The debate on selective education has been widened by measures which allow a proportion of students to be chosen based on their "aptitude" for a particular subject.
[11] It has been argued that the grammar system helped bright working class students' social mobility.
Chris Woodhead has stated "grammar schools have contributed more to social mobility than any other institution this country has known".
[12] Abolishing grammar schools may also be seen as attempting to impose a "one size fits all" education system on an area.
With increasing concern about levels of classroom discipline, it is argued that comprehensive schools can foster an environment that is not conducive to academic achievement.
[9] It has been argued the current system benefits the middle classes who can afford private tuition for the 11-plus exam.
[23] Practicalities, local political decisions, and historical issues have led to widespread variations across England as to the proportion of pupils attending grammar schools.
[24][25] Some research work (that was later retracted, see below) initially suggested that closing grammar schools would improve overall test results.
[29] In March 2000, following the failure of the policy to close grammar schools down by balloting, the then Education Secretary David Blunkett sought to close down the debate by saying "I'm desperately trying to avoid the whole debate in education concentrating on the issue of selection when it should be concentrating on the raising of standards.
[31] Under laws brought in during the 1990s it is possible to ballot on whether to maintain a grammar school by gaining the signatures of a percentage of eligible parents.