You are not currently logged in.
Thursday, February 09 2012

Campaigning group signals a comprehensive future for Kent schools

Comments  | 
Read all comments on this story.

Classroom sceneby Paul Francis

Campaigners have renewed calls for Kent’s selective education system to be abolished, saying it could be phased out within 10 years at virtually no cost.

Comprehensive Future, an independent group that lobbies for fair admissions to schools, argues that grammar schools could be phased out without causing major disruption over a period of years.

It says changes could begin within three years if the next Government determined a date to bring an end to the selective system.

At the moment, the only way in which grammars could be scrapped is if enough parents sign a petition demanding a ballot on their future. That has happened only once and in Kent, an attempt to trigger a vote was abandoned 10 years ago after campaigners failed to secure enough signatures.

Under Comprehensive Future’s proposals, the Government would abolish the ballot legislation and instead set a date to end the selective system.

At that point, grammar schools would admit their first intake of all-ability pupils and eventually become fully comprehensive over seven years.

The group has set out its ideas in a report "Ending Rejection At Eleven" which says that in Kent such a re-organisation could happen quickly, with no disturbance to pupils and at no cost.

Fiona Millar, Comprehensive Future chairman, said that as all the main political parties were now agreed there should no longer be selective schooling, a debate was needed about how to end the 11-plus.

"Pupils in grammar schools would not affected. They would continue to be taught by the same teachers in the same schools and same buildings. We do not want to destroy any school - we simply want to change the intake. Kent still has a system in which the vast majority of pupils are rejected, not selected."

Ms Millar said grammar school places were increasingly taken by children whose parents had paid private tutors to coach them through the 11-plus.

"Grammar schools are no longer the route to social mobility that was the case 20 or 30 years ago. There is evidence that parents are spending £3,000 to £4,000, which is way beyond the reach of poorer families."

Wednesday, September 02 2009

image of print a storyPrint Article

Buy a KM PictureBuy a KM Picture

Share |

The KM Group does not moderate comments.
Please click here for our house rules.

Comments (21)

Comments closed

  • Martin Frey wrote:

    11 plus

    "I started this debate with a clear reference to the balance between grammar and other schools, and why maintaining that balance is fundamental to both parts of the system. I have never tried to hide that, and explain it whenever I can - although Martin did not seem to understand its importance." Actually I do understand the importance but you also started the debate by blaming the government for limiting the number of grammar school places - and your colleague Mark Dance is constantly banging on about the need for more grammar schools. There is a need for consistency - if you find that one idea that seems to be good is contradicted by another idea that also seems good then you need to modify either or both or drop one or the other. I am pleased that you say much effort is being expended on rectifying the real problem of our under-skilled workforce. I suggest that part of the problem lies with persisting with a system that attributes all prestige to academic, grammar school, education and thus devalues everything else. A few years ago, perhaps even still today, the local girls grammar school was teaching Latin to every girl! What an incredible waste of my taxes. I apologise again for my sporadic replies - life can distract from argument.

    01 Oct 2009 11:39 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Chris Wells wrote:

    11 plus

    Anemone,

    I believe I started this debate with a clear reference to the balance between grammar and other schools, and why maintaining that balance is fundamental to both parts of the system. I have never tried to hide that, and explain it whenever I can - although Martin did not seem to understand its importance.

    The outcomes of Kent education as a whole do not require government intervention; nor actually do the national challenge schools require government intervention now. Once more, the government is jumping the gun, and criticising for not making a target set for 2011.

    If you read Paul Carter's recent comments with care, you will realise that for Kent education, there are approx half a dozen schoiols which cause concern and may not reach the target - and Kent recognises this and is willing to use extra government help offered. As Kent has always done, with grammar schools, high schools, or academies.

    I am not going to debate the name of collections of schools, because I do not attepmt in any way to hide these issues.

    You will also notice that the other county in the government's sights is Suffolk - an entirely comprehensive county. The report on Gloucestershire, is of course, being written by Graham Badman, for Ed Balls, whose advice and wisdom has been used by the national challenge board since its inception.

