works because well qualified craftsmen receive respect, and a descent apprenticeship is worth more than a degree in media studies ("what is media studies?" they asked in Germany - "a subject created so that Labour might reach its target of getting 50% of pupils into University").

That said, even in Germany the system is under strain, as the Grammers school equivalents provide higher status. I suspect part of the answer would be to fund secondary moderns at a higher level than Grammer schools.

In the UK, streaming within schools, as suggested by Cameron, does work. However, it requires fairly large schools to be meaningful, and research shows that larger schools have worse discipline problems.

Alex, Tunbridge Wells,

I note that Mr Cameron cites the education system in the Netherlands as one that he seeks to emulate. Perhaps he should have noted that entry into the the secondry system there is, erm, selective and the type of school you go to depends on your academic ability.

Jon Singleton, Kilburn,

Julie of Des Moines: with one breath you claim grammar schools segregate society and with the next breath you recommend the Swiss apprach of Real Schule which takes less academic children at the age of 13 and offers them a trade focused education. Is this not also segregation?
When will those trying to structure education accept that different people develop at different ages. Todays 11 or 13 year old wonder can turn into tomorrow's feckless and disinterested youth...and vice-versa. Any system based on a cut-off age is not just unfair; it is a waste of talent.

David, London,

I am not a member of the Tory Party, neither am I right wing, I Iive in a council flat in Brixton where I dream of educational opportunities for my children (like sending them to Eton for instance) - I dream of the return of grammar schools to the inner city where they are most needed - my dream is over, the Tories have pointed the way to the atrocious dumper schools we're surrounded by, that's my children straight in the bin, thanks a lot posh boy. I'm sure it won't bother him a jot in his snobby inner circle of public school jerks, but he's just lost this floating voter's support.
Never mind what the right wing of the Tory Party want, I'm here to tell him that those at the bottom of the heap want this too.
Further, if Cameron doesn't openly declare that he will repeal the fascist smoking ban I , and millions like me, will be totally confused as to just exactly what they stand for - freedom of the individual? Small government? Anything?

Tom Fawcett, Brixton, London

The Dutch had a "Technical High School" too, until recently. It still sort of exists, but it's been combined with the old "Housekeeping School" for girls, and I'm not sure what they call it now.

Anyhoo, we need schools for all abilities. Those who are good with their hands rather with their brains should be able to go to a more practical school, and those who are more academically gifted should be able to go to a grammar school. It doesn't mean the one is "less" than the other, just different.

Streaming isn't enough. I went to a "streamed" school (scholengemeenschap) in Holland. The kids in my VWO classes didn't do nearly as well as those at the separate grammar school, even though they were supposed to be on the same level.

starling, Lancaster,

Talking about parental choice - why not give more parents a choice?
Why are Grammar Schools so oversubscribed?
Are the parents wrong?
Or is it that Grammar Schools are just undesirable to politicians who went to public school?

Adam, london,

Grammar schools are great; if you get into them, which is the major flaw. If not you end up in a comprehensive whose results are....variable. Any system that results in anywhere near the 25% of boys leaving without a single good GCSE, as quoted by DC, is a disaster for us all. This needs addressing with urgency. We need education to take care of the academic children and those less so; the grammar schools do not do that. Full marks to DC and DW, you have sparked my interest in the Conservatives!

John M, Birmingham, UK

It's true that middle class parents are better at getting their children in to grammar schools. They are also better at getting their children in to good primary schools, so perhaps we shouldn't build any new primary schools. They will also be better at getting their children into the better city academies, and the higher streams within the city academies, so perhaps building more city academies isn't the answer either. Grammar schools as they are today cater mostly (but not exclusively) for the middle classes, as the middle classes have done a better job of protecting them. However, before their demise, those in less affluent areas were a very effective way for the less economically privileged to move up the educational and social ladder. This may be something ex-Eton schoolboys don't understand (or care about).

Caroline, Birmingham,

Finally Mr Cameron actually states a clear policy rather than just spin. And look at the result some real debate and the gloss of Cameron's public face is somewhat tainted.

J Alexander, London,

I went to a grammar school in Bournemouth and mixed with people from all walks of life, from the poorest to the richest. It's a school with excellent results and enabled pupils to be confident in the classroom safe in the knowledge that they wouldn't look square or nerdy - a genuine problem for bright kids. I believe grammar schools do encourage aspiration and social mobility - almost all of the pupils in my year went on to university or other higher/further education, regardless of whether their parents were long-term unemployed or wealthy. If you have a good grammar school with a large catchment area it's actually a great social equaliser.

