It is pleasant to read a letter such as that from Julie Hadern supporting grammar schools.

What the critics fail to see is that it is not the presence of a grammar school in an area that diminishes the quality of any other secondary school in that area.

One could regard the grammar school as effectively being the top four streams of a comprehensive school.

After all, the original theory behind comprehensive education was having a large number of concurrent streams in a school.

The problem with this is that the size of the school, with say seven streams of 30 pupils and five years, would mean schools with over 1,000 pupils, not including any sixth form.

The interesting fact about the destruction policy of grammar schools by the Wilson Government was that it was carried out by ministers educated in public schools!

One might ask, if they wanted, as was the stated policy, to remove elitism from education, why were grammar schools under the gun rather than the public schools?

Public schools were, and still are, schools mainly available to the wealthiest members of society. They may argue that they provide scholarships and grants but this is not the same as being freely available to anyone who passed the 11+.

The policy in the 60s resulted in top grammar schools in Manchester that wished to remain as such having to enter the Private Zone. This must have condemned many children in the past to an education which did not best benefit them.

Perhaps the answer was that they wanted to maintain the status quo, whereby ministers were public school educated and not "hoi polloi" from grammar schools!

David Olliver
Altrincham