Selection by academic ability at 11 is not fair, but it is fairer than non-academic-selection. It is true children from middle class families have much higher proportion to pass the 11+ than the children from poorer family. But money has always been influential in a child's education. You can close state grammar schools, but someone may send his child to fee-paying school. You may close all kind of grammar schools, but someone with money is still able to get his child private coaching after school, or even send them abroad.

With the existence of grammar schools, at least some of the lucky children from poorer families will be able to receive comparable education as the children from rich families; without grammar schools, children's education is really money dependent. In the end, the abolition of grammar schools will increase the social division by destroying some of the poorer children's only hope to establish themselves.
Ming-Jieng,

Selectivity in the education system works in theory, as each child has his/her education tailored to their needs. Back in the real world however it only serves to cause division and aggravation between people. The grammar school system is seen by the majority of people as reaffirming the old boy network in this country, whether it does or does not do this is frankly irrelevant.

As for the claim the education at grammar school broadens the childs horizons is plainly nonsense. Many people that attend grammar schools have no idea how to communicate with a majority of the population. This is a frightening state of affairs as warranted or not, they will generally be the ones making decisions on behalf of the population in the future.
Mr D McKinnon, UK

It really doesn't matter whether there are Grammar Schools or not - what matters is motivation of pupils, ability of teachers and provision/effective use of resources. If by Grammar school you mean limiting access to these things for some children (i.e. bring back the secondary modern school!), then it is wrong - both on moral and economic grounds. Judge the education system by the work force it produces. - Compare the English "Grammar" School System with the Belgian School system (in other words, what are your bench marks?). I have worked in a number of education systems as a teacher, and this debate has little to do with the education of children and everything to do with money/power/control - economics in other words.
Alan Farrar, English in Russia

Why do theorists in the "grammar schools debate" refuse to accept the evidence. It was grapevine knowledge among school children back in the 1940's and common knowledge among later expatriate parents that the quality of product from an education based on the American system was lower than that obtainable through the British "streaming" method. The evidence is still there for all to see. The North American system results in a poorer university entrance standard, under-graduate degrees that are virtually worthless, and "students" almost reaching middle age before they feel ready to face the world with a post-graduate qualification. Why persist in chasing a third rate system?
David Baynes, Canada

If it were not for the Karachi Grammar School in Pakistan, I would be a very different person. The Grammar schools turn out a very well rounded, disciplined and responsible group of gentlemen and ladies. Why can't other schools do the same?
Charles Dique, Pakistan (now living in the USA)

I hated my grammar school - it was push push push and apart from the excellent computer facilities (funded by a local trust which chose not to do the same to the other secondary schools until many years later) it was a horrible experience. My brother is currently finishing his secondary education at a secondary school and is perfectly happy doing a double GNVQ in business study in a much more enjoyable atmosphere.
Alex Banks, Wales

As an ex grammar school pupil I find the 'unfairness' claim a bit hypocritical. Under the current system there is at least an element of choice - pupils can try for acceptance to a grammar school at 11 or 13 or their parents can elect to send them to a comprehensive if they prefer them not to sit the exam. To abolish all grammar schools removes an option for the children who are more academically inclined at these ages, thereby making a blanket 'selection' for everyone. This does not seem fairer.

The excellent results of a large number of comprehensive schools is unquestioned but isn't it a bit selfish to try to abolish those grammar schools which are equally successful simply to avoid hurting feelings? If it works, why break it? As has already been pointed out we are all selected throughout life and even grammar school pupils repeatedly experience rejection. Just because I will never be selected to train with Liverpool FC I don't expect the same opportunity to be taken away from Michael Owen�. (not that my academic performance really matches his football skills but you get the idea!).
Suzanne, England

As someone who has seen the workings of the 11 plus system in Belfast I think it should be scrapped immediately. It is ridiculous that a person's entire life is determined by how well they did in an exam at the age of 11, as it is a fact of life that by and large, most people who get to university, for example, went to a grammar school first.

The 11 plus can be incredibly damaging to a child's esteem, because failure of the 11 plus sends a clear signal that you are just not good enough. Moreover, the 11 plus is biased against working class children whose families do not have the money to afford computers or tutoring or who cannot give them a quiet place to study.

I have heard protestant women say that they don't care if the Pope runs the school system as long as their kids don't have to do that exam. Good education should be broad education - an opportunity for children to discover their strengths, be they academic, sporting, musical or otherwise, and all schools should be given the full resources in order to achieve this. Schooling should certainly not be about deciding who is worthy of a good education at the age of 11, and sending all the failures to the educational scrap heap.
Grainne Phillips, Northern Ireland

This issue seems to me to identify a real issue, but fails to identify the actual problem.

I am fully in favour of selective education, but not because I feel that clever children should get special treatment; I feel that ALL children should get special treatment.

No two people learn in the same way. No two people have the same ambitions or skills. Some children are better suited to a grammar style education, some are better suited to comprehensive education and some are best trained in technical colleges.

The mistake is to think that there's something good or bad about the child based on their educational requirements. Properly implemented, selective education is not an intellectual elite - merely "horses for courses".
Richard Stagg, UK

I have personal experience of both systems first hand and I have to say that selective education is the better. The assumption is made that ALL pupils would gain good results if it was just one system, comprehensive. This assumes that all pupils and parents would be hard working and committed (in terms of effort and support, this sadly is not the case. I feel grammar schools should exist to allow hardworking, bright, dedicated pupils reach their full potential.

It should not be assumed that selection (the passing of the 11 plus) equates to family income. This is why this debate is always about politics, envy and ignorance.

I failed my 11 plus! I did not work hard, mainly due to poor teaching and lack of parental interest. I did however train as a nurse at the age of 18 which I did enjoy and qualified 3 years later, without the mandatory degree - which has not produced better nursing care! There hangs another debate!!!!!!
Pauline Gick, England

The claim that poor children have equal access to selective schools was refuted by the free school meal comparisons which show that there are huge differences between the proportion of children in grammar schools eligible for free school meals and the proportion in the local community. See the CASE Say No to Selection website email newsletters for details.
Margaret Tulloch (Campaign for State Education), Britain