New grammar schools in England
Should England allow new state-funded academically selective grammar schools to open?
Compare the inherited legal settlement, carefully designed selection for social mobility, and ending academic selection.
Leading proposals
Retain existing grammar schools but keep the ban on new selective schools
Allow existing grammar schools to retain selection while continuing the statutory prohibition on new grammar schools.
Reconstruction: existing designated grammar schools may continue selective admissions and lawful expansion, but no new state-funded selective schools may open and non-selective schools may not convert to full academic selection.
Qualification: this is the current legal and inherited baseline. The latest explicit DfE position located predates the July 2026 government; it is not a newly confirmed Burnham-government decision.
Source: DfE position reproduced by Comprehensive Future · Open reference
Permit carefully designed selective provision for social mobility
Allow selective schools, streams or partial selection with outreach and disadvantaged-pupil access measures.
Reconstruction: permit selective provision where design advances social mobility, including schools, grammar streams or partial selection, with outreach, preparation support and disadvantaged access measures.
Caveat: the principal source is from 2016. Current preferred design and safeguards should be reconfirmed.
Source: Centre for Social Justice — Selective Education and Social Mobility · Open reference
Phase out academic selection and end the 11-plus
Move remaining grammar schools to comprehensive admissions through a managed transition.
Reconstruction: set a date to end the 11-plus and move remaining grammars to all-ability admissions through local transition. Use fair, transparent admissions across publicly funded schools.
Caveat: older illustrative transition dates have passed; a new schedule is required.
Source: Comprehensive Future — Our Manifesto · Open reference
Compare proposals
| Shared metric | Retain existing grammar schools but keep the ban on new selective schools | Permit carefully designed selective provision for social mobility | Phase out academic selection and end the 11-plus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tutoring and selective preparation | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied |
| University progression | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied |
| Travel and access | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied |
| Attainment gap | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied |
| Access by disadvantage | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied |
| Disadvantaged-pupil attainment | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied |
| Attainment of non-selected pupils | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied |
| Attainment of selected and high-attaining pupils | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied |
arguments
Arguments
Avoids disruptive structural change
Existing schools continue while selection does not expand.
Supports: Retain existing grammar schools but keep the ban on new selective schools
Maintains unequal local systems
Some children still face an 11-plus divide.
Opposes: Retain existing grammar schools but keep the ban on new selective schools
The compromise lacks a consistent principle
Historical geography determines where selection survives.
Opposes: Retain existing grammar schools but keep the ban on new selective schools
Preserves established options
Families in selective areas retain existing schools.
Supports: Retain existing grammar schools but keep the ban on new selective schools
Creates focused routes beyond house price
Disadvantaged high-potential pupils may access demanding provision.
Supports: Permit carefully designed selective provision for social mobility
Safeguards can target unequal access
Priority, outreach and free preparation may broaden entry.
Supports: Permit carefully designed selective provision for social mobility
Selection follows early gaps
Prior attainment and preparation are unequal by age eleven.
Opposes: Permit carefully designed selective provision for social mobility
Non-selected pupils matter
Peer mix and neighbouring-school outcomes may change.
Opposes: Permit carefully designed selective provision for social mobility
Ends a high-stakes divide
Children are not labelled non-selected before secondary school.
Supports: Phase out academic selection and end the 11-plus
Transition could disrupt popular schools
Admissions change needs careful local handling.
Opposes: Phase out academic selection and end the 11-plus
Reduces tutoring and housing advantages
Removing tests limits purchasable preparation advantages.
Supports: Phase out academic selection and end the 11-plus
High-attaining provision must be protected
Comprehensive schools must still stretch advanced pupils.
Opposes: Phase out academic selection and end the 11-plus