supporters often fail to articulate how anyone can know if a policy would lead to such outcomes. Policies favoured by stairways also tend to give a supportive hand from one level of the stairway to another.  The pupil premium policy would fall into this category. One reason why many Coalition policies seem counter-productive is because they only meet the needs of one metaphor.  The EBacc , for instance, plays to the ladder metaphor as it is a tool for helping more children climb the university ladder. But, the sieve must immediately ask, what if everyone achieved the EBacc -- as is the hope of this policy -- how will we know who should move up? Also, does the EBacc truly help employers sift out who is most appropriate for their workplaces? Employers are always saying they want teamwork, initiative and resilience -- why isn't this recognised in a qualification system? And, finally, the Stairways add their chagrin: What about those whose strengths lie outside these subjects -- has their stairway been narrowed into a ladder that they simply don't wish to climb? So there you have it -- Ladders, Stairways & Sieves: the basis of almost all educational debate. Noticing when these differences in metaphor are operating is important as it throws light on the basis of disagreements, and instead can move people onto practical compromises that help meet the needs of each view point.  Other metaphors are also likely to exist -- as will views on which metaphor should