So grammar schools are bad, but if they already exist somewhere they are good. I'm confused, probably because I only went to a comprehensive school…

I did like the point Sarah Teather made on Question Time (and the way Roy Hattersly made the same point 2 minutes later but made it look like he thought of it himself) that if you have grammar schools then the ones that are left cannot be comprehensive schools as they do not contain the complete range of abilities if the top 10% have been creamed off.

I suppose it depends on whether the 11-plus is compulsory. There must be some parents of bright children who choose to have their children at a non-grammar school for whatever reason: proximity, friends or relatives already there, or just on principle.

Doesn't this whole issue, fun though it is to see the Tory party trying to say two things at once, obscure the real problem that in all areas there is a de facto selection process based on wealth rather than ability?

With grammar schools there is the evidence of the number of pupils on free school meals pointing at a huge bias against poorer families but even in areas with totally comprehensive education the schools which are seen to be better get an intake which is skewed towards the better-off as the middle class families spend years doing whatever is necessary to get in there – moving house, using the appeals system, pretending to be religious.

Whichever system is in place the effect is still that children are effectively having their future prospects decided at 11 based on their parents' wealth.  Thats not quite true either though, as many of them were as good as written off as soon as they were born.