THIS article is a personal opinion - that said, I am positive that many of my colleagues would support the following opinion, as 73% of teachers nationally oppose an increase in grammar schools.

My view, that this notion is a waste of money and time, and that its rationale runs contrary to research from the public and private sectors, as well as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, is widely held.

There is absolutely no evidence that grammar schools increase social mobility, and sectors to which we are told to aspire (Finland and the Far East) have no selection at all.

If the Prime Minister wishes to take us back to a time during her formative years, perhaps she would also like to remove university tuition fees, as she, like myself, benefited from paid university tuition.

Yes, “times are different financially”, cry members of the government. I agree, so why waste millions of pounds creating new grammar schools for a select few, when there appears to be ongoing cuts in the education sector, currently?

Grammar schools catering for disadvantaged students? There is absolutely no evidence, historically, for this.

More than 20% of students nationally are in receipt of free school meals, yet only 2% of those attend grammar schools.

As for raising standards, this is already happening.

Sir Michael Wilshaw, Ofsted Chief, someone not shy of criticising schools, told the BBC that a return to selective education would “undo years of progress…we will put the clock back”.

All secondary schools in South Shropshire see children leave with straight A*s and A grades, and a rounded education.

Future barriers to their social mobility are class-driven, not school driven.

Finally, the idea that we should not belittle vocational qualifications for “the rest”? I agree; but to select the majority for such a route, at the age of just 11, would seem ludicrous, unjust and the very opposite of promoting social mobility.