    We should all be interested in what happens in Northern Irekand, which had a selective system until recently, and has now changed. School attainment there was always pretty good, and we shall all watch with interest what happens now. Before I get several angry letters, I do accept there are special reasons why this may be a good social engineering move in Northern Ireland; the jury is out on whether it is a good move for educational attainment.

    Martin is very precise, detailed, and prescroiptive on numbers of high achievers in classrooms. Not sure the equation is that simple or easy - failure maystem from a wider range of causes than 7 or fewer able pupils per class.

    In answer to Martins other points. Much effort is being expended to ensure Kent does not have an under skilled workforce - but the answer will never be as simple as school system alone. There are serious pockets of real deprivation in the county - tho I realise that invites the Hackney comparison once again - and it remains true that whatever the school system, the best indicator of GCSE success is the postcode of the family home.

    I repeat where I started - in West Kent particularly, massive coaching stems from the restriction on places. Parents will always try and do what they see as the best for their child - although we will all know of some children who have scraped into grammar schools who have led a miserable existence - and some who narrowly miss yet become great scholars at A level in due course.

    28 Sep 2009 4:57 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Anemone wrote:

    Choice?

    Chris Wells asserts that parents care little for the structure of the system in Kent. KCC has done nothing to educate parents truthfully about educational structures and instead has lauded the selective system. Perhaps KCC should expose the truth - that for every grammar school there must be 3 secondary moderns. Secondary modern schools are NOT comprehensives as many people seem to think and KCC obscures their nature by calling them High Schools. Deprived of a balanced intake these schools face enormous challenge. I do believe that many parents are rather shocked when they bounce up against the reality of selection. (See AL above) Children are 10 years old when they take the misnamed 11+. This is ridiculous. Children are constantly developing abilities and changing - that is the purpose of being at school. As Mr Frey has said within a comprehensive school individual strengths and developments are catered for and movement within sets and subjects is simple. Mr Wells writes about millions being spent on promoting change - what a wild and ridiculous assertion. If only that were true - maybe KCC would have been forced to ditch the 11+ and Kent schools would be a good deal better. In reality, millions have been wasted year in and year out in Kent paying for the 11+ test, the marking, the preparation and invigilation wasting teacher and Head teacher time, the complex admissions and appeals system. All this and for what? To divide friends and families, to divide boys and girls (many grammars are single sex) to create social division, to label at ten years old. And the outcome? Clearly nothing for KCC to sing about and in fact outcomes so poor it requires government intervention.

    25 Sep 2009 8:59 AM

    Report Abuse

  • Martin Frey wrote:

    11 plus

    Comprehensive social engineering is better than selective - yes. Not becasue it hides the spread of achievement but because it spreads the influence of upward peer pressure better. There is research from York on this. It indicates that below about 8 able children in a year group the able get dragged down along with the middle ability groups by the disaffected. Above 22 in a year group, the able tend to win and bring the attainment of the middle group up with them. Between 8 and 22 it can go either way. The 11+ is designed to ensure that all the high ability children are at grammar schools. There will be a proportion of high schools that are below the threshold of 8 and Mr Balls is aiming his sights at Local authorities like Kent that have a high proportion of such schools. The High schools in Kent that are, for whatever reason, judged OK by parents are subject to the same pressures of fraudulent application. Are you suggesting that by not using "terrorist surveillance powers" Kent is turning a blind eye on such fraud? Massive coaching seems as great if not a greater weakness than any you suggest for comprehensives. But away from theory. I still don't have your answer to why Kent is such an under-qualified, low waged, unskilled county. Employers clearly don't rate us very high. Perfectly placed for high speed access to Europe we get very little inward investment.

    24 Sep 2009 4:51 PM

    Report Abuse

  • chris Wells wrote:

    11 plus

    Had a feeling you might be back strongly this week, what with Mr Balls strutting his stuff and all! If quotation abuse is a penalty point, dragging in the Daily Mail has to be a red card sending off I should think.

