Letter: Labour's selective principles
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.From Ms Andrea Jones
Sir: In your leading article "Harman gets her priorities right", you imply that many Labour politicians will feel cheated that they sent their children to comprehensive schools now that Harriet Harman has chosen a grammar school. This implies that choosing a comprehensive school is second best.
In the borough of Trafford (where I live, and am a local Labour councillor and which has grammar schools), a number of Labour councillors have chosen to send their children to comprehensive schools in neighbouring authorities, irrespective of whether their children passed the 11-plus or not. In my own case, my son did pass the 11-plus. However, I believe that comprehensive schools are better. In sending him to a comprehensive school I was choosing the very best for him.
Yours sincerely,
Andrea Jones
Old Trafford, Manchester
22 January
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments