And of course these days, it's an open secret that wealthy, middle class parents will engage a private tutor to train their kids to pass the entrance exam for a particular grammar school - so the selection by income starts early; those kids then benefit from a grammar school education and lo and behold, turn out to be high achievers. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that perpetuates the unfair advantage afforded the well off.

I was not proposing a return to some "old" system. Those y=who failed selection should still have access to the same qualifications.

The whole point of May's suggestion is that wealthier neighbourhoods and so called excellent comprehensive schools go hand in hand. Were they don't initially the parents buy into the catchment area and house prices go up, making access for the less well off impossible. At least a merit based entrance system goes along way to addressing that. If tests were not of the same type each year then there would be nothing to tutor towards. For a species that put men on the moon, dealing with these trivial objections should not be beyond our collective wits.

It shouldn't be beyond "our collective wits" to provide a top quality education for all and to allow those with a more academic mind to prosper and to allow those who are better suited to more vocational work to prosper also.
However, so far, probably due to education so often being used as a political football, this clearly hasn't happened.

Your comment about house prices rising is impossible to overcome.

All state schools operate within a catchment area and sadly, it's a fact of life that, if a particular school is deemed excellent people will want to send their kids there and those with higher incomes will (over time) move into the area and accelerate house prices.

Also, you must remember that kids from poorer families don't usually have parents who can afford or are willing to ferry their kids to and from school, therefore, if the better schools are not on "the doorstep", poor little <insert name> has to make do with their nearest school, whether it's good, bad, grammar, comp etc.

Some private schools try and pretend that they "care" and offer a very small amount of scholarships but, the reality of this is that they are desperate to retain their "charity" statusa nd as such have to be seen to have value within their local community.

Most so called good schools are nothing if the sort. The point is they tend to have a middle class, motivated intake. I have seen it with our first child. Started in a roughing primary in London and moved to a 'beacon' primary in Home Counties. The former was much better organised (it had to be) but the latter got good results despite being shambolic in comparison.
The reality is schools can do only so much. Ultimately it's a combination of genetics and parental input pre-school which counts more than anything.

I agree with your comments about genetics and parental input but, surely we should be trying to help kids that dont have as much help from their parents ?

If there was some way to allow under privileged kid's some of the benefits afforded to the better off, many of them would vastly improve their life chances.
Equally, if we reduce their opportunities further, which I believe the Grammar school system does (due to the fact that they will find it difficult or impossible to get into these "better" schools), their chances will reduce further, as the brighter kids (from better off families) will desert the regular schools and find their way into the new Grammar schools, leaving the old comp./academies with an even larger proportion of poorer kids.

The new government policy is directly aimed at the better off Tory voters, who now see a chance for them to send their kids to a state run Grammar school for free, rather than paying for their education privately. They will pay for extra tuition in order to make sure their offspring pass the entrance exam which is something that the less well off just cannot afford to do..

For this reason, I am strongly against the proposed change and as stated in my previous posts, we should be trying to improve our education system for everyone and not trying to win votes by "butttering up" the middle class wannabes.

Everyone employs a tutor. Our school recommended our son apply and that he got a tutor. We sent him to our local comp instead. I think you've missed the whole point of education, but you're not alone. The point of education is to educate everyone to as high a standard as possible, that's what the state has responsibility for. With limited resource the biggest gains available are not at the top but at the bottom. Squeezing an extra A* out of a few kids is the marginal advantage a grammar school offers, applying resource at the lower end would dramatically improve the grades of large numbers of pupils and ultimately the economy and social structure of your country as a whole. All this nonsense comparing education to elite sport are ridiculous.
May is useless. She is trying to define herself as "not Cameron" but she's just one more sneaky little $h!t off the Tory production line, just like he was.

All absolutely true - but set against the full knowledge that improving the life opportunities of larger numbers of pupils is not in any way the aim of a Tory government.

Resources are a red herring. My grammar school had less overt resources than the local secondary moderns (as they were in those days). Nobody is disagreeing about educating as many as possible to the best standard. The fact is not all have potential for high academic attainment, just as not all have the potential to be top musicians, artists, footballers, entrepreneurs, etc. it is about maximising people's potential for the benefit of both them and society as a whole.

And 11 is the best age to decide this?

If there was an argument against Grammar schools you're it.