    However, read back over your entries. You make the case quite clearly that even if all schools are social engineers, then comprehensive social engineering is a better choice for society than selection. Now take out the word selection, and replace it, for the sake of debate, with filter. Schools have admission policies which act as filters; schools have criteria which act as filters for 6th form entry; universities have criteria which act as filters; employers have forms and interviews which act as filters. The government tells us that many of these filters contain in built bias, so have universities now with schemes that allow admission on potential not actual results. Rather than fixing the schools, they have fixed the admission criteria. To many, the 11 plus is a from of potential filter, which like other forms of filter, may generally get it right but not always. Your case seems to be that this specific form of filter, which is more fact based and objective than most, is somehow inherently evil, whereas other forms of filter, like postcode for admissions, are somehow fairer.

    Truth is Kent's surviving system is not inherently worse as a form of education than the comprehensive system around it, and as you say in another context above, the averaging of comprehensive school figures hides the spread of achievement better. If comprehensive education was so much obviously better, there may be reason to change. As it clearly is not, who are the fools? Those who have spent millions and millions of pounds promoting change that has not meant a great leap forward in educational terms, and has simply produced a postcode lottery of superiority above others; or those who have stuck with what they know and done no worse?

    I do not demand a return to selection everywhere, simply a continuation of choice, which the government has struggled mightily to introduce into other areas of public life for many years.

    I wonder why choice in education is found so threatening? At the end of the day I suspect most parents care little for the structure of the system, but require they should have confidence in whichever local school they can choose. Many drive many miles to take their children to the places they feel are right for their children, even, perhaps especially under the comprehensive model. They drive to the leafy catchment areas where false addresses buy you entry, and councils use terrorist surveillance powers to catch them out. Superior system? I think not.

    24 Sep 2009 10:34 AM

    Report Abuse

  • Anemone wrote:

    Repugnant System

    Dear AL
    You could join Comprehensive Future. The website is www.comprehensivefuture.org.uk.

    23 Sep 2009 8:39 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Martin Frey wrote:

    11 plus

    (Sorry for the delay) I said all schools are about social engineering. Why do you assume it is only comprehensives and not grammar schools? That's quotation abuse and a penalty point, so 40-30. Yes the statistics about Kent's very lowly qualified workforce are 8 years old (the newest I've come across) but when those figures were compiled Kent has been dividing children into grammar and secondary modern schools for 30 years longer than most parts of our region. Why did Kent not have a real edge over those areas if their comprehensives are so bog standard and awful? I'm afraid the gap between Kent and the rest is so great that it has not been dented in the last 8 years, no matter how much water Graham Badman walked over. If you have figures to show otherwise I would be interested to see them. Your admission that the statistics produced by the Learning and Skills Council are spurious is interesting. Is it really the case, as you so clearly state, that they were a fiction designed to rip money from tax-payers for new schools? As for GCSE being a "socialist exam" my son was one of the first to take it starting on his GCSE curriculum in 1987. Was Mrs Thatcher really such an ardent socialist? As for setting in comprehensives my experience has been that only a small minority of children are in the top set for every subject and that children's abilities can vary widely from subject to subject. Changing sets within a school as children develop is an easy matter much harder when the sets are in different schools as they are in Kent. As for the 10% selection by aptitude - I totally agree with you that it is nonsense and so do most specialist schools. They apply for specialist status for the extra money and that does make a difference. Forget the invisible difference between ability and aptitude: attitude is usually the key factor. In international terms comprehensive England has much to be proud of and some weaknesses.Look at a full set of PISA data and you'll find England doing far better than the Daily Mail would like.

    23 Sep 2009 10:33 AM

    Report Abuse

  • AL wrote:

    Grammar schools

    I have a child who took the Kent Test last week, I am ashamed to say that it wasn't until we started the process of applying and preparing for it that I realised what a repugnant system we had entered into. Many other mothers I have talked to feel the same way, but feel they must go along with the system despite that. What can we (parents)do to change this? Are there organisations we can join or petitions we can sign?

