Party leader says it is likely Lib Dem peers would have sufficient crossbench support to see off any effort to overturn 1998 law

The Liberal Democrat leader, Tim Farron, has promised that his party will seek to block any government attempt to create new grammar schools, arguing that these are “not the drivers of social mobility” their proponents claim.

Amid speculation that Theresa May’s government might attempt to overturn a 1998 law preventing new grammar schools in England, Farron pledged that Lib Dem peers would block any such attempt in the Lords.

Social mobility doesn’t exist – and grammar schools are part of the problem | Lola Okolosie Read more

The party has 106 peers and is confident that there would be sufficient Labour and crossbench support to indefinitely see off the Conservative tally of 243. Farron said: “The government cannot and will not win on this.”

Grammars, which select the most academically high-performing pupils with an examination at the age of 11, are one of the most contentious areas of British schooling.

Proponents argue that the huge postwar expansion of grammar schools prompted a social mobility revolution, helping huge numbers of children from deprived backgrounds to go to university and then thrive in professional careers. However, the evidence for this apparent effect is largely lacking, with opponents arguing that most of the social mobility of the 1950s and 1960s was driven by a general expansion in white-collar jobs, while the intake of modern grammar schools is disproportionately middle class.

“The Liberal Democrats are the party of education, and that means we believe in an excellent education for all, so any plans to bring in more divisive grammar schools will be utterly opposed by my party,” Farron said, noting that a return to grammars was not in the Conservatives’ 2015 manifesto.

“Those who hold up grammar schools as the gold standard are less keen to talk about what happens to those children who, at the age of 11, are told they are not good enough. What does that do to a young person’s confidence and self esteem?

“This rose-tinted view of grammar schools might play well for a nostalgic few on the right of the Tory party but make no mistake about it – they are not the drivers of social mobility they would like to claim.”

Parental ‘choice’ in education has created the worst of all worlds Read more

While the education secretary, Justine Greening, said last month she was “open minded” about new grammar schools, her department said there were no plans to overturn or amend the 1998 law.

There is, however, a strong pro-grammar voice in the Conservative party, with a semi-official campaign for their return backed by David Davis, the Brexit secretary, and Graham Brady, who chairs the influential 1922 Committee of Tory backbenchers. Both attended grammar schools.

In a video released by the pro-grammar campaign, Davis called the schools “probably one of the most transformative policies of the middle of the 20th century”. He said: “They took a very large population of working-class kids and gave them opportunities that they would never have got any other way.”

Brady said: “As most local authorities got rid of their grammar schools, we’ve seen social mobility take a nosedive.”

Their view, however, is not shared by most educationalists who have studied the impact of grammar schools. A 2014 roundup of the evidence by the Policy Exchange thinktank noted that they do not appear to bring better overall grades, especially in poorer areas, while areas with selective education have a bigger subsequent gap between high and low earners.

One academic study across 27 richer countries found those that selected pupils on academic ability tended to have the most socially segregated school systems. Other doubts involve how well even improved, modern 11-plus exams can select the most able pupils.

There is, of course, another way to expand grammar schools that has already happened. Last year, a new grammar was approved in Sevenoaks, Kent. This was officially billed as an “annexe” to an existing school, and therefore exempt from the 1998 law, even though it is nine miles away.