Thank you for drawing attention to the ongoing neglect of the “other half” of 16- to 18-year-olds, those not on A-level courses in school sixth forms (Editorial, 20 February). I have been watching with dismay successive examples of this in my local area. Our young people used to be served by a tertiary college that offered both A-level and vocational courses. Then the local authority spent many millions from its reserves to create sixth forms in all the local secondary schools. All chose to be selective.

When the authority scrutinised the effect of the changes in 2018, it only reported on how the sixth forms were doing. Nothing was said about the college. This was of course not under the control of the council, but neither were the schools, all academies by then.

In 2020, officers prepared a report for committee on “post-16 provision and outcomes”, but the only outcomes mentioned were A-levels. In 2021, financial problems at the college caused it to propose a merger with two others some distance away. Despite the potential significance of this for the “other half” of local 16- to 18-year-olds, officers responded to the required consultation without troubling the relevant committee.

The creation of the sixth forms might or might not have been a good use of council money, but the consequences in terms of political attention paid to the “other half” have been profound.
Geoffrey Stanton
London

Your editorial states that “the mixed-ability principle was never extended to higher education, which continues to be highly stratified”. The answer to any inequality-reducing strategy does not simply rely on creaming off students at 16-plus on the basis of academic achievement. You rightly point to the hugely significant role that could be played by local further education and tertiary colleges in improving access to both higher education and vocational education and training.

The case for increased funding and support for colleges is a strong one. I continue to be surprised that little or no attention in this debate has been given to the truly comprehensive model of tertiary colleges. They provided a natural progression for the primary-secondary-tertiary model for comprehensive state education.
Graham Phillips
Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire

The government’s notion of elite sixth forms is indeed a gimmick, but your editorial is mistaken in suggesting that in England there is a straightforward division between a hierarchical system of higher education and an egalitarian system of schooling. Leaving aside that most children of the rich and powerful do not attend state schools, the truth is that the state education system is nowhere near egalitarian. Not only does it continue to maintain a formal system of selective secondary schooling whose malign effects reach further than the number of such schools might suggest, but the doctrine of “parental choice” ensures that all schools exist in a market-driven hierarchy in which the least “desirable” children are concentrated in the least “desirable” schools and vice versa.

The Augar review does not address the deeper need for all forms of post-16 education to have equal status. Our inability to shake off our obsession with hierarchy means we are stuck with an educational model designed for the 1930s, which does not augur well for our future.
Michael Pyke
Lichfield, Staffordshire