    23 Sep 2009 10:03 AM

    Report Abuse

  • chris wells wrote:

    11 plus

    Yes I am: and it will wash. Your frank admission that comprehensive education is about social engineering is welcome - but immediately undermined by the equally frank admission belatadly from government that it does not work. Not in their rhetoric, but in their actions. To make comprehensives compete in international terms we have to add streaming, selection by 'aptitude not ability' (I have often stated that this would make a superb essay for defining intellectual challenge, the difference between aptitude and ability in other than politician speak), and the academy programme (selection by area not child, and all the sweeping generalisations which follow from that).

    I also note the report you have sent, which I have not studied in detail as yet, dates from 2001. A moment when of course all were trying to generate statistics to make the case for inclusion in the BSF and academies programmes, and before the impact and huge leap forward in Kent's education under Graham Badman's superb leadership. All reports and evidence, my old (comprehensive) history teacher used to say should be weighed in their context.

    Some credit though Martin, the opponents of grammar schools usually start with their experience in the fifties, your position is at least more recent than that!

    The assumption of the comprehensive experiment is that the distribution of high achievers will drag others up. That has proved as varied as the schools themselves, their management, leadership, and atmosphere. In practice, the highest resources are concentrated on the schools with lower achievers if you take everything into account - your assertion on resources is simply wrong, although convenient for your case.

    The introduction of a comprehensive exam at 16 - GCSE - has led to a plethora of unnecessary numbers for high achievers across the whole country. The issue is the attempt to make one exam fit all, not the achievements of the young people. It is, once again, a damning indictment of the socialist (comprehensive) principle of false equality. Bit of an own goal there, Martin.

    Thats got to be about thirty all, in tennis terms - more?

    17 Sep 2009 7:44 AM

    Report Abuse

  • Martin Frey wrote:

    Grammar Schools

    Chris. Now who's dishing out the soundbites? And second-hand ones at that. Comprehensives are no more and no less bog standard than they ever were - every one I've ever been into has had its own unique character and I trust you can agree with that. Are you seriously comparing the little used ability of specialist schools to select 10% of their intake with the 100% used selection by grammar schools of 100% of their intake? It won't wash. I agree that a lot of the arguments for comprehensive schools are social and none the worse for that. I will get accused of "social engineering" but cannot see how schools are supposed to be anything but social engineers - they reward certain behaviours and punish others and attempt to establish an ethos, these are the tools of social engineering. The ethos of a grammar school is one of superiority and privilege - albeit wrapped up and sanitised by references to duty and reponsibility. The outcome is an atmosphere of hostility, of social division and friction, that is damaging to society when we all need to cooperate for economic success. The problem I have with your defence of the system by reference to averages is that the averages hide such wide variations. In terms of food an average might indicate that there is more than enough to go round - but if some are gorged while others are starving there is a major problem with the distribution system. In education terms we have too many children attending schools where very few achieve - the peer pressure is strong and downwards. If the high achieving children were distributed more evenly their peer pressure would work upwards more effectively and efficiently. By concentrating them in grammar schools we get children with dozens of A* GCSEs, great for them but of now practical use whatsoever. Lets concentrate that resource on the low achievers and turn society round. (I have sent a copy of the LSC report on Kent's poor outcomes direct to you). Martin

    14 Sep 2009 6:57 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Chris Wells wrote:

    Grammar Schools

    Well, Martin, lets try.

    As I should imagine you are well aware, the reason that Kent is so often represted in the lower league tables is about the structure of education here - by which I mean that if you take an overall average performance, taking in both grammar and high schools, generally the statisitics show Kent to be performimg well. If you detach the grammar schools, and compare high schools with comprehensive, ie not like with like, the statistics look different. Even then, the kent high schools generally perform better than they should according to the statistical variances.

