Last Updated on November 3, 2026 by Karl Thompson
What is a grammar school? A grammar school is a state secondary school that selects all of its pupils by academic ability, usually through an entrance test taken at age 10 or 11 known as the 11-plus. In January 2019 there were 163 grammar schools in England, teaching about 176,000 pupils. No new grammar schools have been allowed to open since 1998.
Grammar schools are the clearest example of selection by ability in English education, and one of the most argued-about. Supporters see them as a ‘ladder of opportunity’ for bright children from poorer homes. Critics argue they mainly benefit the middle classes and harm the pupils who don’t get in.
This post explains where grammar schools came from, when and why most were abolished, what has happened to them since, and the evidence and arguments for and against them. It’s part of the education policy topic in the education module, examined on AQA Paper 1 (7192/1).
I went to a state grammar school in Kent, from a working-class background, so I’m one of the people the ‘ladder of opportunity’ argument is about. That doesn’t settle the argument either way, as the evidence below shows.
Grammar schools and the tripartite system
The Education Act 1944 made secondary education free for all, and required it to suit pupils’ different “ages, abilities and aptitudes”. Government guidance after the war set out three types of secondary school, which became known as the tripartite system:
- grammar schools, for academically able pupils, preparing them for exams and university
- technical schools, for pupils with an aptitude for science, maths or practical subjects (few were ever built)
- secondary modern schools, for the majority, with a more practical education
The 11-plus decided which school a child went to. The number of state grammar schools peaked at 1,298 in 1964, when they taught around a quarter of state secondary pupils. For more on the tripartite system as a whole, see my education policies summary.
The three types of school were supposed to have ‘parity of esteem’: different, but equal. Critics argued that they never did:
- Secondary moderns had fewer resources and lower status, and in the early years few of their pupils took public exams at all.
- Pupils who failed the 11-plus were, in effect, labelled as failures at 11.
- The 11-plus could be coached for, which favoured children whose parents could pay for help or support them at home.
- Middle-class children were more likely to pass, so the system tended to reproduce class inequality.
When and why were grammar schools abolished?
The short answer is that grammar schools, and the tripartite system, were never abolished by law. Most areas phased them out, but some kept them.
- 1957: Leicestershire began an experiment, designed by its Director of Education, Stewart Mason, that moved towards comprehensive education without an exam at 11.
- 1965: the Labour government’s Circular 10/65 requested local education authorities to prepare and submit plans to reorganise secondary education on comprehensive lines. It was a request, not a legal requirement. Over the following decade, the number of grammar schools nearly halved.
- 1976: the Education Act 1976 required local authorities to have regard to the principle that secondary education should be provided only in schools that don’t select by ability or aptitude, and allowed the government to require them to submit plans.
- 1979: the new Conservative government’s Education Act 1979 repealed those sections of the 1976 Act. Areas that still had grammar schools could keep them.
Why? The case against the tripartite system was the set of criticisms above: by the late 1950s and 1960s, critics argued that the 11-plus was an unreliable measure of ability, that secondary moderns were giving most children a second-class education, and that selection favoured the middle classes. Comprehensive schools were meant to give every child the same opportunities in one type of school.
Grammar schools today
In January 2019, 11 of England’s 152 local authorities were classed as highly selective (with 25% or more of their state secondary places in selective schools), a further 26 had at least one grammar school, and the remaining 114 had none.
The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 means that no new grammar schools can open and existing schools can’t introduce new selection by ability. But grammar schools that already existed can continue, and can grow:
- 2016: the government’s consultation Schools that work for everyone (12 September 2016) proposed allowing new selective schools to open, existing ones to expand and non-selective schools to become selective, on condition that they took more disadvantaged pupils.
- 2017: after the general election, the plan to lift the ban on new grammar schools was dropped. It wasn’t in the Queen’s Speech that June.
- 2018: instead, the government launched a £50 million Selective Schools Expansion Fund (May 2018) to help existing grammar schools expand, on condition that they submitted a ‘fair access and partnership plan’ to admit more disadvantaged pupils.
What does the evidence say?
Three studies are especially useful, and they don’t all point the same way.
The Education Policy Institute (2016): no overall gain
The Education Policy Institute (EPI) found that grammar schools take very few disadvantaged pupils: only 2.5% of their pupils were eligible for free school meals, compared with 13.2% across all state secondary schools. Grammar school pupils got excellent results, but once their prior attainment and backgrounds were taken into account, the EPI found no overall advantage from attending a grammar school. It also found that in highly selective areas, pupils eligible for free school meals who didn’t go to grammar schools achieved on average 1.2 grades lower across their GCSE subjects.
Gorard and Siddiqui (2018): no better than expected
Stephen Gorard and Nadia Siddiqui, using data on the whole 2015 cohort of pupils in England, found that grammar school pupils were clustered by advantage: they were less likely to be in long-term poverty or to have special educational needs. Once these differences were taken into account, grammar school results were no better than expected. They concluded that there is no evidence to support more selection, and recommended that the government consider phasing out existing grammar schools.
