I don’t believe for a nano-second that Theresa May and her right-wing followers [Fallon et al] believe grammar schools provide social mobility for everyone, this being the pseudo-philosophy behind promoting them as opposed to the honest argument that they provide for the privileged, and provide a formal ‘golden age’ academic education. Immediately upon her appointment [not election] as Prime Minister, May stood outside No 10 and claimed she as a leader would be most concerned about ‘social justice’. It was clear that the lie was firmly planted then.

May has claimed that selection already exists with the post-code non-lottery of wealthy parents buying houses and living near the ‘best’ state schools. This in itself flouts the principle of even her government that all state schools [but more-so as academies] should be of the same high standards. So much of the evidence is that state comprehensives have indeed made huge improvements and attained these national high standards, many, perhaps most, ironically not as academies. And despite so much withering political interference with the curriculum and assessment.

There are countless more holes easily drilled in her argument about provision for social mobility, and what seeps through these is May’s and others’ blind adherence to a grubby ideology. Having had a ‘successful’ grammar school education herself, she like so many before her – notably Michael Gove – make the simplistic extrapolation that what was good for them is therefore necessary for others.

I know this is one opinion simply set against another, but I genuinely cannot see the promotion of a return to grammar schools as anything other than ideological – and working in essence quite knowingly against equality in provision and outcomes. Why not be honest about this and make claim to a philosophy that the apparently more intelligent/academic deserve an environment and curriculum targeted at that presumed excellence? At least we can then challenge the educational claims on both sides of the argument. But to assert this political policy – so symptomatic of a PM wanting to make an entirely personal mark – is for a universal greater good is woefully disingenuous.

No, I mean a lie.