    It is no surprise to any statistician worth his salt, and with the shrinking number of authorities that have selection, the statistical value of comparison directly is very limited.

    We have any number of excellent high schools in kent, and my intention as Cabinet member was always to ensure all schools had the best chances to shine - which as I explained before, is why closing relative ratios of places when rolls shrink is important.

    Please email me this report identification, I would wish to check its comparitive validity in relation to other markers and evaluation.

    Nothing that has been said so far sways me to reconsider. The strongest arguments for comprehensie education are social rather than educational - and were undermined by the abandonment of the truly comprehensive system by the Blair governments selection by aptitude rather than ability wriggling. Remember, the bog standard comprehensive is finished, according to Alastair Campbell. Are you going to disagree with all that?

    14 Sep 2009 3:31 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Martin Frey wrote:

    11+

    OK Chris - let's have a go.

    A report produced by the Learning and Skills Council (when Paul Carter was a member) stated that Kent and Medway had, by a wide margin, the lowest qualified workforce at A level and degree or above standard. This sits very badly with the contention that grammar schools allow high fliers to soar. Year after year the league tables show a very high proportion of Kent schools doing very badly as compared with schools in Hackney. There are two wards in Kent (both in Thanet) that are more deprived than the two least deprived wards in Hackney - all the rest of Hackney is more deprived than anywhere in Kent. Since there is a distinct and well evidenced correlation between deprivation and low achievement, I contend that this is an appalling state of affairs. It is said, quite correctly, that some comprehensives in comprehensive areas do worse than many of Kent's secondary moderns. There are some very poor schools about but this is a scourge that can affect all kinds of schools, even, as OFSTED is at last recognising, grammar schools. I am not suggesting that Kent has a higher proportion of bad schools than anywhere else - many of its low performing schools are doing a wonderful job against all the odds. What I do say is that, thanks to selection, these schools, even the good ones, can be thoroughly demoralising places to work or be educated in - and the finger of suspicion for this state of affairs points at the 11+. I hope this does not qualify as sound bites - but if they do I am flattered that you think they score.

    13 Sep 2009 12:09 AM

    Report Abuse

  • chris wells wrote:

    11 plus

    Anytime,Martin, as you well know. And I will resist the temptation to reduce the topic to a few scoring sound bites, as you invariably do.

    07 Sep 2009 10:18 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Martin Frey wrote:

    Grammar Schools

    I'm sure Chris Wells didn't really mean to advocate the 11+ becoming the 5+ when he blamed poor primary schooling on the fact that they are comprehensive - but the 5+ is the inescapable conclusion of his words. He blames the government for the shortage of grammar school places yet says that, when in power, he tried to shut down grammar school classes. What this subject needs and deserves is a better class of debate - with a bit of reason and consistency. How about it Chris?

    07 Sep 2009 1:31 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Chris Wells wrote:

    Grammar Schools

    I am sure neither Paul, nor Martin Frey will be surprised to hear from me on this subject. As plans go, if you want to phase out grammar schools, this is an entirely sensible one; it is, in effect the same argument and driver used to give academies the time and space to change their intake and prospects over the period of a school generation. If you want to phase out grammar schools.

    Unsurprisingly I do not agree with Martin Frey's campaign, we have crossed comments before, or that if Fiona Millar, whatever her credentials and connections may be. Try turning the argument on its head. Assuming the assertion that all parents of all children trying to get into grammar schools have to use tutors to attain the necessary standard is actually clear evidence of a failure in junior schooling, which is, of course, comprehensive in nature!!!!

    It is, of course, not true. The rush to tutoring stems from government policy to restrict grammar schools, when as any economist will tell you, (and I happen to be one) if you restrict the supply of goods, its price goes up. In this case restricted grammar school supply sharpens the competition to a point where the accusation of middle class ghettos becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

    When Cabinet member for education I was insistent that as rolls fell, the ratio of grammar schoolplaces to secondary p[laces did not change ie we should shut grammar school classes in proper ratio to other schools. Why? Because if you permit grammar schools to fill up with the top echelon of secondary pupils, say to the 30th percentile, you potentially create failure in both sets of schools around their targets.

