A major problem is that we don't value 'vocational'- which is one reason why Germany will stride out of the economic crash far sooner than we will as they do. We turned our FE colleges and Polys into Unis, our Diplomas and HNDs into degrees, we measure all school subjects in their 'GCSE equivalent'- because we have all been lead to believe that if it's not measurable on the GCSE/A level/degree continuum, it ain't worth diddly-squat.
sowornout re 'bringing back the SM'.. 
How can it be possible to really decide a DC's potential and future based on one exam taken when they're 10? What about the DC who has a real flair for, say music, but is rubbish at say Maths? And conversely the brilliant mathematician who is barely able to express themselves on the written page? The former might be heading for an A* in music, the latter for an E in English, but the 11+ system more or less prevents them from being taught in appropriate classes for their strong and weak subject.
I would agree entirely that there's no point in forcing further algebra or Chinese on a DC who is, at 14, evidently heading for a good career in carpentry. But a) that DC has to hit 14, really (and fairly) before that decision should be made, and b), the boy sitting next to him who was pretty average at 10 but who now is showing real talent in English shouldn't only have 'English for apprentices' available to him.
Surely a true comprehensive school would be the best place for all of these DC?
DH went to one. He left to go to university to do Biochemistry. Other DC there learned catering to 'employable' standards, in the industrial kitchens. Some learned carpentry in sheds that wouldn't look out of place in an industrial estate; not just diddy hack-saws on pegs on walls, but bloody great gantry mounted band saws as well. DC could learn how to birth a cow and lay a line of fencing straight; and do farm accountancy. Some learned performance art skills or stage management in the school's professional theatre. DH did his science 'A' levels, as it were, in properly equipped science labs with properly trained teachers.
This was in rural Australia.
exotic Q: "The good thing about secondary moderns was that they didn't treat all pupils the same. They had the very bright and academic and they had the ones who were never going to pass exams but were still educated, often in practical ways. The disadvantage was that when you were the academic top there was very much a ceiling."
My experience was that many if not most SMs certainly didn't differentiate between the 'very bright and academic' (because they were sitting in a GS class!) and the SN. The 'ceiling' academically was there because a test taken at 10 dictated that that DC didn't have the ability to do any better- by definition of the system, if they were able, they shouldn't have been at a SM!
As I said earlier, a problem with SMs were size; too small to be able to offer a wide range of subjects to a wide range of pupils; the potential gulf of ability between the most and least able; the inability to necessarily attract the best teachers; the sense of 'Fail' written all over the establishment before you even began.
By all means beef up vocational provision, by all means campaign to get qualifications other than the GCSE/degree continuum valued, but please don't return to the out-dated, out-moded, discredited pass/fail mentality of the 11+ to do so!