Hannah, London,

It seems most people here are not listening to what is being said. Neither Cameron nor Willets has proposed scrapping the existing Grammar schools, but are instead proposing to abandon any pretence that they could create new ones where they no longer exist.

The problem with Grammar schools, one that still exists in Kent and other places where they still exist, is what happens to the 75%+ of the population who fail to get in. Are these guardians of excellence saying that the kids that don't make the grade at age 11 are unworthy of a quality education? Of better life chances through education and skills? It is true that the comprehensive system is a miserable failure: failing the bright kids who are forced to wallow in mediocrity, while simultaneous failing the less academic kids who were left stranded and clueless as the curriculum marches ever on.

Cameron and Willetts are absolutely right, forget Grammars and concentrate on creating a first class education system for all.

Stu, London,

I gave up believing months ago that this man had what it takes to lead the Conservatives back into power. This latest debacle over grammar schools furthur underlines that Mr. Cameron is little more than a Tony Blair wanabee.
The more gaffs of this nature he makes, the more Gordon Brown must be smirking.

Barry McKay, Ottawa, Canada

Oh Julie,
This is the education system we had in the UK 60 years ago. Bright kids went to Grammar Schools the rest went to Secondary Modern to learn a trade. It is the system we exported to Germany during the occupation after the last war.
Did it work? Sometimes, for some kids, yes. The goal for education planners seems to me to achieve a sufficient variety of accessible provision so that children of all sorts can find their way.

Chris215, Leigh-on-Sea, UK

You can't "ensure" anything with a demotivated and under-resourced workforce. When you get the teaching right it doesn't matter what you call the schools or how you finance or fill them. When you get the teaching wrong it doesn't matter what you call the schools or how you finance or fill them. Therefore, it _never_ matters what you call the schools or how you finance or fill them. Only self-absorbed politicians believe otherwise. It is our children's misfortune that all parties are filled to the gunwhales with such politicians.

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

James Carthew is missing the point. Selection on a 'once and for all' basis at 11 is what parents object to. This is not the same as streaming within schools, which is dynamic and allows pupils to improve and change sets. I did this myself.

The problem with comprehensive education is that it has been hijacked by one-size-fits-all, anti-streaming ideology that forces pupils of all abilities to try and learn together in the interests of anti-elitism.

Freedom to use setting or streaming is the main advantage that grammer and public schools have over comprehensives, and it surely time to free comprehensive pupils of all backgrounds from this ideological ball-and-chain.

Gan, London,

All that David has to do to become the next PM is to stick to simple Tory principles. The Tories have been in panic response to Blair's empty popularism for too long, and these new flaky ideas are now the norm. Wake up to the new opportunity, David!

Geoff, London, UK

This is so typical of Cameron. He was quoted as saying he would close grammar schools yesterday and today he's saying the debate is not about opening new ones. That is two different arguments and he fails to adequately address either. He speaks of setting and "grammar stream", yet he's not in favour of grammar schools.

What solution does he have for the problem arising from "choice? Not everyone who wants to can go to the school of their choice and it is foolish to suggest otherwise. It is not about the amount of money allocated to each pupil, it is how that money is spent. Grammar schools also offer the social mobility he claims to champion, by offering the more academically able a chance to escape their environment.

His party is in the middle of a review of education yet he feels he can speak with authority on the issue prior to its completion. We don't need any more half-baked nonsense from politicians. It's time to crawl back under your rock Cameron.

Hamish, Glasgow,

I live in the USA, and disagree with Mr. Cameron's position. The education system in the US fails to educate children to a standard that allows them to get the more challenging jobs. Many graduate unable to write clear and structured English, innumerate, and with poor general knowledge. But all must have prizes, so standards are set at a level that ensures that they do, through high school, and often through college too. The result is that firms have to look to overseas nationals when recruiting their best talent.

Arguments about social mobility and fairness aside, the UK has a duty to build its brain trust. All of the evidence point to a deterioration in discipline and a lowering of exam standards that have the opposite effect. The existing grammar schools do not appear to be a part of that trend. They also allow a large pool of middle class children to enjoy some of the educational advantages available to those of more aristocratic birth - a group that includes Mr. Cameron.

