Education, education....

Conservatives getting into something of a tizz over Grammar Schools, which have always been seen as one of the major philosophical divisions between Conservatives and Labour. Funny really, because Labour (old Labour, that is) were never against Grammar Schools per se - what they were against was the 11+, that is the existence of a one-off selection process which determined a child's education for the rest of its school life. Comprehensive schools were supposed to change all that. The archetypal comprehensive school was meant to be a grammar school and a secondary modern school all under one roof, with the ability to move children between them at any time, as and when appropriate. So what went wrong? My wife was among the first generation to go to a comprehensive school, and her theory always was that the problem was not with the schools, or with the pupils, but with the teaching. As she saw it, what happened was that the good teachers ended up teaching the worst pupils, and the not-so-good teachers ended up teaching - or trying to teach - the brightest pupils. Result? The good teachers lost motivation, and the brightest pupils were not stretched, and lost interest. So everybody lost out. Lessons to be learned?