John Redwood asks why comprehensive schools don't work.
Is it structural? One could ask how many comps have enough able students who (crucially) want to learn. If there aren't enough to form separate sets, the right ethos can't be engendered, leaving the able and ambitious to struggle to learn against the background of continual low level disorder.
That's one argument. But if Sir Michael Wilshaw could make it work in Hackney, why can't it happen across the land?
Has he shown that excellence can be achieved within the comprehensive structure? Some comps celebrate mediocrity and tolerate bad teaching.
If comprehensive schools can be made to work, what does that tell us about the head teachers who aren't realising pupils' potential? What proportion of head teachers are failing, and what should be done about them?