The official view of grammar schools is socially illiterate There appears to be no better illustration of the truth that elites tend to act in ways that protect their own privileges than the fate of grammar schools in Britain. Grammar schools were eliminated by ministers (most of whom were privately educated) in the 1970s. They insisted that selective schools were an obstacle to social mobility. In fact, grammars were an engine of social improvement, enabling bright children from poorer backgrounds to get to the best universities, and then move up the ladder to become part of Britain's elite. The success of these schools in the 1950s and 1960s means that there are now many professors, top civil servants and captains of industry who came from humble backgrounds. They escaped them after passing the 11-plus and getting into a grammar school. Since grammar schools were abolished, that positive tendency has gone into reverse. Oxford and Cambridge now admit a smaller proportion of students from low-income backgrounds than they did in the 1960s. And what a surprise: the places that used to go to students from grammar schools are now filled by youngsters educated at private schools, whose parents" wealth already marks them out as part of the elite. So you would expect the Coalition, which insists that it wants to increase social mobility, to be delighted by last week's decision by Kent County Council to allow two grammar schools to expand on to new sites. But the Conservatives are ambivalent about it. Five years ago, David Cameron committed the party not to repeal Labour's law forbidding the founding of new grammar schools, and the Department for Education says that "ministers have been clear that this will not change." Kent council will exploit a loophole, introduced by the Coalition, which allows existing schools to expand if there is overwhelming public demand. The petition in Kent showed huge demand for two existing schools to expand: that's how Kent can get away with expanding grammar school provision, which would otherwise be illegal. But why won't the Coalition just change the law and allow the foundation of new grammar schools? It would accelerate social mobility much faster than any of the increasingly desperate, and ultimately self-defeating, calls on universities to drop entrance requirements for applicants from backgrounds ministers deem sufficiently disadvantaged. It would also preserve the essential principle that academic merit should be the only basis on which universities admit students. But no - ministers insist that the reintroduction of grammar schools is off the agenda. It is hard to understand what the basis for that insistence is. By his policy of encouraging the foundation of academies and free schools independent of local authority control, Michael Gove, the Secretary of State, is doing his best to increase the provision of choice. But there is one exception: you are not allowed to provide a selective grammar school. Sir Peter Lampl, chairman of the Sutton Trust, has proposed that instead the Coalition should fund places for able children at leading private schools such as Westminster and Manchester Grammar. His idea would ensure that exceptionally able children from poor backgrounds had access to the best education available. But there is no chance of this proposal being adopted by the Coalition: the exams that independent schools require children to pass in order to get in ensure it, since they are more selective than the dreaded 11-plus. I do not believe that the Coalition's education policy is simply an attempt to protect the privileges of a narrow elite. But it is hardly surprising that an increasing number of people think that is what is going on, for the opposition to grammar schools has one effect only: it increases the number of places at the top universities for the privately educated. Most of the Cabinet went to private schools. If the public draws the wrong conclusion from that, ministers have only themselves to blame.