In her acceptance speech after becoming prime minister Theresa May set out a vision for a country “that works for everyone – not just the privileged few”. Four weeks into her premiership, central to that vision it seems will be an extension to selective education.

For their supporters, grammar schools are a vehicle for social mobility and a means for the gifted but disadvantaged to go beyond their social and economic boundaries, giving access to the top universities and most prestigious careers. Critics, however, say research shows the social mobility argument is a myth.



The number of grammar schools peaked at 1,300 in the mid-1960s when they educated a quarter of all state school pupils. From the 1960s onwards, however, they started to fall out of favour, and both central government and local authorities began to open all-ability comprehensive schools. The chief aim was to provide a fairer system and a better education for the remaining 75% of children in frequently inadequate secondary moderns.

There are now 163 grammar schools in England that survived the cull and are still legally allowed to select pupils on entry to year seven by way of the 11-plus exam. In recent years selective education has been gaining favour with many of the surviving grammars gradually increasing their intake.

Theresa May's grammar schools plan faces cross-party backlash Read more

Then last October, selective education was given a controversial shot in the arm when the then education secretary, Nicky Morgan, approved the first new grammar school for 50 years, to be built in Kent.

It was approved, despite legislation introduced by Labour in 1998 banning any new school from adopting selective admissions, by presenting it as an extension to an existing grammar school, the Weald of Kent in Tonbridge.

Its critics said it is to all intents and purposes a new school, since the extension – or annexe – is in fact nine miles away in Sevenoaks. Supporters of grammar school education argued that the government should simply lift the ban, rather than try to get around existing legislation. Given No 10’s guidance to journalists this week, it seems that may be about to happen.



That grammar schools get excellent results is not the issue; in 2015 virtually all grammar school pupils achieved five or more good grades at GCSE and equivalent qualifications compared with around two-thirds at comprehensives, with the gap even greater when just GCSEs are taken into account, including passes in English and maths.



The real problem is that the children who attend grammar schools overwhelmingly come from wealthy middle-class families, which flies in the face of the social mobility argument. Department for Education statistics show that existing grammar schools have far fewer children from disadvantaged backgrounds than neighbouring non-selective schools, and some have almost none.

Research by the Sutton Trust educational charity has found that less than 3% of entrants to grammar schools are entitled to free school meals – a key indicator of social deprivation – whereas on average 18% of pupils in those selective areas are entitled to free school meals. The Sutton Trust also found that almost 13% of those who enter the grammar school system come from outside the state sector, often from fee-paying preparatory schools.

Grammar schools 'could be fantastic for social mobility – if any poor kids went to them' Read more

Then there is the problem of the pupils who don’t get in to grammar schools, who tend to fare worse in the secondary modern schools at the other end of the selective system than their peers at comprehensives.

In recent years there have been efforts to try to address the poor representation of children from disadvantaged backgrounds in grammar schools and increase diversity in their intakes. Some grammar school headteachers have been experimenting with prioritising children on free school meals or in receipt of the pupil premium – another indicator of disadvantage.

Among them is Charlotte Marten, the headteacher of Rugby High School for Girls in Warwickshire, which has a tiny proportion of students on free school meals. In an attempt to address that, her school now reserves 10 places out of its annual intake of 120 for children eligible for free school meals, who can secure a place even if they score 10 marks below the 11-plus qualifying standard that year.

“The thing I’m really keen on is the message should be going out, these schools exist for the whole community. Not for a section of the community,” she said.

The King Edward VI Foundation in Birmingham, which runs five grammar schools in the city, has similarly set a slightly lower qualifying score for pupil premium children to increase its intake from more disadvantaged communities.

Despite such efforts, opposition to grammar schools is staunch. The chief inspector of schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw, spoke for many when he said: “Grammar schools are stuffed full of middle-class kids. A tiny percentage are on free school meals: 3% … Anyone who thinks grammar schools are going to increase social mobility needs to look at those figures.”

On Monday, as the world of education absorbed the news that May’s new Tory government is about to open the way for greater selection, Sir Peter Lampl, the founder and chair of the Sutton Trust, called for a wholesale rethink. “The government is right to recognise that there is a serious issue about the education of highly able young people from low and middle-income backgrounds.



“Given that there have been 35,000 extra grammar school places since 1997 – and our evidence suggests the existing 163 grammars are largely very socially selective – we need a proper strategy rather than a piecemeal approach.



“That means a national drive to improve education for the highly able in comprehensives, backed by fairer admissions policies in urban schools. It means boosting access to the existing grammars for less advantaged young people. And it means opening up the 100 leading independent day schools on the basis of ability rather than ability to pay.”