Nicholas Keen, Rose Valley, Pennsylvania, USA

I don't know what the fixation is with insisting on these 'special' schools! At such an early age, education should be based on equality of opportunity, allowing pupils to select their vocation at a later stage/choose a college and University etc.

I attended a state comprehensive at the bottom of its league table year in, year out (this was the same for my primary school in fact). I applaud my parents for simply choosing local schools so I could walk there each day with my friends. The league tables meant very little to my parents because they knew that the teachers were supportive of pupils who wanted to work hard.

I am now a qualified Solicitor and doing quite nicely, thank you very much.

If you're reading this Mr Cameron, let each and every child in this country have access to the same level and standard of education so that they can leave school and decide what to do with themselves AT THAT STAGE. 'Choice' in compulsory education isn't the be all and end all!

Clare, Southport, UK

These 'sterile fixations' are nothing but tried-and-tested ways of education in this country. We have them because they worked very well until those of a Marxist persuasion decided to interfere. I and many others might be considered to have a daily fixation with wanting rid of this lefty liberal approach and some good old fashioned, solid conservative principles reinstated. Mr. Cameron, you obviously are not the man for the job as you yourself appear to have a sterile fixation with saddling us all with what has proved, time and time again, to be the road to oblivion.

stevgillamos, Romford,

'...as I learnt last week ...'

good to know how well thought through this is, then.

lawrence, maidstone, kent

Tis true, the people who rabbit on so about the desirability of grammar schools are those whose children are likely to get into them.

Filey, Scarborough, England

More muddled thinking - how can academic selection be wrong when it comes to winning a place in a school but "grammar streams" within schools are apparently desirable. David Willetts on Sunday said that the problem with academic selection was that children from middle class families did better at the entrance exams - that suggests a problem with the primary schools not the secondary schools. Teaching to the lowest common denominator just lowers overall standards. What is needed is a reform of primary education and financial assistance for children from poorer backgrounds who are bright enough to attend grammar schools.

James Carthew, London, UK

Having been a pupil at a UK grammar school, I was dismayed at the news that the Tories would no longer be supporting this institution.

However I believe that the future of ALL our kids will be best served by providing a range of different types of school, catering for pupils with vastly different aspirations and abilities. I'd like to see a future which comprised of grammar schools for the academically gifted, technical colleges for those with more 'manual' aspirations (mechanics, contstruction etc), academies specialising in arts or sports, special schools for those with special educational needs, and 'something else' for those who have never gotten on well with traditional secondary education - i.e. the excluded & the badly behaved.

I feel it is incredibly important that kids are taught by enthusiastic teachers in groups of similarly-abled peers. This can be achieved by setting and streaming, and entirely separate institutions for academic kids and disruptive elements.

Alex McGregor, Plymouth, U

My parents couldnt afford to send me to Eton, or any other Public school for that matter!
I spent a miserable three years in an East London Comprehensive, where bullying, intimidation and a general lack of interest in learning were prevalent.
I was lucky that we then moved to an area where a Grammar school system was in place. It was a struggle, but i survived the earlier reigme which taught me nothing!
Acadamies are a 'Scots system' of schooling if im not wrong? Why do the Conservatives wish to continue with them with their New Labour links?
Leave alone Mr Cameron, oh dear another Scots name, us English have 'been had' again!

gavin, london,

To call your 'core' supporters deluded does not appear to be a sensible comment from a former pr "expert" There appears to be about 70% of the party who are deluded and I suspect that this is another example of a politicion supporting a minority view against the majority - New labour is very good at this and the 'blue new labour part leader' David cameron is continuing that view.
I live in the very safe conservative seat of Barnet and perhaps Mr Cameron should come and listen to the various comments/conversations of, to date anyway, loyal conservative supporters. He may then not be quite as confident of keeping the seat - and if he believes we'll vote for him anyway, that there are no other options, then HE is the delusional one.

G Brown, Barnet, Herts

Wisconsin. Wisconsin? Get a grip Cameron. The decent people of England want a decent education for their children. Grammar schools would give them hope, something to aspire to. If you must pursue your insane agenda to appeal to the "great unwashed" do not do it at the expense of our chjildren's education.

Brian Carroll, Hong Kong, China

Let me first say that I agree with the bulk of Mr. Cameron's agenda, as well as the fundamental principles behind it.

