Twitter has been curiously quiet about grammar schools. I wonder why?

SOCIAL media thrives on conflict. Day in, day out, people sign in and lay out their politics with a sense of moral superiority. It’s a surprise, then, that the issue of grammar schools hasn’t prompted quite the usual frenzy. The Conservative Government looks as though it’s on the cusp of lifting a ban on grammar school expansion, which is a pretty significant step. It throws up questions about the delivery of education and who it benefits. It raises the big questions about disadvantage in the system, and whether children from the richest or poorest backgrounds are likely to see the best outcomes. It inevitably leads to an examination of both public and private involvement in education and its impact on society. Fundamentally, it is an opportune battleground for social justice warriors and the right versus the left, but unusually for social media, it doesn’t stimulate the expected level of moral jockeying.

A quick search on Twitter throws up a lot of news articles, a few grand statements about more evidence of Britain going to the dogs, and a number of people being quite upfront about not really “getting” what the debate is even about. It also brings up a number of people defending grammar schools, usually because of personal experience; those of a working-class background who feel that access to them literally changed the course of their lives and enabled them to grab opportunities they may not otherwise have had, for example. Even if they might agree in principle that opportunity should be there for all, in a system where that isn’t the case, opportunity for some may be better than none. But the evidence is troublesome. Children from the wealthiest backgrounds are more likely to get into state-funded grammar schools, which accept pupils on the basis of their ability, judged by an assessment. And while children who make the cut perform well, the signs aren’t good for those who don’t. Research suggests that poorer children overall perform relatively worse in GCSEs than in non-grammar school areas, leaving them at a further disadvantage.

However, it could be argued that children from poorer backgrounds who do make selection for grammar schools are more likely to exceed expectations than if the opportunity had never existed, and it’s this point which chips at our morals.

Despite all our political superiority on issues in a similar vein – the NHS, for example, where there is more forceful agreement among its defenders that healthcare is a fundamental right which should be delivered to a high standard by the public purse – education draws out a selfishness that exists in us all.

Working-class parents who have struggled with poverty and disadvantage could be forgiven for setting a few principles to the side if it means giving their children a chance they never had. Similarly, it’s understandable that middle-class people who believe their grammar school education lifted them out of a life of hardship will defend the role these institutions can play, even if it’s at some odds with their views on other issues of social justice.

Admittedly, grammar schools aren’t a pressing issue in Scotland – evidenced by a number of tweeters complaining that their nightly news bulletin is dominated by something that doesn’t affect most of us here – but we aren’t free from debate about the fundamentals around schools in Scotland.

The recent push for a free schoolstyle model for a closure-threatened Catholic school in Milngavie prompted much debate about the delivery of education. Indeed, Nicola Sturgeon has placed education at the heart of her government in Scotland.

Grammar schools specifically may not be the burning issue here, but education is still a biggie.

For me, I’ve never been particularly passionate one way or the other. However, I’m inclined to think that grammar schools are a move in the wrong direction, even if they provide some limited opportunity for disadvantaged young people in the short term.

Success in the delivery of education requires committed public investment into quality, and an effort to create a level playing field for children from all backgrounds.

The existence of schools based on selection, and private schools, compromises that core idea.

Under a Tory Government, however, there’s more chance of pigs flying than a radical rethink of education for the sake of the poorest, which is why it leaves a strangely unmoved landscape on social media in comparison to other ideological issues of the day.

Perhaps, though, it’s a reflection of our own inner struggles with the concept of opportunity.

Solidarity is easy when we’re in the gutter, but if a ticket to escape lands nearby, it’s not so easy to sacrifice for the sake of our consciences.