Indifference by design: What the government’s reply on the 11-plus really means

In December, Comprehensive Future sent an open letter to the Secretary of State for Education, Bridget Phillipson, signed by 125 education professionals from across England.

The signatories included headteachers, academy CEOs, senior leaders, teachers, academics and governors. They all felt a need to sign based on their professional experience. Many have spent decades working with children in selective areas. Some felt unable to sign publicly, citing professional risk in areas where grammar schools dominate local systems.

The letter set out clear concerns: that selection at 11 causes lasting harm to children’s confidence, entrenches inequality, and divides communitiesin selective areas.

Today, we received a response.

A polite reply, and a familiar pattern

The Department for Education’s letter (reproduced in full below) was courteous and procedural. It reiterated existing policy: that no new grammar schools can be created, and that the government has no plans to force existing grammar schools to become comprehensive.

But, beyond this restatement of the status quo, the response did not engage with the substance of educators’ concerns, or with the evidence they presented.

Instead, it framed the issue as a balance of opinion:

“Ministers are aware of the deeply held views of those opposed to selection by ability… as well as the opposing views held by those who support it.”

When evidence is reduced to “points of view”

The most troubling aspect of the response is not its refusal to act, but how it characterises the problem.

The concerns raised by educators, about child wellbeing, confidence, social division and long-term outcomes, are not abstract preferences or ideological positions. They are grounded in research, professional experience, and daily contact with children living through selective systems.

Yet these concerns are presented as simply one set of “deeply held views”, positioned alongside the opinions of those who wish to retain selection.

This is a familiar tactic. It echoes the way strongly evidence-based arguments — from climate science to public health, have historically been diluted by framing them as one side of a “debate”, with ideology afforded equal weight.

False balance is not neutrality. It obscures harm.

“Only 5%” but 100% affected

The response also notes that grammar schools educate “only around 5%” of secondary school pupils, and exist in just 35 local authority areas.

This statistic is being used to minimise concern. But it misunderstands how selection works in practice.  In selective areas, every child is affected by the 11-plus, not just those who pass it.

Selection reshapes entire local systems:

• children are labelled and sorted at 10 or 11

• schools are hierarchised

• tutoring markets flourish

• parental anxiety intensifies

• and children internalise judgments about their ability at a formative age

The impact is not small.

What the response does, and does not, say

The letter reassures us that there are no plans to expand selection. But it also confirms there is no intention to address the damage already being done.

There is no reference to:

• the psychological impact on children who are labelled “failures” at 11

• the effects on disadvantaged pupils

• the pressures placed on families

• or the lived reality in selective areas

Instead, the response deflects to “wider reforms” and legislation that applies equally to selective and comprehensive schools, without acknowledging that selection itself is the issue educators are raising.

When a policy is known to harm children, choosing not to act is not neutrality. It is a decision.

Why educators will keep speaking out

We did not write expecting an easy answer. We did this because educators feel they have a responsibility to speak when children’s best interests are being harmed, even when doing so is uncomfortable, professionally risky, or politically inconvenient.

The response we received reinforces why this matters. It shows how easily evidence can be sidelined, the status quo of selective education will remain because harm is treated as a matter of opinion.

We will continue to speak, calmly, persistently, and with evidence, until children’s wellbeing is placed at the centre of education policy.

You can read the ‘educators against the 11-plus’ letter here.

The response from the DfE is in full below.

——-