Some Secondary Moderns did prepare children in this way (but many failed to do so). It would be wonderful to see some effort on improving education for the many rather than just wrecking it for the few.

I don’t think what we have now is any better than they were. The sink comprehensives certainly aren’t.

Which is worse – a system that actively promotes some on merit and leaves the rest to mediocrity, or a system that provide mediocrity throughout, with pockets of excellence available by lottery/postcode selection?

The former does give the council house kid a chance, the latter does not. I have experience of the chances the grammar system gave in my family – in the 50s/60s two of my uncles went to the local grammar and thence to university, the first to do so in the family. They both had good careers in education (college and university lecturers), something that would be unlikely from a similar background now.

Perhaps we need a 13+ exam instead. Teach everyone together to 13, then split into academic and vocational streams. By the age of 13 it should be pretty obvious who wants out at 16, and they should be filtered off to trades training. Taking the most unacademic out of the school system should improve things for everyone else too.

Don’t forget that vocational training is not the career ending move that it perhaps used to be. Given the choice of practical training as a plumber, electrician, car mechanic etc etc, and the chance of running my own business in a few years, vs A levels, university and a bog standard graduate job in an office in Reading, I’d choose vocational every time. I reckon I’d be making a better living sooner too.

I do agree with KMcC & wish you would revive your blog (though not for the same reason).

The private schools were dying on their arses in the 60s and early seventies. Why pay to send little Timmy to private school when you can get him into the local grammar? When they were abolished suddenly there was a huge new market for education.

You want to lessen the (perceived) social inequality caused by private schools? Make State schools as good as private ones, and they will wither pretty fast. While there will always be a few snobs who fancy social climbing, most vote with their wallets. Free good quality education vs expensive excellent education? No contest.

The politics of envy are already back..and by the way I am expressing concerns only in ,line with Conservative thinking I am not any sort of socialist

Since you haven’t answered it, I’ll ask it again: in what way does a private school ACTIVELY PREVENT others from getting a good education?

That’s in actual real world reasons, not macro-economic or other mumbo-jumbo. (BTW, the state’s utter failure to use the massive education budget isn’t an answer – it is in fact the reason that there is a disparity, but it doesn’t support your assertion).

“and freedom t colonise the media political and finance nexus for others regardless of merit .” (my emphasis)

??? WTF ! eleven!!
Which is it? Do Private schools give a decent education or not?

If they do, then your “regardless of merit” falls: the problem is merely that private schools are producing more people capable of doing those jobs.

If not, where’s the advantage?

Let us for arguments sake say that wealthy people paying for private education, cheats the poorer.

What is the solution. Tax them more?

Well the rich pay more tax.

Tax the schools, the schools just charge more.

None of this actually changes anything, and in fact only narrows the amount of people who can afford them, so in fact makes it worse.

Ban private schools?

Well that certianlly equals oppertunity rather more, but doesnt actually improve education one bit, does it.

You seem to be more interested in pulling down the rich, than raising the poor.

The state subsidy of schooling is the problem. Most tiering effects are caused by the dysgenic policies of the state.

All parents should pay for their children’s education. If they cannot pay then the state should lend them the money.

Basically the state should stop bearing down on success, to reward failure. We have to re-assert that the people own the state and not the other way around! The state should take our orders, and certainly should not try to arrange society.

Look at the leadership of the Conservative Party its like travelling back to Macmillan’s era . This is symbolic admittedly but the gaps between lowest and highest quintiles are growing problems New Labour have failed to address . Paradoxically they provide the seed bed for pointless measures like the 50p top rate which the IFS assure us will actually lose revenue.
I would say the problem is one analogous to that of Monopolies .
Markets do not work unattended they tend to clog and are full of people whose first thought at breakfast is how to undermine them … Anyone first into a field and well financed will concentrate on making it impossible for others to compete . Wealthy people understandably do this for their children. They purchase huge early advantage which is peculiarly useful in the High tech service economy , by the time others have caught up the career an the time has gone .
This is not only a working class problem it is a lower middleclass problem above all m, the class that used to have opportunity via Grammar schools , the class Ken Clarke belongs to and Cameron does not . George Walden , Peter Oborne and others have remarked on it and it lurks behind the quietly furious Grammar school row

Unless this disparity of opportunity is addressed then freedom means freedom to grind out miserable lives for some and freedom t colonise the media political and finance nexus for others regardless of merit . We cannot ask people not to do the best for their children it is a clear case of the Common “Problem” on a societal level
I have hopes of the Swedish model but se this from Ander Hultin in the DT the other day ….looks to me as if we need more market not less ….. He is describing the Swedish model
…… Of our new breed of “free schools”, 75 per cent are profit-seeking………………. Without the profit element, the research showed, most of our new independent schools would have been very small, and most would have had a religious purpose. ……The Conservatives, however, are planning to keep their “Swedish schools” profit-free and rely on charities, voluntary groups and other philanthropic types. It would certainly buy a little political protection from their ideological enemies, who would otherwise accuse them of trying to privatise the education system. But is it really the Tories’ ambition to create a small number of very good schools with long waiting lists? Such schools may be free to the users but, like the best state schools today, they would be exclusive, luxury destinations for a few privileged people. Is that really the education revolution Cameron has planned? …….

Even this does not address the coalescing and unsustainably remote ruling class of whom Cameron( who I like and admire ) is typical ….

My parents earned money (the hard way too) and paid tax on it that allowed the State to provide a free education for ALL. Instead of using that free education my parents chose to spend their taxed income on giving me probably the best thing a parent can provide (after their own love and attention), a top class education that not only taught me facts, but taught me discipline, team ethos and how to organise my thoughts. The best grounding for success later in life.

If the State chooses to waste the money it receives from taxpayers, and provide a poor standard of education, how is that my, or my parents fault?

If we had to compile a list of “things which are fragmenting society”, then Harrow, Eton and – dare one say it – Downside – would be pretty low down that list; somewhere between “Loose Women” and Jagermeister.

Utter f’ing nonsense. They are designed with no greater purpose in mind than providing a good education. The problem seems to be, that outside of the private, (Private / Public / Usual nonsense when it comes to naming the non state sector of British education), sector, this has not been the overriding aim of schools.

“If we are not allowed to bear down on Public schools ( which are designed to cheat others of opportunity ) , then what ? “

That’s a very strong statement. In what way does the existence of a private school actively prevent anyone else – including and especially the state – from providing education of a similar quality?

I call BS on that.