    Funny how this suddenly becomes important in the months before an election. Perhaps it is meant to distract voters eyes from the disastrous debt collecting regime that Labour have created in further education, turning their own grant funded experience into a generation of debt ridden young people struggling to find the levels of work and pay promised irrationally for them all. Equality triumphing over common sense again.

    Mercifully, most parents with real hopes of their children achieving recognise the role of excellence in our education systems and employment options. In all schools, of whatever structure, grammr, high school, academy or comprehensive.

    There are many studies which demonstrate the flaws of income in relation to good comprehensive schools as much as others. Change for change sake is no argument. Judging by the results in Kent generally outperforming many of their (comprehensive counterpart) equivalent elsewhere, opponents only have selective evidence to bolster their claims. The irony - selective evidence to 'prove' non selective schooling - tis mindful of Clochemerle is it not?

    03 Sep 2009 9:24 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Martin Frey wrote:

    Grammar Schools

    One thing for certain I have learned about schools: there will be some children who are very happy in schools that are actually very bad schools and other children who are very unhappy in very good schools. We must try to stop generalising from the very particular experiences of our own children. All we can really go on is the outcome. As a whole and overall Kent fares very badly and the finger of suspicion points inexorably at the grammar school system and the 11+. Martin Frey - STEP - Stop The Eleven Plus

    03 Sep 2009 4:33 PM

    Report Abuse

  • KMN wrote:

    grammar schools

    It makes me furious that these do gooders, who obviously have no knowledge of the current state of the secondary school system, are campaigning to abolish the one good thing that is left in the edcation system. Secondary schools are great if you are a struggling pupil, there are always extra staff on hand. On the other side of the coin, there is NO help at all for exceptionally bright pupils, schools cannot cope and dont have the funding.My daughter was in one of the top secondary schools in the country but she had to be moved up a year in order for her to learn at a more advanced level but she wasnt high enough educationally speaking. I was told point blank that they didnt have the facilities/ money to help her and it was best to educate her privatley or move to an area that still had the grammar school system. So we did, We moved nearly 200 miles back to my native Maidstone. She has attended MGGS ( an absolutely incredible school)for 2 years and the difference in her is unbelievable. These girls are educated according to ability, not age and they are all individuals, not numbers. The staff are fantasic and there is a mutual respect betwwen pupils and teachers. There isnt the disruptive behavior that my daughter had to endure at secondary school, preventing those who wanted to learn from doing so. Most importantly of all she is happy.
    However, I do feel sorry for those pupils who were admitted to the school as borderline cases. Some of these pupils struggle to keep up and they would have been better off being top in their year at comp instead of floundering at the bottom at grammar. In many cases it is the pushy parents that were desperate to get their child in and many of which pay for private tutoring. This is well and good to get them through the 11+ by the skin of thier teeth but years ahead havent been thought about and many of these children are very unhappy as they never feel good enough

    03 Sep 2009 12:42 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Martin Frey wrote:

    Grammar Schools

    PJH is wrong to suggest that grammar schools raise standards. With its grammar school system Kent has become an area that attracts very little investment because its workforce is so badly educated. At A level and degree standard Kent has the least qualified workers in the south east by a wide margin.

    He is also wrong to suggest that the alternative to grammar school is likely to be an excellent secondary modern. At GCSE level recently over half our secondary moderns got worse results than any schools in deprived Hackney. For a majority of our children not passing the 11+ is the route to a lifetime of low qualifications and low pay. These children are not failures - it is Kent's grammar school system which is failing them.

    Martin Frey
    STEP - Stop The Eleven Plus

    03 Sep 2009 9:57 AM

    Report Abuse

  • Anemone wrote:

    Comprehensive Future

    All support to the campaign to bring about good local schools for all children. The current situation in Kent is blighted by the 11+. There is a lack of political will to ensure good education for all. Children develop at different rates - to be told you are "suitable" for academic education at the age of 10 is plainly ludicrous. Too many of Kent's schools are weak because of the dividing up of children. Labelling at ten years old divides communities and even families. End the 11+ now - it belongs to a bygone era.