However I believe that hanging Grammar schools out to dry in order to achieve this agenda is dangerous and may serve to alienate a number of this countries future leaders. As an undergraduate in politics I regularly mix with students from a broad range of educational backgrounds and it is obvious that Grammar schools have produced a significant number of highly educated and motivated individuals. It may be the case that the majority of these students are comfortably middle class and that Grammar schools have not helped raise the standard of education amongst the lower socio-economic brackets.

This does not strike me as a legitimate reason to attack Grammar schools however. Inner city education is sub-standard, but don't burden Grammar schools with the blame. You may just need their graduates some day!

Rory William Horgan, Wimbledon, London

In reply to Julie Cottrell's observation, about the opportunities for vocational training in the Swiss Realschule, there used to be such an institution in the UK, prior to the comprehensive revolution of the 1960's. It was called the "Technical High School", but it was abolished by Harold Wilson.

Edmund Burke, Kingston upon Thames, England

Cameron talks about "fair funding" ,does that include ETON then? Othe radio this morning he pressed home the 11+argument But selection can be at 14, and at many grammar schools is. He goes on about low GCSE numbers, definately NOT the fault of Grammar Schools. How can Cameron justify selection by WEALTH,rather than by BRAINS.
Why did not the Tories use their 18 years to open more Grammars? Partly because the results from many Comprehensive schools had been hidden ! And he tried to change the subject by going on about the selection of women MPs -- nothing to do with schools.

DAVID VINTER, LOUTH LINCS , UK.

Julie Cottrell has missed Mr Cameron's point, in that Mr Cameron is still very much a supporter of academic selection -- he just wants to see it in all schools rather than just a select few. However, I wonder whether Mr Cameron is misplacing his judgement somewhat in referring to as deluded and self-indulgent those highly experienced and qualified individuals who have lived in and studied education in all its many forms and who are top members of their profession. In my view, Mr Cameron is rather like a school pupil who insists he knows better than the head teacher.

Christopher Hall, Sheffield,

Having lived in both Switzerland and the USA, I agree that more grammer schools are not the abswer.They only segregate society further, a more classless society is needed in the UK. Switzerland offers a very realistic oppertunity for non academid students from the age of 13 onwards called Real Schule, there these children are taught a trade instead of being forced into an academic environment which wont work for them and just cause stress to teachers and pupils who are academic.
This would solve the problem of children leaving school with absolutely nothing, and would also please employers who need workers with everyday skills, whither it be culinery skills or a wood worker at least these children could leave with a sense of acheivement and enter into society with a skill , this would enrich our society.

Julie Cottrell, Des Moines, USA

There is no more evidence that David Cameron's vision of academy schools providing a 'grammar stream in every subject in every school' will become a reality than there was for Harold Wilson's pipe-dream of every comprehensive attaining the same standards as a grammar school.

In Haringey, the Office of the Schools Adjudicator has just rejected an academy school submission in favour of a new comprehensive. Doubtless, rich parents will now be checking out the private school alternatives, or buying houses in the catchment areas of good state schools. Poor parents will be crossing their fingers and hoping the new comprehensive does not turn out the bog-standard variety - or worse.

When I took the 11-plus it was an aptitude test, not a test of academic achievement. It allowed rich and poor pupil alike a level playing field, the chance of a grammar school education - and social mobility. Grammar schools have an enviable track record: academies are a leap in the dark.

Ray B, Stockport, England

Cameron has missed the social dimension of original grammars. They provided the ONLY route for poor children (like me) to escape an environment of no language skills, no reading, petty crime, unemployment - and so on.
Traditional grammars streamed too. One worked harder and smarter to get into the upper streams. Eventually, one began to focus on a "good university".
It might sound harsh but I escaped from a no hope environment simply because I won a place in a grammar.
The conservatives should adapt the grammar system to accommodate the poorer but high potential children.
And, who said we have to choose between academy and grammar?

Leigh Vernier, Riyadh, KSA

Spot on, forget the 50 somethings who went to grammar schools and think we can go back in time. Grammar schools may have been good for them but they didn't serve the country as a whole very well, that's why they were scrapped. One idea that is rarely discussed is instead of dividing pupils at age 11, why not do so at 14 when it has become quite obvious which pupils are academically bright and/or motivated. Give every 14 year old a choice between academic or vocational study.
Don't do it by exam but let the children choose, I'm sure 95% will make the right choice.

