I AM sorry Peter Smith feels I may have ‘lost the wood for trees’ in the debate on education by selection, the selection process being a measure of academic ability. (SA November 6).

I am also sorry Peter misrepresents Gurney by ascribing his comment with regard to ‘educational sub-normality in parents’ as supposed proof the grammar school system failed the children of unskilled workers.

Gurney examined why the intake of unskilled workers’ children was low, he also examined why the O-level pass rate for children of unskilled workers was also low and why only one third of the intake obtained the perceived benefit of a grammar school education.

The harsh reality exposed in Gurney’s report is that children from across the social spectrum, but particularly the children of semi-skilled and unskilled workers, (what Peter may refer to as the working class), were less likely to continue in education beyond the age of 15 and it was to examine the reasons for premature leaving from both grammar and modern schools his inquiry was established.

I would submit neither grammar school nor secondary modern school failed the children of the unskilled worker, rather there were external (environmental) issues and cultural norms as identified by Gurney which played a significant part in a child’s education.

I know this will not satisfy those who wish to blame selection for the lack of opportunity for a generation or more, but some pupils are more academically inclined than others and they should be encouraged to excel.

Equally, those who are less inclined to academic study should be encouraged to achieve their fullest potential by a more vocational route.

I have a feeling another of your correspondents might call that ‘differentiation.’ DES MORGAN Caraway Drive, Swindon