    02 Sep 2009 10:45 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Blanche deVere wrote:

    Grammar Schools

    The attempt to trigger a vote on the future of Kent's grammar schools did not fail because of a lack of support...rather it failed because the conditions required to trigger a vote in a county the size of Kent made those conditions for a ballot impossible to achieve. I know because I was a school governor at the time and was very aware of the burden that balloting regulations placed on school administrators.
    Grammar schools in Kent do not raise educational standards for all, or indeed for most of the 25% educated within their walls. Kent's grammars provide a mediocre education for the top quartile that is more than matched by the equivalent quartile in 'all-ability' schools. Kent's grammars have been judged to allow their students to 'coast' since it is easy to meet and exceed the benchmark set when you have a cohort of the most able.
    Being rejected for selective education can have a life-lasting effort on the esteem of the rejected. Ask some of those who feel rejected by the system.
    A system of education where local children go to their local school with their siblings, peers and friends - each educated according to their ability and potential - and each having the opportunity to move up the sets/streams as they develop their potential - is the perfect way to achieve social mobility. We need to follow the example of Finland who produce the best educated children in the world in an entirely comprehensive system.

    02 Sep 2009 7:54 PM

    Report Abuse

  • PJH wrote:

    Grammar Schools

    The failed attempt to trigger a vote on the future of Kent's grammar schools ten years ago was ample evidence of the degree of support for the anti-grammar school campaign. The country needs more grammar schools if educational standards are to be raised, with all children being taught in schools that are suited to their abilities. Not getting into a grammar school is not in any way a rejection - there were (and are) many excellent secondary moderns that prepared their pupils very effectively for thw world of work. Even if Ms Millar's campain succeeds, parents will still do waht they do now to get their children into the best schools........pay for tutors, move house, etc.

    02 Sep 2009 2:29 PM

    Report Abuse

Terms of Comments
We do not actively moderate, monitor or edit contributions to the reader comments but we may intervene and take such action as we think necessary, please click here for our house rules.. If you have any concerns over the contents on our site, please either register those concerns using the report abuse button, contact us here, email multimediadesk@thekmgroup.co.uk or call 01634 227834.

Advertisement

P&O Ferries

If you want to enjoy a dining experience with a difference, why not enter this month's competition...

P&O Ferries

Safe Play

KM Group in conjunction with SSP is offering an infant school or nursery the opportunity to win a new safe playground surface...

SafePlay

More websites

KentJobs
Let us help you find the right job for you...

KentHomes
We can help you find your dream home...

KentMotors
Search for a new car today...

Kent Business
For all your local and national business news...

kmfm
The music you want, the news you need...

The Tunnel of Love

As heard on kmfm with Eurotunnel Le Shuttle...

Tunnel of Love

KM Vouchers

Amazing deals at your fingertips! Click here to search in your local area...

Vouchers

Pets' Corner

Decided you'd like a pet, or need a local vet for the pet you already have, then Pet's Corner can help...

Pets' Corner

Headline Travel

Headline Travel

Book your trip today

Wedding Day 

Wedding Day

Find everything you need to help plan your wedding here...

MakeADate

MakeADate

Find your perfect match today

Commercial Properties

Commercial Properties

Click here to view listings...

Call the Experts

Call the Experts

Everything you need to find business in Kent...

kmfm for Kent

kmfm for kent

Find your local kmfm site here...

Copyright: You may not copy, reproduce, republish, download, post, broadcast, transmit or otherwise use content on this site in any way except for your own personal, non-commercial use. You also agree not to adapt, alter or create a derivative work from any content on this site except for your own personal, non-commercial use. Any other use of content requires the prior written permission of the KM GROUP. Read full terms and conditions.