Rob White, Croissy sur Seine,

Dear David, aren't academies grammar schools by any other name? Like political parties, all schools operate some form of selection - and deselection - otherwise the management of schools would become impossible. Your plan to give school principals more power to expel unruly pupils is the paradigm case for deselection - but where do the expelled pupils go? Won't their freedom of choice be curtailed? I agreed with your decision to support Tony Blair's Education Act but only as an interim measure. It is now time for your party to devise its own education policy. Don't begin with secondary education but with primary education. The root of the problem is the primary school curriculum. It's too restrictive. If it was broadened in the final three years - say from P4-7 - then pupils could undergo a more meaningful selection process at 11 BY COMPUTER - but without IQ tests of any kind! Primary school kids these days are more computer literate than we were at their age and self-select easily.

Dr David Green, Athens, Greece

You've had your chance to recant, now you're dead meat.
You have not even taken to opportunity to mollify the thousands of your supporters who fundamentally disagree with you.
It's no good talking of your evangelical attitude to education policy, if your disabused core voters leave you powerless. You have made no gesture, no expression of understanding towards the many , many people who had a grammar school education and KNOW that it made a difference to their lives.
In short, your piece is pure arrogance and non-diplomatic - not qualities anyone would wish to see in a national leader.
I look forward to a split in the Conservative party, which cannot now be far away. You think you are displaying courage and determination, when in fact it is simply mulish intransigence.
If Michael Howard or William Hague or David Davies headed up a breakaway faction, they would carry a tidal wave of Tory voters with them.

Graham King, Tourouvre, France

An interesting article that relies upon the, perhaps mistaken, premis that we can combine the academic and the non-academic in one school, without the lowest common demoninator dragging down the rest. Unless there is a real concentration upon discipline, with a zero tolerance of low level disruption, this is doomed to failure.

PW, Surrey, UK

Grammar Schools? huh?
The UK cannot even setup correct training schools, let alone dive back into the 19th century relic world to resurrect a snob and wannabe middle class culture icon .
Twenty years ago under Tory rule, this country was the vanguard of seedy little "Skill-Centres" offering dead-end training courses by over-paid, bigoted teachers,..
With the well touted phony promise of "on the job training" with a local employer when the courses were almost closing. Promises that never materialized, but deliberately built up false hopes and expectations in conned, eager students who were subsequently left high and dry from having the p*ss-taken out of them.
But the colleges were still raking in 500Quid a day for each pupil off the government for their fake "computer courses".

The UK's training colleges are the joke of Europe. The grammar schools an even bigger joke.

AB, uk,

Have you absolutely *no* original ideas ?

Tom Katz, Weybridge, UK

In some parts of the country the eleven plus system is still thriving. Not all that long ago I did a spell of teaching in what is in all but name a secondary modern school. At the start of a nine o'clock class on a cold Wintry morning I noticed that one pupil was looking particularly depressed, his head slumped on his desk. "Why so down in the dumps?" I asked him. "I live on a run-down estate in a run-down town and go to this run-down school", he replied. "And you ask me why I am down in the dumps!"

Ivor Morgan, Lincoln, England

There is much that is interesting in what Cameron says. However in my opinion he has got something very wrong in his hostility to selection by academic ability amongst other prejudices. Also by picking a fight with so many of the activists he has left is daft; realising I wasn't wanted in the shade of the new oak tree - preferring the old Torch- I left the party to watch with sadness the neophiliac surge to the 'left'.

Dr J Findlater, Carnforth,

This is what you get when you select a party leader based on the criterion, "Mirror, mirror on the wall...". What better proof is there of the declining standards of education in this country? I just have visions of a bunch of political policy-forming bozos - I'm sorry to be colloquial about it - sitting around a white board Monday to Friday wasting everybody's time with clueless "brainstorming", then getting blootered on Friday and Saturday evening before coming in on Monday morning and boring each other with tales of the "great weekend" they had. Just stop trying to centrally plan the economy - including education - and get proper professions! Then maybe you will understand the resentment the rest of us feel at having to pay such high taxes for this balderdash. Leave us to spend our own money and we will find the good teachers.

Kevin, London,

So, we are to have more academies. So any fundamentalist businessman with wacky religious ideas just has to come up with £2 million (£1.2m when tax allowances are considered), the taxpayer pays £20m, and the businessman has control of the school for life. So let's have more academies so that more of our children can be indoctrinated with religious nonsense, as in Emmanuel College in Gateshead.

Stewart Ware, L,