I PREVIOUSLY pointed to evidence in official reports that grammar schools had failed working class children.

This was in reply to the false argument that grammar schools provide a leg up for working class children.

Des Morgan wrote at some length to argue I was wrong to say the Gurney report showed working class children were failed by grammar schools.

But now Des writes to say Gurney “examined why the intake of unskilled workers’ children … and (their) O-level pass rate” … was low in grammar schools.

This really supports my original point.

Des next refers to “the harsh reality”, of the selective system being analysed by the report, of the premature leaving age from “grammar and secondary modern schools.”

The premature leaving age from secondary moderns is no mystery and didn’t particularly interest Gurney.

It was part of the plan for those who failed the 11 plus and whose schools took a much lower share of funding, despite taking many more children.

“Premature leaving” from grammar schools does not support the working class leg up theory.

Des doesn’t believe that system was failing working class children, despite his quotations, preferring to blame “cultural” issues.

But that sinks the defence of grammar schools based on the idea they give an escape route from the culture of working class families. (What an offensive position anyway.) The fundamental and growing inequality in our society is the root cause of what Des called the “lack of opportunity for a generation …”

Selective education, in whatever form it takes just institutionalises it further.

PETER SMITH Woodside Avenue Swindon