Nearly half of prime minister Theresa May’s cabinet went to comprehensive (i.e, non-selective) state schools; Justine Greening, the new education secretary, is one of them. Outside 10 Downing Street on July 13, May pointed out that children in state schools had less of a chance of making it to the top than their privately educated peers. That, she said, must change: “We will do everything we can to help anybody (sic), whatever your background, to go as far as your talents will take you.” Her first step in that direction may prove controversial. On August 7 the Sunday Telegraph reported that the government would seek to lift a ban on new grammar schools, which are allowed to select pupils at age 11 on the basis of ability. It would be a big change. At their height, in the early 1960s, grammar schools educated around one-quarter of pupils. Then, in the mid-1960s, the Labour government sped up their conversion into comprehensives. Anthony Crosland, the education secretary, declared he would destroy every grammar school in England. Some local authorities held out. But there remain just 163 grammars in England, educating 5 percent of pupils. (Scotland and Wales have none; Northern Ireland has lots.) Many Tories are delighted by the proposal. Grammars are seen as a ladder by which clever, poor children can climb up the social hierarchy. In 1964-97, all five prime ministers were grammar school alumni. So is prime minister May. If the government goes ahead with its plans for more grammars it will face strong opposition in Parliament. But polls suggest that voters like the idea. The government may allow some other form of selection, perhaps encouraging ‘chains’ of state schools to concentrate the brightest of their pupils in one school that specialises in teaching gifted children. Regardless of Ms. May’s fine intentions, reintroducing selection will do little to improve the diversity of future cabinets.
