What will the future of education actually look like?

OVER 20 years my mother gave birth to five children, with me being the youngest. I was the unforeseen mistake born years after she thought her family was complete. As a consequence I was 'Little Horace', my dad being 'Big Horace' and for over six decades I've been the baby of the family.

Being brought up in a time when children were still free to roam, I spent my pre-school years wandering around a working farm, often trying to keep up with my siblings, who were supposed to be looking after me.

Those years taught me much and I don't regret at all not receiving 15 free hours of pre-school in a safe, learning environment.

Possibly the greatest lesson I learned from a mischievous elder brother was not to take anything at face value. When I was a really trusting toddler I would feel proud to be trusted to ask the man in the shop for sky hooks or elbow grease.

Gradually, I learnt to question and once I'd mastered the art, it became as natural to me as breathing.

Often the most innocuous phrase or comment will ring alarm bells in my head and I will slip easily into questioning mode. I'm a terribly slow and ponderous thinker who fills in gaps of information by extrapolating assumptions, which often takes me to some strange places.

What exactly does 'maintain the selective stream' mean? Does it mean a Grammar School will exist until the 2018 entrants complete their GCSEs in six years' time? As the years go by and the number of Grammar pupils dwindle down to one year group, will they be in their own building or be a virtual school in a high school or noted as a member of the selective stream?

Will the selective stream wear different uniforms to the all-ability school they may share a building with? Will they sing a different school song and have a different motto? Will they enter sporting competitions as the Grammar School? Will the selective stream be grouped together in one place or shared among the high schools?

During the political debates which ended the 11-plus, much was made of the fact that secondary schools hold pupils back. Evidence was presented in reams that all-ability schooling was the preferred option.

But if the selective stream is kept out of the main population, by my reckoning the first all-ability cohort will be taking its GCSEs in six years, which means we will be maintaining secondary modern schooling for at least five more years.

This doesn't make any sense to me and I may have completely gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick. Unfortunately, the stick thrown to me by Education is a very short stick with no obvious right end.

To try to make a bit more sense of 'maintain a selective stream' I zoomed out to see the bigger picture. That didn't help at all because the bigger picture is still being painted and the artist refuses to let anyone see the work in progress.

We all hope for a masterpiece but in our heart of hearts we expect at best a Ronaldo bust.

All of my concerns would be academic, pun intended, were it not that school selection decisions are being made now by the cohort of 2017.

On the face of it, the 2017 cohort going into the catchment high schools will be maintained in a 'secondary modern stream' on the basis that the Grammar School selective stream and the college special places are maintained.

Grammar school place holders are guaranteed a selective stream until 16 but no clear explanation of that is given.

Parents who decide, and can currently afford, that fee-paying schools are the most stable part of the duration system have no idea of future States plans on fee levels.

Only special place holders at the colleges have a clear understanding of their educational pathway to GCSE. Assuming, of course, the colleges stay financially viable.

In fact, the entire 2017 cohort have no real information on exactly how their education for the next five years will pan out. Some, seemingly, are to receive a secondary modern education condemned by two States. Some are to receive a selective education, but in a form not yet made clear. None can be totally certain of which building they will complete their education in. Some will opt for private education to ensure some stability, but can't be certain of future costs.

It all seems a bit of a mess to me.

If we have decided that all-ability schools are our future and have in fact condemned the secondary/selective model in our States Assembly, why have we decided to maintain the old system for five or six more cohorts?

Possibly I wouldn't be so bothered if I didn't have a personal interest in the 2017 cohort and I can't help but think of all the children currently in the system as guinea pigs in a poorly conceived experiment.

I'm sure we are not the only family who would like to know just what we are committing family members to and I'm afraid 'maintain a selective stream' just doesn't do it for me.