Mansfield (2019): a different measure, a different answer
A report by Iain Mansfield for the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) argued that free school meals are too narrow a measure of disadvantage. It found that:
| Finding | Figure |
|---|---|
| Grammar school pupils from households with below-median income | 45% |
| Grammar school pupils on free school meals | 3% (8.9% of the population in wholly selective areas) |
| Pupils going on to highly selective universities: selective areas v non-selective areas | 39% v 23% |
| Pupils going on to Oxbridge: selective areas v non-selective areas (Cambridge data only, 2015–2017) | 3% v 1% |
| Black and minority ethnic pupils going on to Oxbridge in selective areas compared with non-selective areas | More than five times as likely |
‘Highly selective’ universities means the top third of higher education institutions, as defined by the Department for Education.
On this evidence, grammar schools look much fairer, and better for social mobility, than the free school meal figures suggest. But there are limitations:
- The university figures compare areas, not schools: ‘selective areas’ include pupils at secondary moderns as well as grammar schools.
- They are for all pupils, not for disadvantaged pupils. The Department for Education declined to release the data broken down by income or free school meals, so the report couldn’t show whether poorer pupils in selective areas did better.
- 45% from below-median-income households tells us grammar schools take plenty of pupils from ordinary-income families, but not that they take many of the poorest.
A Research Methods point. This is a good example of how the way you measure a concept changes the answer. Measure disadvantage by free school meals, and grammar schools look very socially selective. Measure it by below-median income, and they look much more open. Both are true; they are measuring different things.
Advantages of grammar schools
A ladder of opportunity. Supporters argue that grammar schools give academically able children from any background an education as good as a private school’s, for free. Mansfield’s findings on progression to top universities support this view.
Meritocracy. From a functionalist or New Right perspective, selecting by ability is fairer than the alternatives. In comprehensive areas, places at the most popular schools often go to families who can afford houses nearby (selection by mortgage). Supporters argue that selection by ability is at least selection by merit.
Stretching the most able. Supporters argue that teaching the most able pupils together lets schools stretch them, and that the academic ethos of grammar schools raises aspirations.
Choice. Grammar schools add to the diversity of schools that parents can choose between, which the New Right value.
Disadvantages of grammar schools
Few disadvantaged pupils get in. Only 2.5–3% of grammar school pupils are eligible for free school meals, compared with about 13% across all state secondaries (EPI 2016; Mansfield 2019).
The 11-plus favours those who can pay. Children whose parents can afford tutoring, or who have the cultural capital to prepare them, are more likely to pass. From a Marxist perspective, selection legitimises class inequality by making it look like the result of ability.
No overall gain in results. Both the EPI and Gorard and Siddiqui found that grammar schools’ high results are explained by their intakes: their pupils would do about as well elsewhere.
The pupils who don’t get in lose out. In highly selective areas, poorer pupils who don’t go to grammar schools achieve 1.2 grades lower on average across their GCSEs (EPI 2016). Failing the 11-plus can also carry a label.
Social segregation. Gorard and Siddiqui argue that concentrating advantaged pupils in some schools may be harmful to society, with no clear gain in return.
The ‘golden age’ may be a myth. Critics argue that grammar schools seemed to help many working-class children move up in the 1950s and 1960s mainly because the number of middle-class jobs was growing quickly at the time, creating room at the top whatever the school system. That growth can’t simply be repeated.
Grammar schools in the exam
Grammar schools are useful evidence in questions about selection, equality of educational opportunity, meritocracy and education policy. For example:
- AQA June 2019, Question 01: “Outline two criticisms of schools selecting pupils by ability.” [4 marks] See the model answer on my post on selection policies in education.
- AQA June 2021, Question 04: “Applying material from Item B and your knowledge, evaluate the view that the education system is meritocratic.” [30 marks] See are schools meritocratic?
Sociology of Education Revision Bundle
If you like this sort of thing, then you might like my sociology of education revision notes bundle, written by Karl Thompson, who taught A-level sociology for eighteen years and spent twelve as an AQA examiner, marking all three papers on the current specification.
Signposting and Related Posts
This post has been written for students studying the education module as part of AQA A-level sociology. Related posts:
- Selection policies in education
- Arguments for and against private schools
- Education policies: a summary
Please click here to return to the homepage – ReviseSociology.com
Sources
- Department for Education (2016) Schools that Work for Everyone, consultation, 12 September.
- Education Act 1976; Education Act 1979.
- Education Policy Institute (2016) Grammar Schools and Social Mobility.
- Gorard, S. and Siddiqui, N. (2018) ‘Grammar schools in England: a new analysis of social segregation and academic outcomes’, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 39(7), 909–924.
- House of Commons Library (2019) Grammar School Statistics, Briefing Paper 1398.
- Mansfield, I. (2019) The Impact of Selective Secondary Education on Progression to Higher Education, HEPI Occasional Paper 19.
- Mason, S. C. (1964) The Leicestershire Experiment and Plan.
- Ministry of Education (1947) The New Secondary Education, Pamphlet No. 9.